Liberalism presently isn’t a serious movement… sorry to break this to you. The current presentation of liberalism is a hollow shell of the actual ideology - it’s branding.
Look I’m going to be honest, I’m pretty confused as to what your point is. You’ve started this by implying my ideology is only ‘mocking people I disagree with’, then now you’re professing you align with the principles of liberal social movements.
Non-mocking question I swear: Is this because the term ‘liberal’ is often used to describe Democrats (obviously including by themselves)?
Liberalism is as dead as Latin. Suppose I could speak Latin fluently and knew a few people who also could - it doesn’t make it any more alive.
Liberalism amounts to vaguely supporting good things while watching democracy and consent-based governance die - and doing absolutely nothing meaningful to change the trajectory. Self-identified liberals blaming/shaming/mocking individuals to the left of them (who are closer ideologically to them than they realize) is what is dividing the left and is an extremely common behavior in online discourse.
is what is dividing the left and is an extremely common behavior in online discourse
This entire thing started with a post about leftists mocking liberals, though. Like, no, how are you agreeing with the vast majority of liberal principals and then claiming the ideology is dead – Are you just talking about the use of the term “liberal” to describe groups adhering to sets of principals, because that’s what I think you’re saying and I’m still very confused as to how you’ve conflated the label of a group with the abstract set of concepts that underpin the values of said groups.
This is like claiming communism is dead because the soviets were a failure. Sure, a case could be made about the only major experiments with it being disasters, but it’d still be ridiculous to assert that because of it there’s no value to be found in superficially similar movements (like, for example, socialism / most leftist movements).
This entire thing started with a post about leftists mocking liberals, though.
No, it started with an image of a social media post where leftists identify the supposed contrast between the two ideologies. With liberals advocating for those that work 40 hours a week to not live in poverty, and leftists advocating for everyone to be given the ingredients to live a dignified life.
Liberals can support the latter and directly create that change with leftists. It isn’t in conflict with liberalism. The fact that modern-day liberals see that as being in conflict with their ideology and then disowning anyone more radical or socialist than them is the cause of the rift and shows that liberalism is not quite what it’s supposed to be in practice.
With liberals advocating for those that work 40 hours a week to not live in poverty, and leftists advocating for everyone to be given the ingredients to live a dignified life.
Why are you trying to reframe this? It presents the liberal argument as being “No one working 40 hours a week should live in poverty” and the leftist ideology as “No one should live in poverty at all”. The two are in no way inherently in conflict, and even the title “leftism is bestism” isn’t in this case particularly wrong since the goal of pretty much every liberal movement is at very least broad social protections (a concept so non-controversial that even the democrats give it legislative support).
But why then is liberalism dead? Why is a leftist striking out against a liberal for not supporting their position somehow acceptable in the face of an entire comment section of liberals advocating incremental progress and the 40-hour-week-no-poverty idea as a step in a progressive change? Why are you behaving like there’s people advocating it to stop at 40-hour-week-no-poverty, when nobody is doing that?
It’s a very loose and unintentional reframing… I apologize for not being on a proper keyboard to type it out exactly. We both can see what the image said.
But why then is liberalism dead?
It’s dead in the same way as libertarianism is. Libertarianism, originally coined to describe communists/socialists and used by anarchists, was co-opted by capitalists and its meaning adjusted (completely flipped) to serve their interests.
Liberalism wasn’t redefined in quite the same way, it just became a useless label that serves capitalist interests. The uncorrupted liberal position would be to work towards equality for all now, not just for those that work 40 hours a week.
Why are you behaving like there’s people advocating it stop at 40-hour-week-no-poverty, when nobody is doing that?
I’m pretty sure most modern-day liberals don’t believe that poverty will be eliminated in their lifetimes despite the means being present to do so already. This is why leftists see liberals as gatekeeping progress. Liberals supporting status quo politicians who compromise with fascists isn’t helping either.
Liberalism presently isn’t a serious movement… sorry to break this to you. The current presentation of liberalism is a hollow shell of the actual ideology - it’s branding.
So it is a social movement, just not one you agree with. Why? What ideology is it even supposed to be a hollow shell of?
No, you misunderstand. I agree with the vast majority of liberal principles, people are just masquerading with its labelling to gatekeep progress.
I’m more liberal than the most notable liberals. Why? Because the term has been co-opted.
Look I’m going to be honest, I’m pretty confused as to what your point is. You’ve started this by implying my ideology is only ‘mocking people I disagree with’, then now you’re professing you align with the principles of liberal social movements.
Non-mocking question I swear: Is this because the term ‘liberal’ is often used to describe Democrats (obviously including by themselves)?
Liberalism is as dead as Latin. Suppose I could speak Latin fluently and knew a few people who also could - it doesn’t make it any more alive.
Liberalism amounts to vaguely supporting good things while watching democracy and consent-based governance die - and doing absolutely nothing meaningful to change the trajectory. Self-identified liberals blaming/shaming/mocking individuals to the left of them (who are closer ideologically to them than they realize) is what is dividing the left and is an extremely common behavior in online discourse.
This entire thing started with a post about leftists mocking liberals, though. Like, no, how are you agreeing with the vast majority of liberal principals and then claiming the ideology is dead – Are you just talking about the use of the term “liberal” to describe groups adhering to sets of principals, because that’s what I think you’re saying and I’m still very confused as to how you’ve conflated the label of a group with the abstract set of concepts that underpin the values of said groups.
This is like claiming communism is dead because the soviets were a failure. Sure, a case could be made about the only major experiments with it being disasters, but it’d still be ridiculous to assert that because of it there’s no value to be found in superficially similar movements (like, for example, socialism / most leftist movements).
No, it started with an image of a social media post where leftists identify the supposed contrast between the two ideologies. With liberals advocating for those that work 40 hours a week to not live in poverty, and leftists advocating for everyone to be given the ingredients to live a dignified life.
Liberals can support the latter and directly create that change with leftists. It isn’t in conflict with liberalism. The fact that modern-day liberals see that as being in conflict with their ideology and then disowning anyone more radical or socialist than them is the cause of the rift and shows that liberalism is not quite what it’s supposed to be in practice.
Why are you trying to reframe this? It presents the
liberalargument as being “No one working 40 hours a week should live in poverty” and theleftistideology as “No one should live in poverty at all”. The two are in no way inherently in conflict, and even the title “leftism is bestism” isn’t in this case particularly wrong since the goal of pretty much every liberal movement is at very least broad social protections (a concept so non-controversial that even the democrats give it legislative support).But why then is liberalism dead? Why is a leftist striking out against a liberal for not supporting their position somehow acceptable in the face of an entire comment section of liberals advocating incremental progress and the 40-hour-week-no-poverty idea as a step in a progressive change? Why are you behaving like there’s people advocating it to stop at 40-hour-week-no-poverty, when nobody is doing that?
It’s a very loose and unintentional reframing… I apologize for not being on a proper keyboard to type it out exactly. We both can see what the image said.
It’s dead in the same way as libertarianism is. Libertarianism, originally coined to describe communists/socialists and used by anarchists, was co-opted by capitalists and its meaning adjusted (completely flipped) to serve their interests.
Liberalism wasn’t redefined in quite the same way, it just became a useless label that serves capitalist interests. The uncorrupted liberal position would be to work towards equality for all now, not just for those that work 40 hours a week.
I’m pretty sure most modern-day liberals don’t believe that poverty will be eliminated in their lifetimes despite the means being present to do so already. This is why leftists see liberals as gatekeeping progress. Liberals supporting status quo politicians who compromise with fascists isn’t helping either.