All of these were fought for with literal blood well before any liberals decided it was in their interest to push legislation. Don’t delude yourselves by thinking the libs did these things out of the kindness of their heart.
Nah the instant I saw this post I just fucking knew the comments would be full of these fucking clowns. Just block the divisive trolls as soon as you see them and things will get much better
Even if you use the academic version it makes sense. Liberalism is the default ideology in the USA. The majority of the population at any point will be Liberals.
No, “liberals” “in the USA” = everyone on the left in America, which is wrong and bad because it ignores all of the anti-capitalist people and silences them by labeling them with an explicitly pro-capitalist Ideology. The left is (at the very least) liberals and socialists and some kinds of anarchists, there is a lot they have in common they can work on but calling them all “liberals” distorts reality in a consequential way.
Oh bullshit, there are and have been American anarchists and socialists who have worked with and sometimes worked against American liberals going back to at least the early 20th century. Like, just to grab the most obvious example, Frances Perkins was a member of the freakin Socialist Party of America for years before she joined FDRs cabinet as labor secretary and did a bunch of the New Deal stuff liberals pat themselves on the back for now.
No it is because there are more nations than what comprises the West. Your definition would not make any sense in one of the dozens of authoritarian nations that are still trying to determine IF human rights exist.
The POV you are advocating suggests every society faces the same struggles and questions and that isn’t true.
Given how much historical evil can be tied to Eurocentrism it us important to stomp it out when you see it.
Not really. Civil rights absolutely, social security, kind of, the activists didn’t create the idea but they gave muscle to the labor movement to the point that FDR got elected in the first place and had the momentum so sure, clean air act and clean water act, you must be joking, those were just liberal government things. The things from that end of the spectrum are actually really good examples of why having a functioning government is a good thing even if it means “electoralism,” meaning it can’t all just be people in the streets fighting. You need both sides of the equation: The vigor and blood to push things forward, and then the paper and system to lock it in. Without either side of that, it doesn’t work.
More to the point, stop shitting on people who did good things. If you live in America, you benefit from all of the things on that list. Look for enemies elsewhere. This is the left’s favorite thing, to turn its guns exclusively on its own side, and it’s super good at it.
Yes, eco activists died for a lot of those movements too.
The point isnt to “turn guns on [our] own side,” it is to remind people that these movements and legistlations rest on the shoulders of giants, just like most everything else in our society
I really don’t think that Nixon was strongly motivated by eco activists. I mean, I get what you’re saying… like I said, the overall climate does make an impact on the “establishment” policies absolutely and the activism has to lead by about a hundred miles before the government starts catching up to it. I think on that front we’re saying more or less the same thing.
I think this type of thinking ends up being quite self defeating.
We should evaluate all politicians as vessels to carry out the will of the people.
When you consider them as such, not as people or entities to assign blame, as your goal is to be pragmatic, you look at their incentives and track records instead.
I think leftists often have this self defeating problem of being unable to stomach the fact that they will not get their ideal politician, and there will be no sudden uprising.
As a result, they often will criticize the politicians closest too them too loudly, ending up supporting “both sides” notions that cause voter apathy and let quite literally fascists win instead.
What I am saying is that we have to be pragmatic.
Particularly for the US, people have to realize that yes, while the DNC sucks, the democrats are the only practical, realistic way for people to actually end up winning.
Its long, slow, and no fun at all, but people have to support them publicly, and acknowledge their faults in ways that don’t dissuade voters from voting for them. They then must also vote in increasingly progressive candidates in primaries and local politics.
Anything else is simply grabbing a foot gun, because this imperfect system is very slow, and won’t change over night.
Thats in an ideal world, but its not practical for the US in particular because their system only allows for 2 parties.
In fact, many systems boil down to that due to first past the post forcing people to vote strategically instead of for the party that best represents them.
In reality, people have to vote strategically and then use internal party politics such as primaries to shift the party to a more progressive place.
Threatening to make them lose only means the worse party comes into power and rachets everything backwards far more than leaving them in place.
Yeah. This whole thing where voting for someone is “falling in line behind” them is very weird to me.
Politicians are not your friends. Even ones I like, I don’t really look at as that I am “allied” with them. I’m just inputting that I want them in charge more than I like the other person; it’s sort of the last stage of the process of trying to control what my government might be in a position to do to me or do to other people in the world (for good or bad, often for bad).
Do these people go driving and decide whether the transmission “deserves” to be in third gear or second gear or whatever? Do they set “red lines” about when they will and won’t touch the steering wheel? Dude, the government is often terrible. Refusing to give any input to it until it gets better on its own seems guaranteed to be self defeating.
Whose blood do you think was being shed? Liberalism is the default in this culture. Those people dying were likely Liberals. There has never been a substantial enough number of leftists in the USA to be the drivers of most major policies.
All of these were fought for with literal blood well before any liberals decided it was in their interest to push legislation. Don’t delude yourselves by thinking the libs did these things out of the kindness of their heart.
I don’t disagree, but I think it’s pretty clear Lawrence is using the American colloquial definition of liberal rather than the academic definition.
