They don’t care and take everything for granted, that’s what stupid people do. Also they think 5 min in advance.
See the people who voted for Trump and then were shocked that they or their relatives get deported. Likewise here: "the bad stuff is for other people and not me“ or some version of that.
Yeah but their pastor said liberals eat babies. So deal’s off.
They are trained from a very young age to obey and never question authority. It’s pretty much part of the religion.
deleted by creator
Isn’t that because of progressivism? Liberalism is free markets and small government and all that shit. Stop letting the lib shits claim these wins.
Unless you are saying the U.S. had a socialist majority in government when each of these rights/principles became allowed… It was the liberals you speak of that voted them in. Are we going to say Woodrow Wilson had a socialist administration that voted for Women’s Suffrage?
A man gave women the right to fight rather than folks fighting for social progress is the liberal narrative we all grew up with. I mean you can hear the same thing on NPR when they talk about the history of Labor Day.
Progressive movements caused social change. Through political pressure. It wasn’t given to us by liberals.
The meme says “liberalism is the reason”, it doesn’t say “liberals voted these in”. You can be a liberal and lean towards progressivism, but that stil doesn’t make these things part of liberalism, it’s still progressivism.
Liberal doesn’t mean the same thing here as it does elsewhere, it’s a dumb thing to argue over. Liberal has no ties to who owns the means of production in the U.S.
I see no one complaining about how the paints were sourced in liberal arts. Words have different meanings in different contexts.
In this context it’s people trying to claim people sound uneducated while really coming across uneducated. If you say different then never say that culture means anything nor exists when someone tramples someone else’s.
Same word, different meaning in different regions
There’s something outside of the US?
/S
Clearly you aren’t splitting hairs enough. Take your good and add an “ism”… then multiply it by a couple “ists”… and finally divide it by purity…
And the result is basically the same fucking thing, but with a remainder that gives excuses for simple minded folks to disagree…
Yeah, sometimes it is just bargaining chips. Otherwise they have to classify the Richard Nixon administration as being progressive for voting to give women the right to open credit accounts without a male co-signer.
You are describing Republicans, or at least what they used to be about.
Their explanation is a bit reductive, but they are attempting to correctly point out that liberalism is the hegemonic ideology of the US state. Republicans and Democrats have historically always subscribed to liberalism, as in a social and political philosophy centered on individualism and capitalism as its primary organising principles. The current success of fascist rhetoric in the US is another example of how liberalism and fascism do not have fundamentally conflicting interests as both depend on the formal exploitation of devalued groups to the benefit of the hierarchy.
Liberals did not give anyone rights, they were forced to find new ways to exploit groups when legal discrimination became untenable in the face of movements that managed to challenge their system. Think prison industrial complex in response to the Civil Rights era and Black Liberation militant groups.
Think prison industrial complex in response to the Civil Rights era and Black Liberation militant groups.
Yes, and NAFTA / off-shoring in response to worker power, stagnant wages in response to women in the workplace, forcing social media to submit to spying in response to organization efforts, etc.
Neoliberalism – the dominance of free-trade rhetoric, dependency on consumer credit and corporate welfare for growth, and diminished remuneration of labourers – is more difficult to attribute as a response to any one factor in social or political change in the late twentieth century, though the persistence of union power and women’s financial independence are certainly factors. Decentralization and deindustrialization in strong union industries had already been official state policy as early as the late 1940s, as well as state influence over media production and communications technology.
The Prison Industrial Complex is much more of a direct response as we see it emerge during the popular Civil Rights Era of the twentieth century with explicit use of the War on Drugs to target black populations. Racist Politicization of drugs was already deployed in the past, but this systemization into forced labour and targeted community oppression was a new way to specifically handle effective Black Liberation movements in the US.
no I’m describing what liberalism actually means.
Republicans were only about that before the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party over civil rights.
Liberal is progressive in America. Lemmy mostly doesn’t want to know that.
No it doesn’t. Just because they might end up voting for the same party (because there are only two fucking choices) does not make them the same at all.
I mean in the semantic sense. The AM radio waves aren’t filled with vitriol for people that support a capital-based economy.
you have just given me a great idea for an AM radio program. Bigfoot Sightings, by Mark Foot.
Shit, I’d listen to that. Well. On podcast cause, no commercials. But yeah that’s brilliant.
…you can have an abortion if you want to not have a baby yet…oh actually you don’t have this one anymore.
Vote
New Zealand, Finland and the USSR were the first to make that a reality. Spearheaded by trade union movements and communists.
Work
The Soviet Union was the first country to establish legal equality in pay and employment for women, and then followed by the PRC and the wide amount of time of socdem movement in the nordic countries.
File for divorce
France was the first, with the french revolution. Then came the Soviet Union and after it the PRC.
Buy a credit card
To be honest this is absurd, but indeed the US was the first as far as I can remember. Having the right to drown in debt is good i guess.
Buy a home or a car
US and UK did indeed pioneer that, but it was with more focus on married women. Actual acts focused just on women were implemented by the Soviet Union with collective property and gender equality laws.
Driver’s license
There were little to no formal bans for that, social stigma was and is real though. Still an issue.
