High-quality ragebait, upvoted.
NoneOfUrBusiness
joined 2 years ago
I don't call anyone by their family relation except my grandparents, everyone else (including my parents) gets called by their name. That said this is absolutely not normal where I live and nobody does it other than me and my immediate-ish family. I think it's because I didn't grow up with, say, mom calling dad "dad" or anything of the sort.
/Middle Eastern
Based on policy? Yes. Based on beliefs and values? No. For historical reasons European countries have a stronger welfare state, but that's mostly inertia. Compared to America Europe is still in its Southern Strategy phase, and given the rapid success of the far right I'd say the nationalism is actually worse, in part due to America having never been an ethnostate. Stuff that either doesn't find purchase or remains restricted to the right in America sees a lot more popular acceptance in, say, France and Germany. This is the case for anti-immigration sentiment, for example, and don't get me started on French laicite. The American right being more mature and having had more time to organize* shouldn't be confused for Americans being more rightwing in their values.
*The modern European far right has only really had ammunition since the 2015 immigration crisis, while in America it dates back to the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Idk American geopolitical rivals are probably laughing their asses off looking at him.
You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.
It's that they're not the core propositions of liberalism, at least according to the father of liberalism.
Locke is often credited for describing private property as a natural right,
If you're not at least in broad agreement with John Locke (and other Enlightenment thinkers subscribing to the same philosophy) about what constitutes a natural right, you can't call yourself a liberal, for the same reason you can't have liberalism without freedom of religion.
Is whatever you're criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights. And no, there is no private property under socialism, you're thinking of personal property. That's your house, your car, your toothbrush, nobody wants to take those away. Private property is a wider concept, which includes among other things the means of production. You can't argue that private property is sacred (a fundamental proposition of liberalism) and then seize the privately owned means of production; that's a contradiction.
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn't imply liberalism is capitalist.
I read your link about liberal socialism, and my takeaway is that these guys range from reformist socialists with a veneer of liberalism (again, they're out the moment they advocate for seizing the means of production) or liberals with a veneer of reformist socialism (those not advocating for seizing the means of production). I mean the article lists fucking Proudhon for ffs we already know how liberals think about Proudhon's ideas.
Now you're just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets.
See above. Only personal property is permitted under socialism.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
See above.
If we're going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
First, these all liberalized; I don't consider any of them a success on the socialism front. Second, China at least is fucking big, which does matter. Notably,
One of the lowest ever recorded Gina was for urban China in the late 1970’s, with a figure of around 0.11. Czechoslovakia also recorded a Gini of 0.17 in the 1980’s.
Also again, social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right, so it's not exactly the success you're painting it as.
Oh shit you caught me. 🎣
Remind me to get you to write my manifesto when I finally get around to seizing the means of production.
Anybody from any political standing could say the exact same thing that you just said but compare any other president within the last 100 years about any other topic and their point would still make sense.
Feel free to do so, then.
It's unhelpful because it doesn't further the conversation.
It does, because there's a clear lesson to be learned from liberal flipflopping regarding the morality (or I suppose tolerability would be a better word) of whatever the evil thing du jour is: Just because liberals situationally agree with you, it doesn't make them any less anti-worker. Leftists helping liberals beat a common enemy and then getting the boot after they stop being useful is a tale as old as time, so it's important to remember what these people actually stand for. This is why so-called "unity" with liberals is such a ridiculous idea.
I don't consider war crime apologists potential allies. Woe is me.
The main target of this meme isn't Obama , but rather liberal hypocrisy. Double tapping is just the latest example of it, but while Obama is mostly a non-issue (though he still has influence within liberal circles and should be remembered for the monster he is) this double standard is still relevant because attacking the right for doing awful shit is one way liberals gain political capital to use for their own awful shit.
Besides, this is a post on c/leftymemes, not a dissertation, so I'm not sure why it should be "helpful."
C'mon you can't bring up Ireland as representative of the West when they're the OG colony. By that metric the West is anti-Zionist.