All it does it confuse people. When leftists are derisively using the term :LIB: , they're invariably focusing on the "free market/capital" part of the equation. Unfortunately, "liberalism" also includes support of individual rights, civil liberties, equality, and democracy.
Maybe instead the people you disagree with should just be called "capitalists" or "caps" because then you're actually attacking the heart of the matter.
I understand this because part of my genesis years ago included defending Bill Gates and his charities, and people started calling me a dumb lib. I have enough humility that I followed up and did the research to better understand what they were talking about, but my visceral response to being called a lib was, "Yeah, I'm a lib, I'm left of center, in what kooky frame of reference is that an insult?" It draws a dumb line in the sand that most people will see you as a silly ideologue.
So yeah, move on from :LIB: :liberalism:
Yeah but using :LIB: as an insult establishes that liberal =/= left
I agree. It's a funny contradiction that might make a lib think twice. Also it's kinda naive to think we have any say in this.
Unfortunately, “liberalism” also includes support of individual rights, civil liberties, equality, and democracy.
Honestly not sure if this is a bit or a poor deluded fool who seriously thinks this.
I understand this because part of my genesis years ago included defending Bill Gates and his charities, and people started calling me a dumb lib.
I was there, once. But at some point you need to understand how Philanthropy, in the larger sense, is all about PR and control. Not really about helping people in any structural fashion.
Gates derives his expansive wealth from his ability to collect and enforce rents, while underpaying his workers. His charities gain leverage over democratic governments, trading "free" stuff for influence over domestic policy. Even setting aside whether Gates himself is benevolent, the means by which he wields them is harmful.
But liberals love this shit because they support the underlying corrupt system of capitalism. They don't begrudge Gates his ability to extract rents, nor lowball his staff, nor the damage his hyper-litigious firm has inflicted on the Open Source movement.
Libs are Bad precisely because they treat guys like Gates as benevolent (or at least benign) even when presented with the harm he's perpetually engaged in.
I think they mean how some people say socially liberal rather than something like progressive
If you google "liberal" the standard political definition includes all those features (in addition to free markets). So when it's used as a pejorative, it's like, "Wait, what? So you don't believe in those virtues? Why would that be an insult?"
Well, don't also forget that under "liberalism" in the 50s there was a 90% tax bracket and all sorts of social service welfare programs. It's just the system has been operating under corruption for so long that there's barely any redeeming value left. Unfortunately other systems are equally prone to corruption.
Yeah, but those things went away (for the most part). I'm just saying there was a time when certain things were possible, but Capitalism in its unbridled sociopathic zeal had other ideas.
Yes, and why did they go away, ya filthy fucking :LIB: ? Was it by peacefully following all of the laws and by vooooooting?
If you want to compare incremental change to a full-blown revolution, I'll sit here and wave my little M4A flag while you go pipe bomb infrastructure and give the cryptofascists more ammunition to take this country hostage.
Potato, potato.
They're going to get confused reading theory then anyway so might as well establish that libs aren't left early on. Especially now that Dems are clearly not even left of centre anymore.
I certainly don't use it in actual conversations, but it doesn't really seem to matter online.
plus, it's fun to call someone a :LIB:
