Your husband threw 100,000 Americans in concentration camps, Eleanor.
What do you think Eleanor had to do with it?
Would you stay married to a person who threw 100,000 innocent people into concentration camps? I wouldn’t. Given this quote, it doesn’t appear that Eleanor practices what she preaches.
Id go as far as to say FDR was an objectively worse person than McCarthy. Communism is a choice. Japanese descent is not. Blacklisting, while horrible, is not as bad as having your property seized and being thrown in a concentration camp.
Know a lot about marriage in 1942? Or Eleanor Roosevelt?
Know a lot about marriage in 1942?
I know that the US lead the world in number of divorces as early as 1916
Or Eleanor Roosevelt?
I know that quote makes her a huge fucking hypocrite if she stayed married to a man who seized the property of 100,000 innocent people and sent them to concentration camps
in statesia women could not have bank accounts without male cosigners until 1974
It’s more nuanced than that and you know it
Eleanor Roosevelt was substantially richer than her husband, and became a UN delegate in 1945. She would have been fine. This isn’t a woman who would have ended up eating cat food, even back then.
Well, when time changes your mind, it’s okay.
Time is never going to convince me that throwing 100,000 American citizens in concentration camps was anything other than horrendous and unforgivable.
It won’t, but you might develop some new insights about marriage or Eleanor Roosevelt.
How about, democratic socialist? Or progressive. If more people bothered to learn what any of that meant I think they would find themselves aligning more with that.
Does that help win elections? If so, let’s do it.
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
- Frank Wilhoit, American Composer, ca. 2018
Conservative / Liberal divide was aimed at the fiscal side of things. Fiscally Conservative being less about spending and focus more on the national debt and liberal being more take a loan and invest the money.
Wikipedia told me how wrong I was just now and it’s more aimed towards maintaining the status quo in relation to a certain period in time. In Western democracies often means protecting organised religion, nuclear family, property rights, rule of law etc.
So it’s more of an umbrella term for people who don’t want to change anything or even bring back some previous state.
Andrew Heywood’s book “The Conservative Mind” from 1953 denotes it as
-
A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
-
An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
-
A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize natural distinctions;
-
A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
-
A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and a recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence
With all that said it’s a pretty garbage political philosophy and pretty regressive.
I do see the appeal of conservatism in so far as valuing stability more than “rocking the boat.” I’ve also come to realise that traditions could bind people. I think the problem of liberalism is the value on individualism, which is something that liberals fail to recognise as the blindspot that led to the rise of fascism. The liberal “going your own way” and “think for yourself” attitude that permeated onto the global culture for decades, led to alienation and loneliness epidemic. This loneliness and vulnerability is exploited by the far right. The far right offered a community and a sense of belonging, albeit in toxic dark ways. That’s not to say that the far right has monopoly on group cohesion, the far left especially communists and anarchists offer group membership, but at the moment, the fascist far right claim the group refuge for those who aren’t maverick inclined, so to speak. At least some on the left recognise this failure, and started to also offer a sense of group membership and camaraderie.
-
Liberals having a good ol’ days moment? Beats standing up to actually existing and unfolding fascism, ig.
Wtf is with it being a cutoff screenshot?
Yeah I dunno
“Liberal” today is about the free flow of money from the masses to the rich, while avoiding the tax man.
No. It isn’t. Not for Americans. And people here use it wrong on purpose and it’s kind of infuriating.
Yes, you can use it that way if you’re a political scientist, a radical Marxist, or a teen.
Yes, other countries use it that way.
If you’re saying American liberals want the masses to have their money flow to the rich while avoiding the tax man you’re wrong.
Would you consider Obama a liberal? Because the ACA was literally designed to funnel tax money to his big-dollar donors in the private sector.
And lol “a political scientist, a Marxist, and a teen walk into a bar…” What an utterly incoherent perspective jfc
Hey, Optional is alright. I don’t agree with them in this instance, but I know them from other conversations, and they are not the enemy.
Would you consider Clinton a liberal?
The Clinton health care plan of 1993, colloquially referred to as Hillarycare, was an American healthcare reform package proposed by the Clinton administration and closely associated with the chair of the task force devising the plan, first lady Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 presidential election. The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration’s first-term agenda. President Clinton delivered a major health care speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on September 22, 1993, during which he proposed an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees.
American Liberalism is the origins of “the left”
Always has been.
“liberal” capitalism? gross
liberal socialism? based
This. In most countries the liberal parties are in favor of rolling back government regulation and forming coalitions with nazis.
Social-liberalism is the kind of liberalism that results in the most freedom for citizens, and is the ideology of most social democratic parties and their coalition partners in Europe.
You’re confusing socialism and social democracy
Tomato tomato
Eh, close enough.
“Liberal” and “libertarian” both derive from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious.” In much of Europe today, “liberal” is associated with free markets, which is associated with conservatism. It can be very confusing, and so I’ve stopped using the term “liberal” as the general term.
