Lmao
You must log in or register to comment.
Every single republican is also a liberal. It’s the dominant ideology of capitalism and its state.
The difference is that the liberalism of republicans is more “classic” in that it’s heavily mixed with racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, classism, etc.
Modern socialism is made up of people that get hard over the thought of leading a worker’s revolution while being completely incapable of having a conversation with anyone in the working class.
Like what’s the goal in redefining terminology to be different from common usage? It’s not enticing anyone in the working class to join your movement, that’s for sure. Most people don’t even understand what the hell the average socialist is even talking about at this point.
I agree we can get up our own asses with the terminology, but in this case just skimming the Wikipedia page will reveal that the concept of liberalism encompasses almost all dominant political parties’ philosophies.
When you say liberal, do you mean social liberalism or classical liberalism?
There’s only two kinda of liberalism; economic, and social.
Why do we separate the two? Who does that serve?
Historically it used to be used like: “I’m socially liberal but a fiscal conservative”
The reality is that translated to: “I want to fund everything I want but never give money or resources to people that aren’t like me”… good old institutional racism and bigotry with a nice facade
Conservativism as an ideological definition is a branch of liberalism.
Free market Capitalists dislike the population being able to make/recognize the distinction. Because there’s a certain kind of “Liberal” who are only Liberals when Liberalism economically benefits them, but become Conservatives (and even radically right wing Conservatives) when Socially Democratic policies, or talk of taxing wealth becomes popular.
Donald Trump, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and others have all worn the mask of a “Liberalism” that refuses to to make this distinction (between social and economic liberalism).
A Liberal who is an economic liberal but doesn’t seek progressive improvements to society, isn’t a liberal at all. They’re a conservative in waiting for the moment things progress too far.
Thus leftists are served by keeping this distinction in mind. Learn it. Recognize who will kick up a fuss and change teams, and remember that they have a limited use, and will eventually go no further (or worse, become a major hindrance). You need an exit strategy for those people.
Otherwise progress gets maligned in the name of maintaining the ‘status quo’.
Hitler was just really passionate about giving free healthcare to Jews, LGBT, intellectuals, Romani, slightly swarthy people, etc etc.
Free hair cuts, de-licing and showers too.
And they all got a unique free tatoo!
If i didn’t know any better I’d say that was sarcasm :o
Clearly I’m misinformed on Hitler tho and they’re definitelyNOT labeling him with their no-no word in order to pretend they aren’t fuckin Nazis themselves.
Was not expecting the abrupt pivot into barely relevant bible study.
Several parables in the Bible foreshadow the insight of quantum entanglement about paired photons having opposite spin
Interesting, I wonder what their evidence is for that-
by contrasting two men in their relationship with God. The Prodigal Son contrasts two brothers, two churchgoers are contrasted in Luke 18:9–14 , and two brothers are further contrasted in Luke 21:28-31
Just… 2 people being compared?
LOL
It’s an internet encyclopedia built for and by conservatives. Literally everything on there abruptly pivots to barely relevant Bible study.
I’m used to UK conservatives. They don’t like poor people, I think religion is really a minor issue for most of them though (after all it does generally preach kindness to the poor).
In order to understand it you have to understand its creator: Andrew Schlafly: he’s an electrical engineer and lawyer and his mother is Phyllis Schlafly, a lawyer famous for her militant opposition to feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed amendment to the constitution that reads:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Phyllis wasn’t just some opponent of that amendment, no she was probably the primary reason it failed.
In short: there’s no reason why that website should be in any way sane just as there’s no reason its founder should be in any way sane. He really likes to critique physics theories that he doesn’t understand by citing philosophy and theology.
He tried to edit Wikipedia to insert his ideology. Wikipedia editors delivered the “science not nonsense” and “WP:NPOV” smackdown. Conservapedia is the result, written by and for ultra right wing home school students.
even they should know the difference between librul and commie, right?
The people who curate the site? Absolutely. The people who frequent the site…? ehhhh
The people who curate the site are out of their damn minds
I interacted with them a bit when the site was starting out. You’re being quite generous. Bunch of nutters.
I think it’s hard to overstate how insane they are but this should be a good starting point: Biased but amusing source they can’t edit And here’s them directly arguing against the theory of relativity
They literally don’t
No, liberal, commie, fascist, are all just interchangeable terms for “people I don’t like”
Why do they list Hitler as their enemy, when their own selected Führer obviously idols him?
Don’t forget: Satan is a Leftist
Have they listened to Bill Maher lately? I don’t think he’s liberal anymore.
I think he is, unfortunately. he’s just mask-off about it.
Richard Dawkins… Ahahahaha! Dude is BFF of conservative right winger Ayaan Hirsi Ali!
Conservapedia, like the incel wiki, are windows into parallel universes and both are proof, that ours isn’t the worst timeline after all.
