you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 5 days ago* (7 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (6 children)

    Sure. But the bucket of people that term encapsulates doesn't match that definition anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (4 children)

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (3 children)

    Like no, just no, stop trying to make "liberal" synonymous with progressive, they are different things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments