You make it clear with your audience that you’re talking about the “liberal” in the economic sense and not “liberal” in the philosophical sense.
Liberalism as a philosophy is connected to the economic structure? Are you referring to a different philosophy and calling it liberal?
From a philosophical perspective is the difference between being pro changes (liberal) vs being against changes (conservative)
Okay, yes, you are. Liberalism is literally the status quo.
in this sense you could say there are conservative communists (want to follow Marx’s philosophy to the letter) and liberal communists (believe in the basic principles but feel some things need to be adjusted)
You literally can’t be a marxist and take Marx as dogma. Marxism is a process based ideology.
No it doesn’t because, you just have to specify what you mean because the word has multiple definitions and in OP’s example it’s the definition I’ve provided that’s being used and you should have known because of the context (liberalism as opposed to conservatism).
Of course the word has multiple definitions, that definition just obscures the shit out of everything and isn’t very useful. It literally obscures that conservatives are also liberals (in the more meaningful sense) and obscures the difference between left and liberal.
First of all, I already answered that question many times and second of all, you calling it a “nonsense” definition shows that you’re just arguing in bad faith because you’re not ready to accept that you just didn’t know that the word has multiple definitions depending on context.
But I’m glad we are the point of the pigeon shitting all over the board and flying away, if that is how you insist on acting.
you’re just arguing in bad faith because you’re not ready to accept that you just didn’t know that the word has multiple definitions depending on context.
Do you think anyone born in the US doesn’t know the most common definition? The rejection of it is because it is a bad definition that serves to obscure how politics actually functions. I also literally reference this, but you insist that I dont know that words can have multiple meanings. Who is arguing in bad faith?
Liberalism as a philosophy is connected to the economic structure? Are you referring to a different philosophy and calling it liberal?
Okay, yes, you are. Liberalism is literally the status quo.
You literally can’t be a marxist and take Marx as dogma. Marxism is a process based ideology.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal
There, maybe you’ll manage to understand if we dumb it down for you 🙂
The issue is that your definition is “dumbed down” to the point that it loses utility when discussing politics and conceals cultural hegemony.
No it doesn’t because, you just have to specify what you mean because the word has multiple definitions and in OP’s example it’s the definition I’ve provided that’s being used and you should have known because of the context (liberalism as opposed to conservatism).
Of course the word has multiple definitions, that definition just obscures the shit out of everything and isn’t very useful. It literally obscures that conservatives are also liberals (in the more meaningful sense) and obscures the difference between left and liberal.
It literally obscures that conservatives are also liberals (in the more meaningful sense) and obscures the difference between left and liberal.Only if you use another definition of the word.
How do you talk about liberal hegemony (marxist definition) while using the nonsense definition in a non-bulky way?
First of all, I already answered that question many times and second of all, you calling it a “nonsense” definition shows that you’re just arguing in bad faith because you’re not ready to accept that you just didn’t know that the word has multiple definitions depending on context.
Good night.
No, no you haven’t, you’ve just been smug.
But I’m glad we are the point of the pigeon shitting all over the board and flying away, if that is how you insist on acting.
Do you think anyone born in the US doesn’t know the most common definition? The rejection of it is because it is a bad definition that serves to obscure how politics actually functions. I also literally reference this, but you insist that I dont know that words can have multiple meanings. Who is arguing in bad faith?