The word neoliberal comes from the word liberal, not the other way around. A small hint is the prefix “neo” (meaning “new” or “modified”) attached to the word “liberal”, which already existed.
You literally were. And there is a need to be “pedantic” when what was written was so wrong and problematic.
If it was so different from what you meant as you claim, you could’ve edited it at any point here. But you haven’t done that, so it seems to be something you’re ok with saying even if it’s “not what you meant”.
No. What YOU guys (non Americans) call liberals are essentially neoliberals.
Liberals in America are a very different political ideology than in Europe. Liberals in America believe in strong regulation, powerful government, and broad freedoms for individuals while increasing both taxation and government services. They want to rein in free-market capitalism.
Trolls on lemmy LOVE to exploit he nearly opposite meanings of the terms to try to convince low-info people like you that the bad guys and the good guys are actually the same.
you described something your country have been trying and failing at for decades now, you guys love to grandstand about this but when push comes to shove, you are called liberals for a reason.
one example: you are literally the only first world country without fair healthcare. ask yourself why you cant reign in private companies strangling it.
and the “rest of the world disagrees therefore you are all trolls” must be a troll in and of itself, because i cant believe it.
please don’t be mad at me. be mad at your representatives or something.
You keep insisting they are ‘generally opposite things’ but then identifying all the parts that overlap
It’s not my fault your definitions are logically inconsistent, and I find it wild that you feel so strongly about protecting that label when there are others that seem fit you better.
You keep popping up in political discussions here but then complain when people use academic language to describe political labels. There’s nothing more frustrating with a politically-obsessed user who refuses to engage with the topic on a level higher than ‘that’s just how it is in my experience’.
I don’t entertain bad faith discussions unless I think it’ll be funny. And switching back and forth between an academic definition and a layperson one, when the two definitions are wildly different, is bad faith.
You see it with a lot of - isms.
For example, how does feminism view few high rate of male suicides?
Academic feminists: “this is obviously a crisis triggered in part by toxic masculinity but also a lot of environmental factors. We need to do more to support men and boys, to allow them to express their emotions in a healthy way.”
Everyday feminists: “I’m not your therapist, sort your own shit out.”
Saying that “feminism” cares about male suicides is bad faith. It’s not technically completely untrue, but it’s intentionally misleading.
Christian theologians: “you should love your neighbor, even the sinners. You should be compassionate and understanding, and win them over to the grace of the Lord by being a beacon of morality and by helping them in their time of need.”
Everyday Christians: “kill the removeds”
Saying that Christians care about queer lives is bad faith.
Etc etc
So, I’ll always call out people who try to use academic definitions as a smokescreen.
… I don’t think you’re making the point you think you are with those examples.
And switching back and forth between an academic definition and a layperson one, when the two definitions are wildly different, is bad faith.
You do realize that the core of the critique of ‘classical’ liberalism is the same being directed at ‘american’ liberalism, right? The enshrinement of property as an individual right is what’s being castigated with the comparison. If you find that to be an unflattering one, maybe you should ask yourself why it is american liberals are so careful not to step on private ownership in their pursuit of ‘improving the common good’.
i didnt suggest it at all.
im sorry but english is not my first language.
Yes, you did.
The word neoliberal comes from the word liberal, not the other way around. A small hint is the prefix “neo” (meaning “new” or “modified”) attached to the word “liberal”, which already existed.
what you guys call “liberals” today are essentially neoliberals
Your opinion doesn’t change how words work or where they came from.
im telling you what i meant. no need to be pedantic.
i wasnt discussing terminology.
You literally were. And there is a need to be “pedantic” when what was written was so wrong and problematic.
If it was so different from what you meant as you claim, you could’ve edited it at any point here. But you haven’t done that, so it seems to be something you’re ok with saying even if it’s “not what you meant”.
no i literally werent, quit being mad dude
No. What YOU guys (non Americans) call liberals are essentially neoliberals.
Liberals in America are a very different political ideology than in Europe. Liberals in America believe in strong regulation, powerful government, and broad freedoms for individuals while increasing both taxation and government services. They want to rein in free-market capitalism.
Trolls on lemmy LOVE to exploit he nearly opposite meanings of the terms to try to convince low-info people like you that the bad guys and the good guys are actually the same.
you described something your country have been trying and failing at for decades now, you guys love to grandstand about this but when push comes to shove, you are called liberals for a reason.
one example: you are literally the only first world country without fair healthcare. ask yourself why you cant reign in private companies strangling it.
and the “rest of the world disagrees therefore you are all trolls” must be a troll in and of itself, because i cant believe it.
please don’t be mad at me. be mad at your representatives or something.
Murrika bad circlejerk is that way - - - - - - >
Have fun
brown people you can murder in mass for oil are that way ----->
have fun
That’s the spirit
no, this is the spirit -> 👻
Nothing you just said is incompatible with liberalism.
Found one
You keep insisting they are ‘generally opposite things’ but then identifying all the parts that overlap
It’s not my fault your definitions are logically inconsistent, and I find it wild that you feel so strongly about protecting that label when there are others that seem fit you better.
You keep popping up in political discussions here but then complain when people use academic language to describe political labels. There’s nothing more frustrating with a politically-obsessed user who refuses to engage with the topic on a level higher than ‘that’s just how it is in my experience’.
I don’t entertain bad faith discussions unless I think it’ll be funny. And switching back and forth between an academic definition and a layperson one, when the two definitions are wildly different, is bad faith.
You see it with a lot of - isms.
For example, how does feminism view few high rate of male suicides?
Academic feminists: “this is obviously a crisis triggered in part by toxic masculinity but also a lot of environmental factors. We need to do more to support men and boys, to allow them to express their emotions in a healthy way.”
Everyday feminists: “I’m not your therapist, sort your own shit out.”
Saying that “feminism” cares about male suicides is bad faith. It’s not technically completely untrue, but it’s intentionally misleading.
Christian theologians: “you should love your neighbor, even the sinners. You should be compassionate and understanding, and win them over to the grace of the Lord by being a beacon of morality and by helping them in their time of need.”
Everyday Christians: “kill the removeds”
Saying that Christians care about queer lives is bad faith.
Etc etc
So, I’ll always call out people who try to use academic definitions as a smokescreen.
… I don’t think you’re making the point you think you are with those examples.
You do realize that the core of the critique of ‘classical’ liberalism is the same being directed at ‘american’ liberalism, right? The enshrinement of property as an individual right is what’s being castigated with the comparison. If you find that to be an unflattering one, maybe you should ask yourself why it is american liberals are so careful not to step on private ownership in their pursuit of ‘improving the common good’.
If English isn’t your first language, then I recommend you don’t try to tell native English speakers how their own words work.
“Liberal comes from neoliberal” is just wrong.
except i wasnt talking about words?
us liberals are neoliberals
also i can speak this shitty language whichever way i feel like i want to tyvm