this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
465 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
1358 readers
36 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What exactly is a liberal in this context? Is a social democrat a liberal? What about Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders?
Why are people hating on "liberals" more than conservatives?
This is why. Well, this is one of the reasons.
First, we have extremely few liberals in America. The Democratic party is mostly made up of people that would be best described as center-right anywhere else in the world. They don't actually want to fight to roll back changes that Republicans make, and actually try to internally sabotage the few members that do want to undo changes the republicans make. They actively prevent change, and then active work against those who do want change all while professing to want change and to do their best to fight for it. But they're lying, and people are catching on. People are even starting to realize that the whole "We'd do stuff for you if it wasn't for that bad bad manchin, and Sinema" thing is as much of a lie, too.
The second reason that is more for the communists is something along the lines of the old joke "Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds" Communists don't like liberals (And the use of the word liberal is pretty different from the usage in the first case) because they view them as people that profess to want these better for others, until it requires any, even minor, amounts of sacrifice from the liberal. The whole Moderate Rebels thing in Syria? It was always a lie for one simple reason. Fighting is an extreme action. Moderates don't fight, they just don't. That's one of the reasons they're moderates. Liberals are like communists that aren't willing to fight or do what is necessary to enact change.
Two party system. This duopoly kind of politics prevents the emergence of new parties as well. The system of voting "one person" favours the two party system and even if there was a new party people are less likely to vote them cuz they think they are less likely to win.
This educational video explains better than me
This presumes that fighting produces positive results and that isn't always the case especially when "communists" are fighting. Cambodia saw no advantage by going "communist"
What two groups of people invaded Cambodia to remove Pol Pot, again?
What were the political ideologies of the two groups that did so?
I mean all the people arrested and rioting would disagree, but I imagine you're more talking about our "liberal" politicians? In that case I would agree.
We have corporate shills that wave a Rainbow flag and we have corporate shills that wave a Confederate flag. Then we have like maybe 3 oddballs in all of government that might actually care about people.
A problem of definitions. The word 'liberal' has a whole bunch of meanings depending on who you ask. Someone farther on the left usually uses the term to describe people who claim to support freedoms and rights for everyone, but only as long as they themselves don't have to sacrifice a thing. People who go out to riot and get arrested for it definitely fall outside of that group.
It has a correct meaning, and the meanings the ignorant use.
Fucking Alan Dershowitz calls himself a liberal.
Does that mean he is?
No.
Nor was he ever, even when he was considered in the in-group with liberals. He's always been a right wing crank.
What you call yourself is not a useful description of the political philosophy you hold. It just describes which tribe you consider your own, for most people.
In the United States, we refer to anyone in the Democratic party as "liberals". Many people refer to Bernie Sanders as "liberal". It's kinda dumb, but easy to get caught in when you live in it.