It isn't the definition of the world. It is however, similar to those who call themselves liberal in our country.
Liberals want more control and limitations on citizens. Fascism does.
Liberals want control and limitations on religion. Fascism does.
Liberals want controls on citizens from defending themselves. Fascism does.
Liberals want force companies to work for the 'good of society' (which is defined arbitrarily by liberals). So does Fascism.
Liberals want to define the citizens of the country through a class-system, and then force them to co-operating (with an arbitrary definition of what co-operation is). So does Fascism.
Liberals want to control the media (such as silencing Fox News, and the infamous 'hush Rush' law). So does Fascism.
The differences between the modern American "liberal" and Fascism, are greatly out numbered and out weighed by their similarities.
This is so true, that if you take some of the early speeches by Hitler, and edit out references to Jews, the entire speech reads like a Bernie Sanders campaign stop. He could almost read them verbatim.
EVERY SINGLE ONE of your premises here is a strawman, and every single one is false. All you'vé done is basically described fascism twice.
Give me a list of names, of people you would call "liberal", who do not fit that description?
No.
I don't hang labels on people.
Actions may be described as "Liberal" --- not
people.
People are individuals, with free will. We will not find a human being that fits a consistent label on literally everything, nor should we look for one, because -- again -- that's just hanging labels. Which is a useless wank. Actions speak louder than labels.
So you have never, at any point on this entire forum, hanged a label on anyone?
Not that I know of, no. Feel free to search sixty thousand posts.
Being a conservative does not equate to being a racist -- but being a racist does require being a conservative. The racist segment of the South bolted from the DP because it wasn't conservative enough, and they finally got over their emotional basis to admit that. Simple as that.
I see a couple of labels there.
But oddly, even your post seems contradictory. Actions speak louder than labels, and yet when you hang the label on the action.... it's still a label.
That said, you have effectively removed yourself from the discussion.
Actually what I did was dismissed the "discussion" itself, since it's invalid.
To reiterate, humans are not labels. Person X may be a Liberal on this issue and a Conservative on that one. And poof --- there goes your label. Labels require binary thinking. On-off switches. As if Person Y has their "Liberal" switch turned off and their "conservative" switch turned on. That's not how humans work, at all, and I reject it out of hand as inherently invalid, which is why I don't use them.
In fact while you're searching those sixty thousand posts you'll find sixty thousand more of other people's that I didn't click an "agree" on, on a point I otherwise do agree, simply because they commit that very fallacy.
We, as in the rest of us on this thread, are talking about the application of the label "Liberal" as it is being practically used in modern US politics.
You, are referring only to your own literal definition of the word Liberal. I get that. You have a perfectly valid view.
But the fact is, the vast majority of this country accepts the current modern political definition of a Liberal. So effectively, you have removed yourself from the mainstream of our entire society, and the accepted political definitions.
Nope. That definition is invalid, as it cannot be rendered without self-contradiction. A term
cannot mean the opposite of itself, period. And we're back where we started again.
If X number of people, certainly including the OP, are misusing a term they clearly do not understand, then their arguments using that term are invalid. I've challenged Buttsoiler literally dozens of times in this thread alone, including my last post, to demonstrate how his particular example has anything in the world to do with "Liberalism". He won't answer, because he can't do it. And he can't do it because it doesn't work.
The fucked-up element comes in where he just goes on with the same fallacy again over and over, expecting different results. Or as the maxim puts it, "when the known facts change, I change my mind. What do
you do sir?"
If you say that you are Liberal, and support reduced restrictions and regulations on banks, which would be in fact the dictionary definition of what a Liberal should stand for.... you would be banned, and laughed at, by any self-proclaimed liberal organization in the entire country.
The operative adjective here is "self-proclaimed". If one claims a label, and one's actions do not reflect that label, then one's claim is simply --- WRONG. Is that hard to comprehend? Does everyone who proclaims him/herself to be something automatically enjoy infallibility? That's absurd.
The entire country, does not follow your dictionary definition of Liberal. No one here has argued that liberal doesn't mean to liberalize. No one has argued to change the meaning of the word.
Link to this poll of "the entire country" please?
Only that in politics, liberals are the opposite of 'liberal'. You say, then they are not liberal. Great. Convince the millions of people throughout this country, that they are all ignorant and wrong. I applaud whatever effort you put into that.
Thank you. NOW you get it.
And you also demonstrate yet again the point I've made over and over, quote:
"liberals are the opposite of liberal"
-- which is a paradox. A term cannot mean the opposite of itself. Can't be done.
EITHER your example people are
not Liberals but
are the opposite, OR they
are Liberals and are
not the opposite. They
cannot be both. This is head-bangingly elementary.
My experience is, that's a losing battle. So instead I just tell them how dumb their ideas and policies are, and skip arguing about what "liberal" means.
See the post above. See if you can provide his answer for him. If you can't, then you have your answer about what I'm doing.