Pregnant and not get fired
USSR pioneered that in 1918, with labor codes protecting working mothers. Followed by the nordic socdem movement and the US only in the 1978
Husband can go to jail for beating you
USSR again, was the first to criminalize domestic battery in 1918. Although enforced unevenly it was legally punishable. Western Europe and the Northern America started it in 1970s with implementation continued to 1990s.
Many of the achievements listed are not of liberalism or neoliberalism, they were achievements of activists and unions working in a group to protect their collective interests. In many of the cases it was the Soviet Union with the revolution spearheading these rights, because the revolution itself was started by working class women. The nordics followed with their own social democrat feminist movement. In many things the PRC came before the neoliberal states in achievements of women’s rights, and that is a state that was ravaged by war and imperialism for years. Liberalism gave little to nothing, it maintained the hierarchies, and silenced the movement. Both democrats and republicans both do not care about women’s rights. They are both parties of the same right wing on the fascist eagle.
What exactly could the women vote for in the USSR, or anyone for that matter?
I guess they can vote even today in Russian 😂
I will give you the feminism stuff embedded in the socialist system, that’s true…
So this is almost definitely referring to social liberalism, not economic/classical liberalism which is an entirely different thing. Some ideas of social liberalism overlap with progressivism and even socialism.
The US happens to have two parties that are liberals - but it’s two different varieties of liberalism. Republicans are classical liberals whereas democrats for the most part are social liberals
Liberalism means so many things around the world, it’s a shit show.
Arguably, it’s at least in large part the efforts of socialists, communists, and radical feminists that made some of these possible. But decades of vilification in the USA have made them virtually invisible to the general population.
Nothing like propaganda to make people to go against their best interests. I keep having to remember even decades is well after I was born, I can’t imagine having the ideals of conservatives. As long as it’s functional but there’s no cost to not suppressing others, well there may be at some point when we’re all on a scorching planet and have to make real sacrifices. Of course the old billionaires will be dead for the rest to deal with the fallout… hopefully figuratively and not actually like the game.
Vilification that is alive and well here on Lemmy!
Hands up, who hates liberals?!
. . . see? Everyone.
You seem confused. They said socialists, communists and radical feminists. Not liberals.
I am confused as to why they’d misrepresent liberals like that yeah
Are you for real?
Da, comrade. Any likeness to other AI bots, both real and imagined, is purely coincidental.
its called calling out the spread of misinformation
also disinformation too, which is more harmful and intentional.
Removed by mod
Liberalism is not the reason for almost any of these but radicals working against not within the system.
Liberals taking credit for others’ praxis is their praxis.
Or for the system. If the end result is that an election can be won by buying ads then all the work was for the benefit of the rich.
You’re just being pedantic. In mainstream US terminology “Liberal” means left and “Conservative” means right. If you start using terminology beyond that the target audience isn’t going to know what you’re talking about, and you’ll lose them before you even have a chance to make your point.
but radicals working against not within the system
whom Supertramp from UK back in 1979—yet somehow not Lemmy today—recognizes as liberals
I said, now, watch what you say, they’ll be calling you a radical
A liberal, oh, fanatical, criminal
MAGA women do not want all women to express to those rights.
MAGA women want to control who represses those rights.
Optional@fash.worldmisspelling “radicalism” for “liberalism” is peak liberal Illusory Truth Effect.Get more radical, law-boot licker.
… You don’t buy a credit card.
A better historical note would be to say … to have a bank account
I think up until the 50s women couldn’t have a bank account in their name, without their husband signing for them or something. Up until then, women couldn’t have any money in their name in a recognized bank.
For common women that is … if you were the ultra wealthy, you could afford to skirt around banking rules … but as a common woman with a bit of money, you couldn’t have a regular bank account of your own.
You’re right except for the year. That wasn’t until 1974 that women could open back accounts in their own name.
That’s when legislation was passed ensuring banks couldn’t block a woman getting an account on her own. Before that it was dependant on the bank.
Some do have an annual fee…
Between annual fees or interest, most people do directly pay for using a credit cards.
And even if there’s no AF, and you don’t carry a balance so there’s no interest, we all indirectly pay by way of processing fees.
Paying isn’t buying though.
Buying is paying for ownership of a thing.You don’t “own” a credit card. Credit cards own you. (Unless you’re careful)
You’re being unnecessarily pedantic.
Hey great idea! /s
Not legally anyway
LOL liberalism.
American dumbThe problem is that a significant portion of MAGA don’t actually want most of those things.
They feel that freedoms are responsibilities. They don’t want to think about who they should vote for, or have to have a job or think about credit cards and budgets and bank accounts. And they’re not worried about needing a divorce or their husband beating them because they figure “Well I married a good Christian man, that will never be a problem for me.”
They say that now, but they’ll be the first to whine about it when they’re inevitably taken away.
Okay, but can I renounce them all to own the libs?
Hell yeah! Heck, in Texas this doubles as a yard sign for your candidacy!
Removed by mod
There’s a whole lot of tribalism going on here, woof.
Apparently ‘perfect is the enemy of good’ has been lost to time.
It’s true. If you’re a progressive who wants all the progressive things and calls yourself a liberal, you’re the worst human who ever lived. The only thing worse would be to say you voted for a Democrat. I mean. We’re on the left, not the super-far-right like the Democrats.
(/s because I’m told it’s not clear what things mean unless one puts a /s in it)