Nah the instant I saw this post I just fucking knew the comments would be full of these fucking clowns. Just block the divisive trolls as soon as you see them and things will get much better
Even if you use the academic version it makes sense. Liberalism is the default ideology in the USA. The majority of the population at any point will be Liberals.
“the American colloquial definition” is the American colloquial term for propaganda
Left leaning liberalism = liberals in the USA. It ignores the right leaning liberals and is flawed.
No, “liberals” “in the USA” = everyone on the left in America, which is wrong and bad because it ignores all of the anti-capitalist people and silences them by labeling them with an explicitly pro-capitalist Ideology. The left is (at the very least) liberals and socialists and some kinds of anarchists, there is a lot they have in common they can work on but calling them all “liberals” distorts reality in a consequential way.
e; Scpelling is hard sometimes
“The left is (at the very least) liberals and socialists and some kinds of anarchists,”
This is a VERY Eurocentric perspective. What constitutes progressive/left views changes culture to culture.
Oh bullshit, there are and have been American anarchists and socialists who have worked with and sometimes worked against American liberals going back to at least the early 20th century. Like, just to grab the most obvious example, Frances Perkins was a member of the freakin Socialist Party of America for years before she joined FDRs cabinet as labor secretary and did a bunch of the New Deal stuff liberals pat themselves on the back for now.
No it is because there are more nations than what comprises the West. Your definition would not make any sense in one of the dozens of authoritarian nations that are still trying to determine IF human rights exist.
The POV you are advocating suggests every society faces the same struggles and questions and that isn’t true.
Given how much historical evil can be tied to Eurocentrism it us important to stomp it out when you see it.
Not really. Civil rights absolutely, social security, kind of, the activists didn’t create the idea but they gave muscle to the labor movement to the point that FDR got elected in the first place and had the momentum so sure, clean air act and clean water act, you must be joking, those were just liberal government things. The things from that end of the spectrum are actually really good examples of why having a functioning government is a good thing even if it means “electoralism,” meaning it can’t all just be people in the streets fighting. You need both sides of the equation: The vigor and blood to push things forward, and then the paper and system to lock it in. Without either side of that, it doesn’t work.
More to the point, stop shitting on people who did good things. If you live in America, you benefit from all of the things on that list. Look for enemies elsewhere. This is the left’s favorite thing, to turn its guns exclusively on its own side, and it’s super good at it.
Yes, eco activists died for a lot of those movements too.
The point isnt to “turn guns on [our] own side,” it is to remind people that these movements and legistlations rest on the shoulders of giants, just like most everything else in our society
I really don’t think that Nixon was strongly motivated by eco activists. I mean, I get what you’re saying… like I said, the overall climate does make an impact on the “establishment” policies absolutely and the activism has to lead by about a hundred miles before the government starts catching up to it. I think on that front we’re saying more or less the same thing.
I think this type of thinking ends up being quite self defeating.
We should evaluate all politicians as vessels to carry out the will of the people.
When you consider them as such, not as people or entities to assign blame, as your goal is to be pragmatic, you look at their incentives and track records instead.
I think leftists often have this self defeating problem of being unable to stomach the fact that they will not get their ideal politician, and there will be no sudden uprising.
As a result, they often will criticize the politicians closest too them too loudly, ending up supporting “both sides” notions that cause voter apathy and let quite literally fascists win instead.
What I am saying is that we have to be pragmatic.
Particularly for the US, people have to realize that yes, while the DNC sucks, the democrats are the only practical, realistic way for people to actually end up winning.
Its long, slow, and no fun at all, but people have to support them publicly, and acknowledge their faults in ways that don’t dissuade voters from voting for them. They then must also vote in increasingly progressive candidates in primaries and local politics.
Anything else is simply grabbing a foot gun, because this imperfect system is very slow, and won’t change over night.
They are vessels that must be driven toward change under the threat of force, sure
Thats in an ideal world, but its not practical for the US in particular because their system only allows for 2 parties.
In fact, many systems boil down to that due to first past the post forcing people to vote strategically instead of for the party that best represents them.
In reality, people have to vote strategically and then use internal party politics such as primaries to shift the party to a more progressive place.
Threatening to make them lose only means the worse party comes into power and rachets everything backwards far more than leaving them in place.
Yeah. This whole thing where voting for someone is “falling in line behind” them is very weird to me.
Politicians are not your friends. Even ones I like, I don’t really look at as that I am “allied” with them. I’m just inputting that I want them in charge more than I like the other person; it’s sort of the last stage of the process of trying to control what my government might be in a position to do to me or do to other people in the world (for good or bad, often for bad).
Do these people go driving and decide whether the transmission “deserves” to be in third gear or second gear or whatever? Do they set “red lines” about when they will and won’t touch the steering wheel? Dude, the government is often terrible. Refusing to give any input to it until it gets better on its own seems guaranteed to be self defeating.
Whose blood do you think was being shed? Liberalism is the default in this culture. Those people dying were likely Liberals. There has never been a substantial enough number of leftists in the USA to be the drivers of most major policies.