• 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    we do not need to get bogged down in the million-and-one specific personalized and incoherent configurations of liberalism

    The most common definition of liberal in the U.S., by far, is “broadly associated with the Democratic Party.” This is the definition used by every mainstream media source, and even throughout much of academica.

    It’s ridiculous to simply ignore the reality of how people commonly use words.

    • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      The most common definition of liberal in the U.S., by far, is “broadly associated with the Democratic Party.”

      Again, that has no useful content, it can cover anything from demoralized social liberalism, to ecstatic neoliberalism and every crank liberalism in between, while simultaneously and incorrectly excluding those liberals aligned with the Republican Party or nonaligned at all ex. “I’m not a liberal I’m independent” absolute gibberish that has no bearing on American liberalism let alone global liberalism

      Which is why it’s better to zoom out and take into account the actual contents of liberalism, which is its reification of capitalist property relations and the atomization of the working class, which the reality of how people commonly experience liberalism politically, especially in the US

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        that has no useful content

        The useful content is I can say “liberal” to about anyone in the U.S. and they will know I’m referring to a set of policies broadly under the umbrella of the Democratic Party. If I say “liberal” while referring to the GOP, most will not understand my usage.

        The fact that there are other definitions that (in the right context) are more precise, or useful, or coherent, does not mean the common definition isn’t real, or is incorrect. It’s how people use it; it’s a real definition. There is no reason to refuse to acknowledge it.

        • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          they will know I’m referring set of policies broadly under the umbrella of the Democratic Party

          You mean the set of policies that’s anti-immigration today but was pro-immigration five years ago? That was anti-queer 15 years ago but is now kinda indifferent to queer people today even tho it was more pro-queer five years ago? The set of policies that was racist sixty years ago and is still pretty racist today, but people colloquially think it’s not anymore, unless you’re the wrong kind of POC?

          Yeah that’s a useful and coherent definition that totally isn’t hiding the true nature of liberalism behind a veneer

          I mean hey 75 million plus Trump loving dipshits believe liberalism under the Democratic Party is the new communism so it must be true. It’s how people use it, right? So it’s a real definition; like orks from 40k we can shift reality with our collective will, but apparently we still can’t shift the set of policies

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I am not arguing that Democrats are good and have consistent politics.

            I’m also not going to argue any more on the premise that words are defined in part by how people actually use them. That’s just how language works.

            • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              75 million Trump supporters believe liberalism is communism, go argue with them about “how language works” since you know it’s according to you just a numbers game