Well, we should probably tell all them fancy-dan scholars in their ivory tower to stop fuckin talkin about it then, lol.
What you just stated is how liberals typically define liberalism, but it’s hardly a descriptive definition. Liberalism is more accurately understood with the individual and capital positioned at the center of its organization, which means that it is capitalism as well as the racist, sexist, queerphobic, and ableist social hierarchy that maintains the violence necessary to facilitate private property are more relevant to its ideological underpinnings than something like civil freedoms. Liberalism’s association with civil rights is a consequence of concessions that vulnerable groups forced those in positions of power to make. The appropriation of the concept of “progress” is itself a mechanism by which liberals contiue to colonize and claim ownership over the attribution of moral correctness. So, it’s kind of gross and obviously misinformed or ignorant to subscribe to this definition.
When I’m making fun of a SocDem – purportedly a political ideology that views liberal institutions and systems of power as effective means to deliver socialist revolutionary change – for saying that they’ve just given up and will openly subscribe to liberalism, that is because it is funny to act as though that needed to be said.
Edit: realized you’re European and my eyes actually rolled back up into my skull.
What i stated is what the word means. If someone says “I’m a liberal and I hold liberal values”, then the values that they profess to be holding are wanting rights for the individual, consent of the governed, liberty, equality before law, …
There were indeed self-labeled liberal parties in the 19th century that opposed giving equal rights to common people/women/minorities. Those self-professed liberals had recently acquired their rights, but were then opposing equal rights for others, which wasn’t very liberal of them at all. Claiming to be liberal while acting illiberal means that they were hypocrits, but it did not change the meaning of the word liberal itself. If a totalitarian dictatorship like North-Korea calls itself a democracy, then that doesn’t automatically mean that they are democratic. The meaning of what it is to be a democracy hasn’t changed just because some authoritarian states misappropriated the label. People professing to hold certain beliefs, but then acting opposite of those, are common. So common that we even have a saying for it: “actions speak louder than words”.
Why are you trying mansplain something I know you haven’t learned about?
“There actually is a pure, idealized form of liberalism and any failure to uphold those values is a result of human moral impurity and not the incompatibility between these values, the system that facilitates them, and the material world,” is actually a great example of how liberals are so incapable of grappling with themselves. What a strange coincidence that the (unintentionally honest) description of liberalism you’ve provided here requires an immaterial world to exist in the same way that the imperative of infinite growth within capitalism depends on an immaterial world to exist. Coincidental, I’m sure, though I’d bet my livelihood that you have an extensive reading list to explain that strange coincidence.
Eurotrash still trying to colonize by talking like they have a direct telepathic link with God or something, fuck’s sake with you people.
Hey, I looked it up in a few large dictionaries and Wikipedia to confirm the meaning, I can’t help being able to read. If that women says that she is liberal, then she probably means what is understood by that word by mainstream society, not whatever nonsense your authoritarian cult has come up with for it.
What woman? Did you mean to switch to an alt…? Authoritarianism is when you criticize settler colonialism and capitalism. Damn, I wonder if there’s any reason to not take the term “mainstream society” for granted in a system that requires inequality and violence to exist. Not a big Fanon fan, eh?
Damn, pretty sure I read the same shit in a Spanish missionary journal from the eighteenth century, but like, about how non-Christians are evil and also more informed on the topic he was writing about. I wonder if there’s a connection between European imperialism and how you think as a European. The rubber must flow, eh?
Seriously though, done with this encounter and won’t be reading any other colonizer nonsense from you. It’s always unproductive to let Euros talk.
That’s literally the meaning of the word, what it has always meant.
Well, we should probably tell all them fancy-dan scholars in their ivory tower to stop fuckin talkin about it then, lol.
What you just stated is how liberals typically define liberalism, but it’s hardly a descriptive definition. Liberalism is more accurately understood with the individual and capital positioned at the center of its organization, which means that it is capitalism as well as the racist, sexist, queerphobic, and ableist social hierarchy that maintains the violence necessary to facilitate private property are more relevant to its ideological underpinnings than something like civil freedoms. Liberalism’s association with civil rights is a consequence of concessions that vulnerable groups forced those in positions of power to make. The appropriation of the concept of “progress” is itself a mechanism by which liberals contiue to colonize and claim ownership over the attribution of moral correctness. So, it’s kind of gross and obviously misinformed or ignorant to subscribe to this definition.
When I’m making fun of a SocDem – purportedly a political ideology that views liberal institutions and systems of power as effective means to deliver socialist revolutionary change – for saying that they’ve just given up and will openly subscribe to liberalism, that is because it is funny to act as though that needed to be said.
Edit: realized you’re European and my eyes actually rolled back up into my skull.
What i stated is what the word means. If someone says “I’m a liberal and I hold liberal values”, then the values that they profess to be holding are wanting rights for the individual, consent of the governed, liberty, equality before law, …
There were indeed self-labeled liberal parties in the 19th century that opposed giving equal rights to common people/women/minorities. Those self-professed liberals had recently acquired their rights, but were then opposing equal rights for others, which wasn’t very liberal of them at all. Claiming to be liberal while acting illiberal means that they were hypocrits, but it did not change the meaning of the word liberal itself. If a totalitarian dictatorship like North-Korea calls itself a democracy, then that doesn’t automatically mean that they are democratic. The meaning of what it is to be a democracy hasn’t changed just because some authoritarian states misappropriated the label. People professing to hold certain beliefs, but then acting opposite of those, are common. So common that we even have a saying for it: “actions speak louder than words”.
Why are you trying mansplain something I know you haven’t learned about?
“There actually is a pure, idealized form of liberalism and any failure to uphold those values is a result of human moral impurity and not the incompatibility between these values, the system that facilitates them, and the material world,” is actually a great example of how liberals are so incapable of grappling with themselves. What a strange coincidence that the (unintentionally honest) description of liberalism you’ve provided here requires an immaterial world to exist in the same way that the imperative of infinite growth within capitalism depends on an immaterial world to exist. Coincidental, I’m sure, though I’d bet my livelihood that you have an extensive reading list to explain that strange coincidence.
Eurotrash still trying to colonize by talking like they have a direct telepathic link with God or something, fuck’s sake with you people.
Hey, I looked it up in a few large dictionaries and Wikipedia to confirm the meaning, I can’t help being able to read. If that women says that she is liberal, then she probably means what is understood by that word by mainstream society, not whatever nonsense your authoritarian cult has come up with for it.
What woman? Did you mean to switch to an alt…? Authoritarianism is when you criticize settler colonialism and capitalism. Damn, I wonder if there’s any reason to not take the term “mainstream society” for granted in a system that requires inequality and violence to exist. Not a big Fanon fan, eh?
The reference to a woman was me misremembering the op, I don’t use alts, not everyone acts like tankies.
About why the authoritarian label applies to you: You oppose liberalism, which makes you illiberal, which makes you authoritarian.
Damn, pretty sure I read the same shit in a Spanish missionary journal from the eighteenth century, but like, about how non-Christians are evil and also more informed on the topic he was writing about. I wonder if there’s a connection between European imperialism and how you think as a European. The rubber must flow, eh?
Seriously though, done with this encounter and won’t be reading any other colonizer nonsense from you. It’s always unproductive to let Euros talk.