You realize the person you’re responding to literally cited a book length academic source by an actual historian, right? Why do you think a Wikipedia article, a google search and, a basic dictionary definition is an adequate response to that?
Judging by your comment history you really need to do some reading on the history of liberalism as a political ideology. This is a long but accessible starting place from a left-wing perspective. Feel free to form your own opinion, man. But at least understand some of the basics of the history of an ideology before you start an argument about what it is and isn’t.
That’s a you tube series. I’m talking about real life. Get off the internet and talk to real people. See if anyone uses the word "Liberal " like you do. One guy wote a book. Even if you can sight several scolars, it that’s more than that to change the definition of a word or how 99.9998% of the population uses the word. To mean freedom. Likes it does.
Most of his argument comes from direct quotes of actual political philosophers like John Locke, John Stuart Mill and, Adam Smith. These aren’t just random scholars, these are people who are fundamental to the development of liberalism as a political ideology. Some guy on the internet who clearly has never engaged with that history of work isn’t going to change the actual meaning of the word either.
Look, I’m not citing a YouTube video because it’s the end all be all of sources. You should absolutely consider other perspectives. I’m citing it because it’s easy to understand and it’s clear you’re having a hard time understanding what people are talking about. I say again, you can still make up your own opinion but please inform yourself before you get into an argument of what liberalism is.
It doesn’t just mean “freedom”. I assure you if you have any conservative friends in “real life” they would disagree with the notion that liberalism just means freedom. There are probably even some Lincoln Project conservatives who would disagree with that.
I personally think that there are some aspects to liberalism that can lead society closer to being more free but there are other aspects to liberalism that work against that end. But almost everyone who has a basic understanding beyond a dictionary definition would agree that there’s more to it than just being a synonym for freedom.
Read the damn book, it goes through its use by the major liberal thinkers since the 1700s. If you read any leftist or semi-serious literature on the subject, they’ll be using that same definition.
We’ve supplied you with works showing the definition that OP and every even semi-serious political philosopher, both liberal and communist means when they say it.
Why are you dying on this hill? Just educate yourself.
Dude, I literally showed you the dictionary. You think that Wikipedia, the OED, and everyone else is wrong but one dead Italian communist was right. Yes, pinko maranara had half a point in that some bad things have been done in the past in the name of liberalism, but that can be said for every major political philosophy.
I find it very telling that not one of you russian trolls can tell me who you would support in the upcoming US election.
You think that Wikipedia, the OED, and everyone else is wrong but one dead Italian communist was right.
There’s 30 pages of citations, he goes through every major liberal philosopher and most of the leaders, if you want to say everyone from Locke to Smith to De Tocqueville and Washington to Jefferson to Teddy Roosevelt didn’t understand their own philosophy, that’s a hell of a take.
I find it very telling that not one of you russian trolls can tell me who you would support in the upcoming US election.
Do you genuinely believe that anyone you’re talking to is a Russian troll? You can look at people’s post histories.
Read the damn book. The point of the book isn’t “liberals bad”. I am trying to give you a more nuanced view of what the freedom of liberalism means so you can understand what OP was talking about and you can meaningfully participate in these conversations instead of insisting that the every philosopher on all sides of the issue didn’t understand what they are talking about.
Here is the fun part of this hill. I’m not dying on it. No matter what direction thus little internet debate goes, at the end of the day, liberal still means liberal. You all insisting that up means down and liberal is bad because reasons doesn’t change anything except amuse me. It’s like watching monkeys flung poo. I’m not dieing on this hill, I got my feet up earing popcorn. Let me know when y’all get the dictionary updated.
You realize the person you’re responding to literally cited a book length academic source by an actual historian, right? Why do you think a Wikipedia article, a google search and, a basic dictionary definition is an adequate response to that?
Judging by your comment history you really need to do some reading on the history of liberalism as a political ideology. This is a long but accessible starting place from a left-wing perspective. Feel free to form your own opinion, man. But at least understand some of the basics of the history of an ideology before you start an argument about what it is and isn’t.
That’s a you tube series. I’m talking about real life. Get off the internet and talk to real people. See if anyone uses the word "Liberal " like you do. One guy wote a book. Even if you can sight several scolars, it that’s more than that to change the definition of a word or how 99.9998% of the population uses the word. To mean freedom. Likes it does.
Most of his argument comes from direct quotes of actual political philosophers like John Locke, John Stuart Mill and, Adam Smith. These aren’t just random scholars, these are people who are fundamental to the development of liberalism as a political ideology. Some guy on the internet who clearly has never engaged with that history of work isn’t going to change the actual meaning of the word either.
Look, I’m not citing a YouTube video because it’s the end all be all of sources. You should absolutely consider other perspectives. I’m citing it because it’s easy to understand and it’s clear you’re having a hard time understanding what people are talking about. I say again, you can still make up your own opinion but please inform yourself before you get into an argument of what liberalism is.
It doesn’t just mean “freedom”. I assure you if you have any conservative friends in “real life” they would disagree with the notion that liberalism just means freedom. There are probably even some Lincoln Project conservatives who would disagree with that.
I personally think that there are some aspects to liberalism that can lead society closer to being more free but there are other aspects to liberalism that work against that end. But almost everyone who has a basic understanding beyond a dictionary definition would agree that there’s more to it than just being a synonym for freedom.
Read the damn book, it goes through its use by the major liberal thinkers since the 1700s. If you read any leftist or semi-serious literature on the subject, they’ll be using that same definition.
If that’s too much, just peruse https://www.google.com/search?q=site:marxists.org liberalism
Every work there is political and either historical or of some level of academic rigor.
“Liberalism is a word that means different things to different people.”
That is literally first damn sentence that come up for your under your link!
We’ve supplied you with works showing the definition that OP and every even semi-serious political philosopher, both liberal and communist means when they say it.
Why are you dying on this hill? Just educate yourself.
Dude, I literally showed you the dictionary. You think that Wikipedia, the OED, and everyone else is wrong but one dead Italian communist was right. Yes, pinko maranara had half a point in that some bad things have been done in the past in the name of liberalism, but that can be said for every major political philosophy.
I find it very telling that not one of you russian trolls can tell me who you would support in the upcoming US election.
There’s 30 pages of citations, he goes through every major liberal philosopher and most of the leaders, if you want to say everyone from Locke to Smith to De Tocqueville and Washington to Jefferson to Teddy Roosevelt didn’t understand their own philosophy, that’s a hell of a take.
Do you genuinely believe that anyone you’re talking to is a Russian troll? You can look at people’s post histories.
Wiki has citations too. Why do you think that they are all wrong? I don’t recall Smith ever agruing “Luberals bad therefore vote for fascism”
Read the damn book. The point of the book isn’t “liberals bad”. I am trying to give you a more nuanced view of what the freedom of liberalism means so you can understand what OP was talking about and you can meaningfully participate in these conversations instead of insisting that the every philosopher on all sides of the issue didn’t understand what they are talking about.
Answer the question. If you can or if you could, who would you vote for ?
Here is the fun part of this hill. I’m not dying on it. No matter what direction thus little internet debate goes, at the end of the day, liberal still means liberal. You all insisting that up means down and liberal is bad because reasons doesn’t change anything except amuse me. It’s like watching monkeys flung poo. I’m not dieing on this hill, I got my feet up earing popcorn. Let me know when y’all get the dictionary updated.
I am voting PSL.