As a technical term, when you’re talking among educated people, you can use “liberal,” but for a general non-technical sense, I’ve started using “progressive” to describe myself lately. Another good word is “left” or “left wing”, but I think progressive catches the essence of the idea better.
I think unrestricted freedom is sort of a nutty idea, and so the original sense of the root word matches the nutty libertarians better, anyways.
I think saying “socially liberal” is probably fine still. Most people will think that means pro-civil-liberties. It’s just when you use one term to refer to every political stance when things become an issue. If you’re liberal, what in particular are you liberal about? That’s when it becomes more useful to break things into smaller pieces. Conservative and liberal are far too broad. Progressive/leftist is more exclusive, and you could go further to say communist, socialist, anarchist, etc. It’s pretty much impossible to wrap every aspect of your belief into one word with only about two choices for that word (three if you include the absence of either).
Yeah that’s my go to as well.
It takes the power out of their curse.
I’m for progress. Not for staying the same or regressing. Not for unrestricted freedom. But for guaranteed freedoms.
- Freedom to speak.
- Freedom to peacefully organize and associate as desired.
- The freedom inherent in due process.
- The freedom to be healthy.
- The freedom to be educated.
- The freedom to be sheltered.
- The freedom to eat clean food, water, and breathe clean air.
- The freedom to vote.
- The freedom to have or abstain from faith.
- The freedom to disagree, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the previous freedoms.
A little off topic, but don’t we all just want a society that works for its members? We look at the world and at history to see which types of political parties were able to create situations that worked.
A little off topic, but don’t we all just want a society that works for its members?
The problem is, for conservatives, only a small fraction of people count as people.
As a technical term, when you’re talking among educated people, you can use “liberal,”
Not ‘round these-here parts. People get really mad at “liberals”. Which I find ridiculous, but then I’m a libcuck Dem apologist genosider. Or so I’ve been told.
By russian-sponsored trolls you ask? Nnnnno?
I wouldn’t call people Russian trolls for having a different definition of the word “liberal” than you. Most online leftists use the term “liberal” to refer to bourgeoisie that support, intentionally or unintentionally, mega-corporations and patriotic nationalism.
Most online leftists use the term “liberal” to refer to bourgeoisie
So they’re not Americans.
Which is fair enough, but maybe then they could not be all up in every thread about American elections? Because they don’t understand them very well?
Liberalism is a specific ideology, and it’s the dominant one in the world today. People around here have very good and often well-articulated reasons for disliking liberalism.
disliking things like rules-based world order and voting?
What reasons would illiberal ideologies have to be against that? Nationalism? Opportunistic cronyism?
“Rules-based” world order in liberalism tends to end up with some countries breaking the rules and facing no consequences (see the unilateral veto power of the permanent members of the UN security council).
Liberalism also endorses things like private property, which allows an ownership class that extracts value from others without creating it.
*points to OP*
Lol sure pal.
Awesome crop
If you click the Accessibility icon in the right margin it’ll fix everything
OK, but I guess I’m not using the same UI that you are.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The problem folks ignore, is that Liberals gave Nazis power.
The reason we hate modern Neoliberals is precisely because they historically are the firsts to give maniacs power.
Now, how are your deathcamps going?
— 🏴️🅰️
What’s the difference between liberalism and anarchism? Referring to liberals that support a welfare state and market regulation, not anarcho-capitalists like the American Libertarian Party. Seems very similar to reformist statist anarchism.
Liberalism support a monopoly on violence, and capitalising the markets. This created the plutocracy that fascists are enjoying today, and continue to enjoy othering and creating the greatest class discrepancy our planet has witnessed.
Anarchism says no to rulers, no to hierarchies. Total horizontally of power and means. Everyone deserves guns, no cops, no politburo/политбюро. The “markets” would be owned by the workers, and what they produce goes to them completely. No corporate owners or C-suites to steal the means workers produce. Most produce waste would cease, since folks can legally recycle and reuse, instead of disposed of goods.
Anarchism is therefore incompatible with Liberalism, because Liberals demand monopolies, and Anarchists demand syndicates. One has a rule, the other a federation of rules.
The ceremonial handing over of the gun:
The ceremonial handing over of the gun:
You mean Democracy? Yeah it can be upsetting when one of the candidates gets more votes than another. Here’s a helpful website for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States
Not arguing that Liberals do not give the gun to facists. Merely saying why they gave the gun to the fascists. Conveniently ignoring all the events that lead to them being willing to give the gun to the fascists.
When given the choice of what to do with the gun, Liberals will give it to the fascists. When they talk of liberty, they mean their liberty to give power to those that would take your liberty.
Edit: So at the end of all this, OP professes to suddenly not understand what a metaphor is. That’s where this thread is headed.
Did they? Was it a big gun? Did they hand it to them with two hands, or was it like they took the gun out of the cardboard box they kept it in and put it on the table for the fascists to pick up? What were Liberals wearing?
