I dunno man, there are some who ONLY operate under the Marxist definition of “Liberal”. They don’t believe language evolves and that maybe to most people “Liberal” is the term used to describe anyone with progressive ideals.
The word “liberal” is useless because there is no consensus on what it means. Similarly useless are the words “left” and “right”. “Marxist” is still useful because nobody can deny that it denotes adherence to the ideas of Karl Marx. Similarly, even though people TRY to erode its meaning, “Christian” must ultimately mean adherence to the philosophies espoused by Christ. So for example anyone who identifies as “Christian” but makes no attempt to follow the principles he espoused, is simply lying.
Because the Marxist version of liberals still call themselves liberals and have intentionally erased the semantic existence of all ideologies left of them so that they can pretend to be the left.
That’s not how that works. That only makes sense if like liberal parties didn’t exist. Saying Social Democrats or Socialists or Greens are more liberal than Liberals on some issues doesn’t make any sense, it like implies that the Liberals are ontologically the most progressive.
I’m not. Me as an individual is not trying to do that.
It has already happened in the USA. I live in the USA. When you read the news or talk to your co-workers or friends and anyone uses the word “liberal”, it is synonymous with “progressive”.
I didn’t know what the “true” definition was until I was in my 30s, because my whole life it has been used that way.
I dunno man, there are some who ONLY operate under the Marxist definition of “Liberal”. They don’t believe language evolves and that maybe to most people “Liberal” is the term used to describe anyone with progressive ideals.
The word “liberal” is useless because there is no consensus on what it means. Similarly useless are the words “left” and “right”. “Marxist” is still useful because nobody can deny that it denotes adherence to the ideas of Karl Marx. Similarly, even though people TRY to erode its meaning, “Christian” must ultimately mean adherence to the philosophies espoused by Christ. So for example anyone who identifies as “Christian” but makes no attempt to follow the principles he espoused, is simply lying.
Because the Marxist version of liberals still call themselves liberals and have intentionally erased the semantic existence of all ideologies left of them so that they can pretend to be the left.
Sure. But the bucket of people that term encapsulates doesn’t match that definition anymore.
That’s not how that works. That only makes sense if like liberal parties didn’t exist. Saying Social Democrats or Socialists or Greens are more liberal than Liberals on some issues doesn’t make any sense, it like implies that the Liberals are ontologically the most progressive.
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK)
Is it democratic? Is it a Republic? Names don’t always represent their namesake.
There also is no party titled “Liberal” in the USA, which is what I’m specifically referencing since this post is about USA “liberals”.
Like no, just no, stop trying to make “liberal” synonymous with progressive, they are different things.
Oh, you seem to misunderstand me.
I’m not. Me as an individual is not trying to do that.
It has already happened in the USA. I live in the USA. When you read the news or talk to your co-workers or friends and anyone uses the word “liberal”, it is synonymous with “progressive”.
I didn’t know what the “true” definition was until I was in my 30s, because my whole life it has been used that way.
Then just use progressive. It’s like pretty much just a US thing to use liberal as an adjective.
I do that. My original comment was just highlighting that “Liberal” has a different meaning depending on who you are talking to.
And now we’re here.