Yes
Yes
154 comments
-
-
-
They didn't like John McCain, so they lumped him in with the rest of us.
-
The upside of that is it works against their overton window dragging, if you are going to be called a commie leftist no matter what might as well lean into it
-
-
Meh, though the meme is true, most Americans would say liberals are EVERYONE left of center, and conservatives are EVERYONE right of center.
-
-
Correct, I invoked an unnamed speaker in my statement.
Rephrased: each asked American would describe liberal or conservative as capturing the entire spectrum, (left or right respectively) of what they consider center.
All I mean is that the terms are most commonly used (in America) to capture damn near half of the spectrum.
-
No one wants to consider themselves radicalized
Speak for yourself buddy, proud owner of the "radical leftist" label here.
-
-
What most Americans think of as 'center' is way fucking right compared to most of the world.
Here Bernie Sanders is a radically dangerous communist.
In other parts of the world he is just considered a bit progressive.
-
Bernie is barely left of center on the world stage
-
-
-
Using neo-liberals to define liberals is like using national socialism to define socialism.
It's authoritarian propaganda.
-
Libs and leftists are different
-
Sure, but liberals are still left wing, and saying they're not is just making enemies out of other left wingers, with is a long standing left tradition.
You'd all get so much further if you recognised allies in one area don't have to be allies in all areas. You can all have your own opinions and work together where it suits you towards set goals, rather than name calling, "no true Scotsman"-ing and in fighting. It honestly feels like the right have infiltrated the left at times, and just turned them on each other.
-
Yeah..
ITT: people who are in a state of BBQ flavored confusion.
Lemmy help y'all out.
leftist: some socialist policies, universal healthcare, publicly funded education, jobs programs, ubi, abolition, etc..
liberal: voting rights, property ownership, access to banking, civil liberties
neo liberal: global access to markets, global tade, international standards bodies, world banks, world courts, trade agreements.
-
-
-
When you have only two parties you can only have one dimension.
-
-
Do these labels really have any benefit or value in society, or are they just yet another lame excuse for us all to hate on a group of 'others'
-
They referred to specific ideologies and economic and social policies before the modern corporate propaganda machine really started in the 80s. Pretty sure they’re meaningless to most Americans these days.
-
I hate that the left is so hell bent on creating division among itself and allies with this "nobody is left enough for me;" bullshit.
-
There are absolutely people who are too right leaning to be called Leftist
-
My point was more that there shouldn't even be labels such as left, right, conservative, liberal, etc. Putting everyone into these little boxes and arbitrarily pitting them against each other only serves to create problems where non existed and solves precisely nothing along the way.
There can't be division if there are no groups for people to be divided into. There can't be any of the "nobody is left enough for me" bullshit if there is no left or right.
The only true purpose of these labels is for those at the top to divide those at the bottom so they keep their silly little power a bit longer. I for one, fail to see a logical reason to continue playing this game.
-
-
-
.ml has entered the chat
-
TBF there are about seven mutually exclusive definitions of “liberal” in each country.
-
Not so much "in each country" as "between countries", right? I'm European and in my home country "liberal" tends to mean Neoliberal
-
Here too, but colloquially it means something like “unburdened by tradition” or “freedom loving”, which is, well, not how our liberals roll.
-
-
-
The thing I love about lemmy is instead of neoliberals and weird racists silencing Leftists like reddit, it's Leftists and Social democrats constantly at each other's throats.
The latter is much more amusing
-
The latter is much more amusing
same here; but likely for different reasons.
i like learning about viewpoints that differ from mine; i think they help me question my own beliefs and, usually, it re-enforces them.
-
-
Americans are actually taught in school that the entire American political spectrum is inside liberalism.
They then immediately forget that anyway and fall into the conservative/liberal false paradigm.
-
false paradigm
I think you mean false dichotomy
-
I knew it would be this brilliant piece of poli-historical analysis!
-
-
-
Even apps like Bumble don't make a distinction, as an European I find it quite annoying
-
Well, the apps have other problems too...
