Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.

  • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s been defined that way since long before Americans adopted their lexicon of liberal = Democrat-adjascent. And it’s used internationally the way we use it here.

    • JohnDClay
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay cool. So Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism aren’t liberal by the international general definition?

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        limited or unlimited socialism

        Welfare is not socialism. Social safety nets are not socialism. You’ve been duped by a misuse of the word.

        These are policies that socialists like because they improve people’s lives. They are not socialism itself.

      • Sephitard9001 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Literally how in the fucking world could you arrive at this conclusion

        Not one bit of this question makes sense.

        1. Democrats have never advocated for socialism. I don’t even think Bernie Sanders has actually advocated for socialism.

        2. Liberal in America doesn’t mean socialist or even socialist adjacent. If you zoom out to include a “international general definition”, even less so. Liberalism is in direct opposition to Socialism. Both ideologies organize society in mutually exclusive ways. This is like telling somebody you believe in Cat-Mouseism. It makes no fucking sense