• PatMustard
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    JK Is a Liberal and can’t imagine a better world

    Wtf do you people think “liberal” means? Some people think it means communist, some think it means socialist, some somehow think it means fascist. I’d love to what you actually mean when you use a word that has a specific meaning of “anti-authoritarian”.

      • MNByChoice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        I hear this a lot, so I dug a bit. What do others think?

        From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_Kingdom

        …the derogatory connotation is much weaker in the UK than in the US, and social liberals from both the left and right wing continue to use liberal and illiberal to describe themselves and their opponents, respectively.

        Is it possible, that in the rest of the world, many partys call themselves liberal and after ages of conservative governments calling themselves liberal, many people in the UK have not heard “the left” call themselves liberal?

        It may also be far too general of a term to be of value.

        • PatMustard
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          It may also be far too general of a term to be of value.

          This is my main complaint. We humans love putting things in little categories and labels, but if you’re using a word that you think means X and everyone else thinks it means Y or Z then suddenly we’re all taking at cross purposes and everyone thinks everyone else is chatting shit.

          • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Liberalism is also pro social freedom. We should specify economically or socially liberal, depending on the political party it may be a different percentage of each.

        • Bondrewd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I was already contented with the fact that people here were going to circlejerk themselves into this.

          Liberalism is an ideology of freedom. Freedom is a matter of circumstances. Being free to exploit others closes down your world thus it is not to be considered liberal. Neither will you be free if you get a cop on every corner or taking away your possessions in the name of equality.

          You only really gain freedom through following the intuition on what would open up the world the most for the most people.

          For America, the answer is more socialism. But the Democrats and the Republicans are neo-liberals.

    • Xerodin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      In political party terms, a liberal is someone who supports the economic system of capitalism but wants to give concessions to the general population (free healthcare, cheap public transportation, etc) to placate the people from changing the system. The idea is if people are making a somewhat decent living then they will be less disgusted with the ludicrous amount of money the actual wealthy make and won’t revolt. Messaging from conservative parties has purposely conflated liberals with leftist (socialism/communism) ideology in order to tie it to the Red Scare and convince lower income people that the idea is meant to take more from working class people.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Social Welfare is neither historically nor currently a liberal value.

        Generally the idea seems to be social liberalism, e.g. people should laregely do what they want, and since a few decades bastardized with neoliberal economics, which are the opposite of freedom. E.g. ideas like reinstating slavery, selling children, murdering people with impunity all based on an arbitrary freedom of contracts.

        American liberals are far right conservative/reactionaries sprinkled with some gay rights by most countries standards.

      • PatMustard
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Firstly, thanks for actually giving me an answer! Secondly, that sounds insane, I’ve never heard any definition of “liberal” that means that, though I have heard that the USA just has their own completely different definition of the word. For instance in Britain the term “liberal democracy” is used to mean “not a dictatorship”. Language is about communication, assuming everyone uses your own pejorative definition of a word is not good for discussion!

        • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Hey OP, just in case you didn’t gather this from the various other comments, in political science, Liberalism refers to a specific movement (think John Locke, social contract theory, abolishing various aristocratic privilaeges, etc) but can be applied to modern political philosophies too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

          Liberalism in media terms often means something quite different depending where you are in the world. But, it typically refers to something like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism. Pro-market, pro-welfare (to a limited degree), somewhat focused on individual freedoms, etc. It’s a wide-ranging term and can cover anything from as far right as America’s gov’t to as far left as something like Sweden’s.

    • Halosheep@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      As far as I can tell, it seems to be a catch all for “people I don’t like”. There’s no real meaning and often times the same commentor describes conflicting idealogies as liberal.