It almost looks like incredibly well done satire
Poe’s law.
Damm, getting a sneak peak on what the enshitification o Wikipedia will be like.
Would wikipedia even meet the requirements for that?
“everyone I don’t like is a liberal”
I wonder why they put Hitler on the list then.
They love pretending loke Hitler, the universal symbol for evil, was a socialist. They fuckin’ love fascism and everything he did but they have to pretend like what they’re doing is different.
They also have no idea what “liberal” means, but that’s the case with most words exceeding six letters.
Similar to socialists being in denial over how antisemitism can get them to go along with fascists. People on the fringes of politics tend not to be able to see themselves for what they are. Communists and Fascists are both authoritarian just with a slightly different grift. But when the fascists play up the greedy capitalist jew angle, the socialists jump on board with fascism along it with the rest of the useful idiots.
Are we playing the “socialism and communism are different things” game today? Because that’snnever fun.
Authoritarians aren’t communists. They’re just appropriating the term.
Are we playing the anarchists and communists are the same thing game today? Communists absolutely can be authoritarian, anarchists can’t anarcho-communists aren’t but not all communists are
true Scotsmananarcho-communists
He was a filthy painter, that’s why. Now, if he had painted with a gun…
Liberal arts?
#COMMUNIST
Hahah - I thought this was a joke, I can’t believe it’s a real thing. It reads like an angry fundie 14yo wrote it.
Largely written by and for right wing angry fundie home schoolers. You’re not wrong.
Thisis why you never trust wikipedia
It’s from conservapedia!
still a wiki
Might as well say “never trust a website”
Can you really ever trust one? All of them have an agenda to push, no exceptions. If that agenda aligns with your’s, you’ve found an echo chamber for reinforcement. If not, perhaps you can learn of alternative viewpoints to an identical issue and maybe agree with some but not all of them. Things like wikis are supposed to be open to all opinions on a subject, but like everything good, someone will take it to corrupt.
You’re describing literally every discourse community and mode of communication. What you said applies to every book, newspaper, journal, website, forum, wiki, etc. There always some bias in some way. It’s how it works. Humans will be humans. It’s up to the individual to process information and discern what to think
Yep
“Never trust other people,” they say. I’m not sure I shpypd believe them, though.
No exceptions you say? Ah yes, the wiki agendas. I sure love the propaganda of the stardew valley wiki. Super echo chambery and clearly deep state politics
Glad to help heh
So, don’t trust the entire internet, then?
Pretty much. Take it all with a grain of salt
You’re not using that phrase correctly. “Take it with a grain of salt” means not to commit to the knowledge until it’s verified else where or at least applying basic skepticism to it.
Wikipedia is a fairly safe place to start with research, but I would never really believe it for current event policies or adjacent topics.
Conservipedia is an engineered echo chamber that exists because Wikipedia kicked their founders out for vandalism. It only gives credibility to Wikipedia.
Exactly, Wikipedia has all sorts of processes and policies around making articles high quality. That includes trying to remove as much ideologically driven material as possible. This would be deleted in seconds (maybe literally).
But it’s Conservapedia. And it says it’s “Trustworthy” under the logo.
You know it’s bad when they need to try to convince you they’re legit.
Not PZ Myers! D:
I can’t believe they spelled his name right for once.
How is this list organized? It seems like they randomly wrote names down as it came to them.
It’s a Wiki, so you can just pop in and add a bullet point however you like, assuming you have an account.
This probably was crafted by a small pool of die-hards who dropped a name on the list any time they found out someone existed who made them mad.
It’s specifically Conservapedia. They once tried to make their own translation of the Bible because they thought existing ones were too liberal.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:The_Conservative_Bible_Project
Edit: almost forgot. The guy who runs it is the son of anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly.
I clicked through to their article on Conservapedia because I was curious what they had to say about it and
Conservapedia, also known as “The Trusworthy [sic] Encyclopedia”, is essentially an American-exceptionalist and dominionist group blog, disguised as a half-functioning wiki. The website was created by God-King Andrew Schlafly in 2006 because of his belief that Wikipedia is deceitfully riddled with “liberal bias” and “atheist bias,”[note 1] because apparently the best way to solve real or imagined bias is to create a website that is biased in an opposite way. The vast majority of articles go out of their way to blame pretty much everything negative on “liberals” (which they use as a catch-all snarl term for anyone and everyone who disagrees with them on just about any given issue — which happens to be everyone),
I have to say I find it kind of funny that a site calling itself “RationalWiki” would use language like this. I have my doubts that it is possible to violate Wikipedia’s “encyclopedic tone” guideline any harder.
I wouldn’t be surprised if somewhere in the terms of use for that wiki that they clarify that they are not liable for any trust users put in the articles and the tagline “trustworthy encyclopedia” cannot be enforced
