I don’t entertain bad faith discussions unless I think it’ll be funny. And switching back and forth between an academic definition and a layperson one, when the two definitions are wildly different, is bad faith.
You see it with a lot of - isms.
For example, how does feminism view few high rate of male suicides?
Academic feminists: “this is obviously a crisis triggered in part by toxic masculinity but also a lot of environmental factors. We need to do more to support men and boys, to allow them to express their emotions in a healthy way.”
Everyday feminists: “I’m not your therapist, sort your own shit out.”
Saying that “feminism” cares about male suicides is bad faith. It’s not technically completely untrue, but it’s intentionally misleading.
Christian theologians: “you should love your neighbor, even the sinners. You should be compassionate and understanding, and win them over to the grace of the Lord by being a beacon of morality and by helping them in their time of need.”
Everyday Christians: “kill the removeds”
Saying that Christians care about queer lives is bad faith.
Etc etc
So, I’ll always call out people who try to use academic definitions as a smokescreen.
… I don’t think you’re making the point you think you are with those examples.
And switching back and forth between an academic definition and a layperson one, when the two definitions are wildly different, is bad faith.
You do realize that the core of the critique of ‘classical’ liberalism is the same being directed at ‘american’ liberalism, right? The enshrinement of property as an individual right is what’s being castigated with the comparison. If you find that to be an unflattering one, maybe you should ask yourself why it is american liberals are so careful not to step on private ownership in their pursuit of ‘improving the common good’.
The enshrinement of property as an individual right is what’s being castigated with the comparison.
That’s what I mean about switching back and forth. No, it’s not. The great mass of uninformed idiots on lemmy does not know or understand economic theory beyond slogans.
People care about social issues far and away more than economic theory. Yes, there is overlap. But your average person just thinks “my life is bad and I want it to not be bad”, the end.
It’s similar to the right wing bigot pretending he has to vote for the fascists because they’re fiscally responsible. No, fuck you, that’s just cover.
Trolls on lemmy don’t give a fuck about private property ownership any more than the bigot cares about fiscal responsibility (honestly, I think you personally might, because you’re a True Believer, you poor bastard). Trolls on lemmy care about tearing down the system and will use any argument they can to further that goal.
I don’t entertain bad faith discussions unless I think it’ll be funny. And switching back and forth between an academic definition and a layperson one, when the two definitions are wildly different, is bad faith.
You see it with a lot of - isms.
For example, how does feminism view few high rate of male suicides?
Academic feminists: “this is obviously a crisis triggered in part by toxic masculinity but also a lot of environmental factors. We need to do more to support men and boys, to allow them to express their emotions in a healthy way.”
Everyday feminists: “I’m not your therapist, sort your own shit out.”
Saying that “feminism” cares about male suicides is bad faith. It’s not technically completely untrue, but it’s intentionally misleading.
Christian theologians: “you should love your neighbor, even the sinners. You should be compassionate and understanding, and win them over to the grace of the Lord by being a beacon of morality and by helping them in their time of need.”
Everyday Christians: “kill the removeds”
Saying that Christians care about queer lives is bad faith.
Etc etc
So, I’ll always call out people who try to use academic definitions as a smokescreen.
… I don’t think you’re making the point you think you are with those examples.
You do realize that the core of the critique of ‘classical’ liberalism is the same being directed at ‘american’ liberalism, right? The enshrinement of property as an individual right is what’s being castigated with the comparison. If you find that to be an unflattering one, maybe you should ask yourself why it is american liberals are so careful not to step on private ownership in their pursuit of ‘improving the common good’.
That’s what I mean about switching back and forth. No, it’s not. The great mass of uninformed idiots on lemmy does not know or understand economic theory beyond slogans.
People care about social issues far and away more than economic theory. Yes, there is overlap. But your average person just thinks “my life is bad and I want it to not be bad”, the end.
It’s similar to the right wing bigot pretending he has to vote for the fascists because they’re fiscally responsible. No, fuck you, that’s just cover.
Trolls on lemmy don’t give a fuck about private property ownership any more than the bigot cares about fiscal responsibility (honestly, I think you personally might, because you’re a True Believer, you poor bastard). Trolls on lemmy care about tearing down the system and will use any argument they can to further that goal.