Can Democracy Survive The Tantrum from the Illiberal Right?

[Dendrek]

Wanting liberalism gone isn't racist. Anyone that's not rich should want it gone.

Have you still not realized that the word "liberalism" that you're using means something completely different than the word that Americans are using? There is literally almost nothing in common between American liberalism and European liberalism. They aren't subtle differences; they're practically completely different concepts. So if you're going to argue about the word, make sure you know which context it is being used in.

I realize it's sometimes difficult to understand which context people are using, so I don't fault you for not immediately understanding. But considering you've seen several posters explain this and you're still replying in this way is a bit surprising.

[PC2]

Have you still not realized that the word "liberalism" that you're using means something completely different than the word that Americans are using? There is literally almost nothing in common between American liberalism and European liberalism. They aren't subtle differences; they're practically completely different concepts. So if you're going to argue about the word, make sure you know which context it is being used in.

I realize it's sometimes difficult to understand which context people are using, so I don't fault you for not immediately understanding. But considering you've seen several posters explain this and you're still replying in this way is a bit surprising.

If "liberalism" originated and was defined in Europe then it seems like their description is the proper one...

[Dendrek]

If "liberalism" originated and was defined in Europe then it seems like their description is the proper one...

I don't see you speaking Old English.

(In case you've missed my point: languages change, so your traditionalism in semantics is entirely moot.)

[Katie N]

Why support democracy? All I see is people complain when their favored candidate doesn't win the election.

[Acidbaron]

Or we could instead of a parliamentary system and hope they pick the best among them.

From your perspective that would solve some things, from mine it won't as there's still plenty of misinformation on your end it just means the uninformed vote becomes less powerful due to all votes being more equal compared to the gerrymandering system with the electoral college that favours one over the other.

But it won't be a magic solution to everything and it can still create issues in todays world of misinformation from digital sources.

[NED funded]

If maximum (or even majority) participation in the labor force is not required for the survival of society, and yet participation in the labor force is enforced by threat of withholding basic necessities of survival like food, shelter, and health care, I would argue that the current "liberal" society and its supporters are actually the ones who hate individual liberty. If you're unwilling to allow people to live in a world unless they are beholden to the interests of the wealthy to survive, you're certainly not on the side of individual liberty.

Literally 37% of the population isn't working. What are you going about? Or is this just a socialist complaining that work sucks? If so get a job loser.

[Milchshake]

Instead try to spin it into Lockean and take into account the romantic period because for some people for whom thinking is... just tiresome work, liberal in any sense is a bad bad dirty word! They don't even care what the definition is.

But your forgot about muh Tocqueville! /s

Or maybe miss sweden could realize they jumped into a thread about the US liberal/illiberal dynamic. And decided to call everyone else wrong.


I geuss the one universal takeaway might be, reactionaries love their hot takes more than they love context.

Hot takes with some syrup sound kinda good about now. /zing!

[Masark]

Literally 37% of the population isn't working.

Roughly half of those are over 65 and thus retired.

[Orbitus]

Roughly half of those are over 65 and thus retired.

And the other half is probably pretty much children or disabled people.

[Adam Jensen]

Reading this thread brings me to the following conclusion:

We, as a human species, need to figure out what is meant when one says "liberalism" because half the people here define it one way, and half define it the other way . . .

- - - Updated - - -

Why support democracy? All I see is people complain when their favored candidate doesn't win the election.

Which is better than when your favorite dictator doesn't win the coup.

[NED funded]

Roughly half of those are over 65 and thus retired.

Oh no, our society is providing for those it considers incapable of working with somewhat decent standards of living?!

The horror!!! I bet the socialists would rather kill them right?

[Crispin]

Wanting liberalism gone isn't racist. Anyone that's not rich should want it gone.

[Felya]

Wanting liberalism gone isn't racist. Anyone that's not rich should want it gone.

That doesn’t make any sense. If you aren’t rich, what exactly are you conserving?

- - - Updated - - -

We, as a human species, need to figure out what is meant when one says "liberalism" because half the people here define it one way, and half define it the other way . . .

Knowing what it means, won’t have any impact in the face of propoganda.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

[downnola]

Conserve? What are you even talking about?

The real question is: what are you even talking about? There's more to liberalism than capitalism, yet people conflate the two like they mean the same thing.