-
-
An anarchist believes in liberty for people to live freely
A capitalist believes in liberty to freely exploit people
Unfortunately the capitalists also own the means of mass communication and have gaslit the socialists into thinking liberty only means the latter!
Resist imperialist redefinition of words!
-
Welcome to the No true Scotsman party.
-
Y'all change labels at will and then get upset when people use the "wrong one". Where I'm from liberal means you're not a conservative. Also can we stop with the divisions and no true Scotsman bullshit on the left? This is why the left loses to conservatives so often, cause they love to find divisions and hate among their own side and allies.
-
These words have meaning and there's confusion when people mean something else in the US. American Democrats are right of center in global politics. Liberals (global definition of the word) have controlling presence in industry and politics. They literally don't want anything significant to change because it is set up exactly the way they want it. They can lobby to get what they want. They can contribute unlimited amounts to third party campaigns.
-
Liberal means "not conservative' because our Overton window is fucked six ways to Sunday.
-
can we stop with the divisions and no true Scotsman bullshit on the left
No, because (A) liberals are by definition not leftists regardless of how little they know about their own right-wing political advocacy, and (B) ignoring the fact that there are differences among leftists (and liberals and leftists) is both wholly unproductive and furthers political alienation of the people whose opinions you want to be able to conveniently pretend don't exist.
Additionally, just because you don't understand leftists when they tell you that liberals are not leftists, doesn't mean they are engaging in a No True Scotsman fallacy. It means you haven't engaged enough with them to understand.
-
This is why Trump is going to win ffs
-
-
-
You can burn liberals on the same pyre as magats and cops.
-
Easy way to distinguish them
Liberals - Implement reforms that maintain capitalism. Support oppressed identities/communities so that they can achieve equality.
Leftists - Complete revolution of the economy to destroy economic social classes. All identities/communities are inherently equal except for oppressors.
Examples:
Economic
- Liberals - Progressive tax code to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the impoverished. People with disabilities are given enough to survive.
- Leftists - No one is capable of becoming wealthy. Impoverished people exist only if they truly reject economic support from society. People with disabilities are given even more than the general population to help their quality of life match able-bodied people.
Social
- Liberals - Same-sex marriage is recognized by the government
- Leftists - Government? Marriage? lol no one has authority to define your personal relationships. Go live your life. Do whatever as long as you don't hurt others.
-
You really are back to your bs. I hope you know what you wrote is a bunch of horse shit?
154 comments
For those in here that take offense to this distinction:
2 party political systems function to collapse diverse political perspectives into one of two camps and normalize an 'average' view for both parties. Leftists take issue with this collapse because it erases dissenting views within each party in service of defeating an 'other' at the expense of pursuing our real political goals.
The label matters to those of us who want to make the point that the US democratic party does not really represent our interests; at-best they represent a less-objectionable flavor of the same ideological framework, but one that needs to be dismantled all the same.
"Stop trying to divide us!" is a refrain spoken by those who are better served by the party than we are.
Put another way: "We are not the same"
How's the saying go?
I know, I have three of them and I still can't pay rent.
I think the current best demonstration on this is how hard people are pushing Mark Kelly as VP.
They push a center-right president onto the stage and then dangle another "centrist" to try and, what? Appeal to Never Trumper Republicans? Racists?
How about you offer actual progressives some goddamn enticement for once and offer it to Jamaal Bowman, who the Dems primaried in favor of a genocidal AIPAC stooge?
If he was that popular and progressives that numerous he wouldn't have lost his primary, especially as the incumbent. Simple as.
Like, 90% of the US Senate is center-right or worse. You're in a country that is governed overwhelmingly to the right of the popular political view. I don't think the VP pick is going to meaningfully shift any of that. Running Walz as your VP isn't going to turn the US Senate into the Minnesota Governor's Mansion.
Because the US has a huge geopolitical strategic interest in staying friendly with Israel and a vanishingly small interest in cultivating support among progressive New Yorkers.
Very well put