Submitted by AudibleNod t3_zpd0se in UpliftingNews
Ayziak t1_j0tb7fc wrote
Reply to comment by oldar4 in Arapahoe County to provide housing for former inmates experiencing homelessness by AudibleNod
"Woke", as in "Awake"... As in the alternative to "Asleep"? It always comes off as just being upset that people are aware of what you're doing.
oldar4 t1_j0tbbmq wrote
Woke as the colloquial term for people who push their specifically leftist agenda without room for discussion or compromise to the point of dehumanizing and censoring any who disagree even in the minutiae
Ayziak t1_j0tbl8w wrote
It's just so hilarious to me that of all terms to be co-opted by the right and turned into a colloquial insult, when you spend 10 seconds actually thinking about the meaning it becomes clear that they just want their opposition to roll over and "go back to sleep"
[deleted] t1_j0tboso wrote
[deleted]
AdmiralAkbar1 t1_j0tfcpd wrote
That's not really much of an argument. It's like if someone who supports abortion sarcastically refers to the other side as "pro-lifers," then someone who opposes abortion goes "Ha, you admit you're pro-death!"
Ayziak t1_j0tg8q7 wrote
You're right, this was less an argument and more an observation. To that end, out of all the examples I can think of, this is the most blatant "saying the quiet part out loud" that comes to mind.
philly_2k t1_j0tlelt wrote
liberals are not leftists
oldar4 t1_j0tlj20 wrote
A woke liberal is a leftist.
philly_2k t1_j0tnbj5 wrote
liberalism is conservative in nature after there has been a liberal revolution instating property owners to be the ruling class
for the specifics of the US both parties are in economic politics neoliberals, the only difference is the civic liberalism is more in tune with the moralizing of the Democrat party and the Republicans falling more into conservative politics when it comes to that
none of them represent any labour policies a true leftist party would
Liberalism
Liberalism is a word that means different things to different people, especially from country to country.
Having its origins in the assertion of property owners right against conservative forces, liberalism of all its different varieties is generally an ideology of the urban property owners. Very broadly, liberalism asserts individual autonomy against the intrusion of the community into that. The main source of ambiguity in liberalism is the divergence between “economic liberalism” and “civic liberalism”.
“Economic liberalism”, sometimes called Neo-liberalism or “big-L Liberalism” advocates a laissez faire economic regime, i.e., the right of property-owners to exercise the power of money unhindered by regulations, redistributive taxes and so on. Economic liberalism therefore easily makes common cause with the traditional sources of conservative politics – the landed aristocracy and Christian fundamentalists. Neo-liberalism (“Economic rationalism” in Australia) favours reliance on market forces to resolve social problems, rather than methods of state regulation.
“Civic liberalism” on the other hand, emphasises the importance of individual autonomy against determination by traditional norms, racial prejudice, entrenched power relations and economic disadvantage. Under the banner of “equality of opportunity”, civic liberalism can come close to forms of communitarianism in emphasising the responsibility of the community to secure the basic conditions of life of members of the community, or, under the banner of “freedom of the individual” on the other hand, to libertarianism, in emphasising the rights of individuals to make “life-style” choices free from interference by the community, provided they do no harm to others.
In the U.S., “liberal” has the specific connotation of seeking to promote the social good without challenging the right of the ruling class to rule. Thus, the American ‘liberal’ who wants higher wages and a better health service is quite distinct from the labour activist who aims for much the same things but whose conception is that this entails a fight against the ruling elite.
oldar4 t1_j0tnp6u wrote
All the more reason we need more than two parties. Theres no room for subtlety and nuance when its either a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
As you said "Liberalism is a word that means different things to different people, especially from country to country". However in my use of the word, I was using it as a catchall for democrats... the nuance of the definition doesn't matter really in the context of what I was talking about.
philly_2k t1_j0tqncl wrote
more parties will just make it more turd sandwiches, but it would be an improvement to what it is now
BUT it will not fix the systemic issue of liberal electoralism that is the basis for most democracies right now
property owners are heavily skewing politics in their favor as they have more influence on policies through lobbying and ownership of media corporations influencing public opinion ( big reason why most people still fall for the charade of liberal politics instead of trying to force systemic change) and also through law enforcement agencies enforcing their property rights (be it housing through evicting or intellectual property and branding through cease and desist or similar means) add to that making homelessness a crime and all convicts basically loosing all rights reserved for citizens in a country with the biggest prison population world wide
then you have union leaders being paid off or intimidated to sign on deals that hurt their union members, because disruption is blamed on the workers striking instead of the owners not treating the workers right
the system is actively working to keep people from being able to influence politics
all this are examples of liberal politics add to that a little bit of conservative thought and voilà you get fascism, that's how it happened 100 years ago in Europe and that's why fascism is rising all around the globe and people pretend it has nothing to do with a failing system, even though we should have learned from history that it does
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments