this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
52 points (85.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35312 readers
976 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For the longest time, "liberal" seemed like it basically just meant "Democrat" the same way "conservative" has/had been used to mean "Republican." Now, it seems like it means "bad Democrat" and is even worse than being MAGA the way many seem to use it. Where did its use as an insult within the [relative] political left come from, and what does it specifically accuse/identify someone of/as?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Sigh, I'll wade into this river of shit.

Liberalism is broadly understood as neoliberalism, which is an ideological descendant from classical liberalism. This ideology positions itself as being broadly in favour of individual freedom within a rather tight definition of freedom. Namely liberals are concerned with the ability of people to read what they like, own what they like, marry whomever they like and so on provided they do this inside of a system of capitalist free market exchange.

Modern liberalism tends to frown on heavy government intervention in market affairs, which they see as representing the free (and thus good) exchange of goods between individuals. They also tend to be broadly in favour of the militaristic western global hegemony.


Criticism of this attitude comes from 2 places.

  1. too much freedom.

  2. not enough freedom.

(1) is people that want women bound up in the kitchen and walk around with an odd gait that makes you remember Indiana Jones films

(2) are people (I'm in this camp) who see liberalism as a weak ideological position that favours stability over justice and, in so doing, ignores the suffering of billions.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Doesn't the problems of the free market also fall in problem 1? The free market has been shown to not actually be self regulating, which is a sign of too much freedom.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Reactionary ideologies are incoherent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you want to expand or you just speak in memes?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think I misunderstood you.

See my other comment for why I think freedom is sort of a useless thing to frame anything around. At least without further clarification.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Agreed. That's why we try to create a legal framework to begin with.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

freedom means occasionally you have to fight to defend that freedom and what it means to you. the stability of neoliberalism lulls the masses into placidity and complacency

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think it's tempting to try and be pithy but freedom is complicated. For some people freedom is an absolute, do what you want when you want. For some it is about theoretical possibilities, for example if you ask if people are free to quit there job the answer heavily depends on how someone balances theory vs practice. Others take a practical lens, freedom only counts if it's plausible to do.

Sometimes freedom is about ideals. you are free to read all the political theory you like, you umm wont because it's boring but if someone threatened that would you be upset? At other junctures freedom because pragmatic, "what use is freedom to read if I don't have freedom to eat? I'll trade one for the other" someone might say.

Some people rate permissions more than restrictions, some the opposite.

I don't think it's a concept we can really pin down. Everyone has their own interpretation and it's not universally values: much as dominant ideologies often insist it is, the rise of fascism should hint that others care much less about it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Freedoms often clash.

One guy might say he has the FREEDOM to play loud music any hour of the night. Everyone else might say they have the FREEDOM to sleep at night.

People who talk about freedom above all else often, to me, come off as selfish.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Liberalism is broadly understood as neoliberalism

By whom?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

... everyone? hence my use of broadly? It has complete and utter ideological hegemony since like the 70s. If you study economics you study neoliberal economics and they don't even bother specifying. All major political parties in the anglosphere and most of western Europe follow neoliberal ideology, even the green-left is largely neoliberal. There are basically no classical liberals left.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Hmm, everyone I know, including very left leaning liberals I know who live in Hollywood, use liberal to represent actual liberal ideologies. They use Liberal (notice the capitalization) to represent neo-liberalism.

Edit: verbally they always specify "neo" if talking about neo liberalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To clarify my question. What do you mean 'actually liberal' ideologies?

Like what are their thoughts on monetarism?private property? free association? private entities in markets? Debt and paying it, both private and state held?

If they think that the state should provide the means of subsistence of the entire populus, that property should in general be held in common and private property is not sacred, that government entities in a market are often more effective than private and/or that business should be heavily regulated to serve common good, that debts should be cancelled when it is not realistic or fair to pay them etc. Or perhaps even further afield positions like questioning nation States, police, militaries and boarders... well, then they are not in fact liberals haha.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We mostly discuss social issues, and not economic policies. You sound like you know way more about this stuff than me, so I believe you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Look ultimately words mean what they mean in the context that they're spoken but broadly neoliberalism is highly socially permissive. Provided, that is, one does this as a responsible member of the capitalist economy and doesn't disrupt the market.

Like you can have neoliberals that love trans kids, celebrate pride, want more black female drone pilots etc. It is, however, not a neoliberal position say compare the number of vacant properties to the number of homeless people and suggest that perhaps we should just take the unused houses and give them to homeless people? That would violate the principles of private property and free markets. After all: what freedom does one have if you can't watch someone freeze to death on the doorstep of your vacant investment?

If your friends think that freedom to do that is utterly absurd and a society which defends that is fundamentally rotten then they are not liberals in the academic sense, however their substantially more leftist stance may be called liberalism in the political context you find yourselves in.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

What do they see as different between neoliberalism and classical liberalism. Neoliberalism is mostly a post-Keynesian revitalisation of classical liberal economic positions updated with modern banking practices and globalisation.