So I want to point out something interesting in the comments to this post:
There are two different segments of the comments, with wildly differing consensus views revealed in one segment versus the other (if you look at the votes). There’s the top three comments (at least as it shows up to me), who think Kamala Harris is a big meanie liberal who deserved what she got and why isn’t she helping us with Trump now. Then there’s the whole rest, where there’s actually a strong consensus along the lines of this:
Sore loser
Politicians aren’t athletes. She didn’t lose. The American people chose Trump. The American people lost.
… where the top comment is mildly downvoted, and the reply is heavily upvoted.
It is weird to me that there are two strata to it. I have a theory for why that is, but I am sometimes out of my mind, so I will simply point it out and that it’s weird.
You know we’re cooked when even the liberals have embraced fascist conspiracy theories about all of America’s problems being the fault of perfidious foreigners corrupting our otherwise pure nation.
Kamala is a lot of things, but she is not a liberal. I can have honest disagreements with a principled liberal, but the Democratic establishment abandoned liberal principals long ago.
Liberals believe in democracy for them and thier elite few. They’ve never believed in democracy for everybody. There’s not one liberal Revolution in the history of this world that ended with universal suffrage. Not one. When it came, if ever, it came after decades and even centuries of blood.
Has there been a socialist revolution in the history of the world that ended with universal worker control of the means of production? For that matter, has there ever been a fascist revolution where individual liberty was entirely overridden by capital and state interests? Don’t be ridiculous. There is always a gap between the ideal vision and what society is ready to accept. What makes someone liberal is consistency in pushing society in a liberal direction, and that’s not what we see from the Democratic establishment.
So liberals believe in democracy, they believe in equality, and freedom, they just never actually push for it on their own is what you’re saying? That’s interesting. It’s almost like they don’t actually believe in those things it’s just the nonsense they tell people so they won’t pay attention to things they actually believe in. Liberals believe in two things, well one thing really but I’ll say two, they believe in private property and free market capitalism. Except not really free market. That’s it that’s all they’ve ever believed in.
Everything else, every single thing else will be sacrificed for those two things. We know this, we have 300 plus years of human history that proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That’s the only directions liberals have ever-pushed anything in. The only time they ever allow anything else is if it helps them achieve that goal.
Hey @anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com – remember when I said that “liberal” was basically a poisoned word at this point because it means so many different things to so many people that it often just causes confusion to even introduce it?
This is a pretty good example. I tried telling you that most modern Democrats are center-right conservatives as opposed to “liberals,” and long story short you didn’t like that. So just now I tried out applying the term using the modern “US politics” definition, where Democrats are “liberals,” and now I’m all of a sudden in a what-words-mean-what-things conversation with this person. The original substance that we were talking about is forgotten.
@tinidril@midwest.social for what it’s worth I actually agree with you here. I don’t even know enough about Kamala’s policies to be able to weigh in on where she stands, but if I had to guess I would say she is probably a center-right conservative and not a liberal. But as soon as someone says that, there’s a whole new crop of people for whom “liberal” means “enemy,” and they will crop up to yell at you that of course she’s a liberal and how dare you try to defend her against that accusation, and so on, and so the conversation just becomes a big pointless argument filled with tribalism and accusations.
Of course, if that’s your goal, then using the word “liberal” is a pretty good approach.
I think it’s a mistake to apply any kind of principled philosophy to establishment Democrats. They aren’t left, they aren’t liberals, they aren’t conservative, they are careerest. If they believe in anything it’s competence, but with little discernment about what their competence should achieve. What they are is an elitist social club, and they see broader democracy as an inconvenience to overcome on the path to earning favor in that club.
So I want to point out something interesting in the comments to this post:
There are two different segments of the comments, with wildly differing consensus views revealed in one segment versus the other (if you look at the votes). There’s the top three comments (at least as it shows up to me), who think Kamala Harris is a big meanie liberal who deserved what she got and why isn’t she helping us with Trump now. Then there’s the whole rest, where there’s actually a strong consensus along the lines of this:
… where the top comment is mildly downvoted, and the reply is heavily upvoted.
It is weird to me that there are two strata to it. I have a theory for why that is, but I am sometimes out of my mind, so I will simply point it out and that it’s weird.
Lemmy is astroturfed by Russian and Chinese agents whose mission is to sow discord and harm America. Trump harms America.
When you view Lemmy comments on political posts through this lens, the reality of the situation becomes clear.
You know we’re cooked when even the liberals have embraced fascist conspiracy theories about all of America’s problems being the fault of perfidious foreigners corrupting our otherwise pure nation.
What?
Just me? Maybe so. That’s what it looked like to me, though.
It really isn’t clear what you’re saying at all. Just spit it out.
Kamala is a lot of things, but she is not a liberal. I can have honest disagreements with a principled liberal, but the Democratic establishment abandoned liberal principals long ago.
She’s like the poster child for liberals I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Liberals believe in democracy. How did she become the nominee again?
Liberals believe in democracy for them and thier elite few. They’ve never believed in democracy for everybody. There’s not one liberal Revolution in the history of this world that ended with universal suffrage. Not one. When it came, if ever, it came after decades and even centuries of blood.
Has there been a socialist revolution in the history of the world that ended with universal worker control of the means of production? For that matter, has there ever been a fascist revolution where individual liberty was entirely overridden by capital and state interests? Don’t be ridiculous. There is always a gap between the ideal vision and what society is ready to accept. What makes someone liberal is consistency in pushing society in a liberal direction, and that’s not what we see from the Democratic establishment.
So liberals believe in democracy, they believe in equality, and freedom, they just never actually push for it on their own is what you’re saying? That’s interesting. It’s almost like they don’t actually believe in those things it’s just the nonsense they tell people so they won’t pay attention to things they actually believe in. Liberals believe in two things, well one thing really but I’ll say two, they believe in private property and free market capitalism. Except not really free market. That’s it that’s all they’ve ever believed in.
Everything else, every single thing else will be sacrificed for those two things. We know this, we have 300 plus years of human history that proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That’s the only directions liberals have ever-pushed anything in. The only time they ever allow anything else is if it helps them achieve that goal.
Hey @anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com – remember when I said that “liberal” was basically a poisoned word at this point because it means so many different things to so many people that it often just causes confusion to even introduce it?
This is a pretty good example. I tried telling you that most modern Democrats are center-right conservatives as opposed to “liberals,” and long story short you didn’t like that. So just now I tried out applying the term using the modern “US politics” definition, where Democrats are “liberals,” and now I’m all of a sudden in a what-words-mean-what-things conversation with this person. The original substance that we were talking about is forgotten.
@tinidril@midwest.social for what it’s worth I actually agree with you here. I don’t even know enough about Kamala’s policies to be able to weigh in on where she stands, but if I had to guess I would say she is probably a center-right conservative and not a liberal. But as soon as someone says that, there’s a whole new crop of people for whom “liberal” means “enemy,” and they will crop up to yell at you that of course she’s a liberal and how dare you try to defend her against that accusation, and so on, and so the conversation just becomes a big pointless argument filled with tribalism and accusations.
Of course, if that’s your goal, then using the word “liberal” is a pretty good approach.
I think it’s a mistake to apply any kind of principled philosophy to establishment Democrats. They aren’t left, they aren’t liberals, they aren’t conservative, they are careerest. If they believe in anything it’s competence, but with little discernment about what their competence should achieve. What they are is an elitist social club, and they see broader democracy as an inconvenience to overcome on the path to earning favor in that club.
Yeah, pretty much.