And
I have no idea. Was there a point being argued?
No joke, that’s the entirity of that comment. That where OPs position is headed.
You mean the vote totals?
Weren’t Liberals in power before the vote started? 4 years or so right? They had 4 years to decide what to do with the gun in their hands, they chose to give it to the fascists. Conveniently ignored that.
Once again, you’re not saying Liberals, when given the choice, don’t give the gun to the fascist.
Here’s my claim: when Liberals are given the choice between giving power to the left or giving power to facists, or even shooting fascists. They choose to give power to the fascists. For evidence I presented an example from recent history. There’s a famous historical example. But here’s an example of it about to happen in the future
You have my claim, you have examples of it happening in the real world past, present and future. What specifically is your problem with it?
My specific problem with it, is that that’s how the government is designed to transfer power peacefully. It’s worked very well for a couple hundred years so far and beats dictators for life by a country mile, as we say in this country.
You’re suggesting the “Liberals in power” should refuse to hand over power at the appointed time because the victorious party is fascist. I think you’re probably not following that through to it’s logical conclusions. One of which is the end of our Democratic system of government. Another of which is the replacement of fascism with a different kind of fascism.
Anyone who wants to talk about how simple it is to just not let the elected party have power as agreed upon on in the founding documents has never worked to organize anything more complex than a bake sale.
My specific problem with it, is that that’s how the government is designed to transfer power peacefully.
Designed by whom? Regardless, assuming it was handed down by God, Liberals did nothing to change the design that willingly hands over power to Fascists, let alone ally with Leftifts against the rise of Fascism. (see: reality). Nor did they not hand the proverbial gun to the Fascists (see: meme)
You’re suggesting…
No that’s what you believe I’m suggesting because you won’t listen to leftists.
They’re suggesting that Liberalism necessarily creates the environment from which Fascism rises (see: examples past, present, future). Then when Fascism rises they willingly hand over the power saying “well that’s how we set the system up.”
Anyone who wants to talk about how simple it is
Once again, you believe leftist ideas are simple. Perhaps so you can dismiss them by
has never worked to organize anything more complex than a bake sale.
It’s this dismissiveness you refuse to even listen to leftists. You refuse to ally with Leftifts. But what you do do? Justify why the Fascists should have the gun.
Liberals, when holding the gun, give it to the Fascists, worse they believe Fascists should have the gun (see: you). That’s true isn’t it? The first step to solving a problem is identifying it.
It’s worked very well for a couple hundred years so far and beats dictators for life by a country mile, as we say in this country.
You stole Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guantanamo Bay, South Korea, installed Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinochet, Hugo Banzer, Mao Zedong, Benjamin Netanyahu, and continue to menance the planet, without taking look at how your empire has genocide indigenous folks “for a couple hundred years.” I say your faux republic is pretty darn shit, that you leave dictators to cause planetary damage and don’t own up to the horrors you unleash.
Who was it again who dropped two nukes to silence an archipelago in a pyrrhic conquest?
You mean the people who refused to prevent trump from taking power because “the system is rigged”? Because Harris “doesn’t support the working class”? Who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for such a flawed candidate that it’s definitely the Democrats’ fault that trump won?
Those fuckwits who gave the current nazis power?
Those aren’t liberals. They’re idiots.
Are you American? Did you vote Harris? I’m assuming no on both since they’re “our” deathcamps. So let me tell you what’s wrong with the politics in your country. They’re unfair, unpopular, and lean fascist. You’ll be under your own trump soon, if you’re not already. Any questions.
Did you just “No you!” my entire post?
If you’re a liberal, then liberate. Stop
votingurging for death.Did you just “No you!” my entire post?
I . . . don’t know what that is. Maybe? I guess?
If you’re a liberal, then liberate.
Okay. Uh - FLy! Be Free!
Stop
votingurging for death.Stop urging for death? . . . I don’t . . . what?
Okay. Uh - FLy! Be Free!
Is this how you respond to people in ICE facilities, Guantanamo, CECOT, and now Guyana?
They’re unfair, unpopular, and lean fascist. You’ll be under your own trump soon, if you’re not already. Any questions.
Stop urging for death? . . . I don’t . . . what?me: “No you!” my entire post?
I . . . don’t know what that is. Maybe? I guess?
If this is ignorance, I think you just summed for me liberals’ kurzgesagt. If it’s rhetorical, then maybe you’re not liberal at all.
Oh man, don’t even get me started on liberals’ kurzgesagt. Oh ho! Oh we’d be here all day!
Liberals and their kurzgesagt, amirite?
The liberals demonified by trump, however, are more like the party where many members put up resistance even in the face of violence - the SPD. American version of “liberal”, aka anything left of american center.
But yea neolibs will vote for anything if it makes them money in the short term.
Great message, but the cropping of this image is frustrating and offensive.
It’s a metaphor.
For, um. . . . Something.
Oooh… because Eleanor was badly cut and faded, like this:
Lol sure buddy sure.
Gutted
