However I find myself being disagreed with quite often, mostly for not advocating or cheering violence, “by any means possible” change, or revolutionary tactics. It would seem that I’m not viewed as authentically holding my view unless I advocate extreme, violent, or radical action to accomplish it.

Those seem like two different things to me.

Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY

THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Question: do you consider yourself a liberal?

    Got this from queermunist earlier. Didn’t understand why the question was asked. I answered “Yes” though it seemed like a gotcha, but I don’t know what was going on there. I used the words I wanted to use.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      So, this is a very complex topic I don’t have the time to give the treatment it deserves, but to try to give a very summarized historical viewpoint on it -

      Liberalism was a set of ideas that cohered around the 18th century as a reaction to monarchism that emphasized universal civil rights and free markets (there were a ton of weird things going on with noble privileges and state monopolies issued by royal administrations and mercantile economics this was a response to)

      Socialism was a set of ideas that cohered around the 19th century as a reaction to liberalism (and the whole industrial revolution) that said universal civil rights didn’t go far enough and we needed to establish universal economic rights. Some socialists think the only way to achieve these things is by overthrowing or limiting the power of governments and ripping up contracts between private parties, which liberals tend not to like.

      Progressivism was (sort of, I’m being very reductive here) an attempted synthesis of these traditions that cohered around the early 20th century, and (essentially) argued “ok, free markets but restricted by regulations (e.g. you can’t sell snake oil, you can’t condition the sale of property on the purchaser being a specific race), and open elections for whoever the voters want but with restrictions on the kinda of laws that can be passed” (e.g. no poll taxes).

      Like I said, I’m simplifying a lot here and I’d encourage reading Wikipedia pages and other sources on all of these things (like, I’m eliding a whole very dark history progressives have where their attempts to perfect society had them advocating for eugenics and segregation early on because there was academic support for those ideas at the time, and there’s a lot more to be said on how a lot of the first anti-racist voices were socialist ones and why it took progressives and liberals time to get on the right side of that issue, and how fights for colonial independence tended to be led by socialists and against liberals), but the fact that liberals progressives and socialists are all ostensibly “on the left” is a big cause of the infighting we see.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Get outta here with your detailed informative answers

        We’re supposed to be having a big partisan argument about who is the poopy head in this sandbox

        • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Lol, yeah, I’m really good at being nuanced and understanding right up until somebody starts talking about a person or subject that hits one of my angry buttons, and then I’m all “Bill Clinton will pay for his many crimes when the revolutionary vanguard takes power!”

          But, yeah, when I’m not pissed beyond reason the thought I keep coming back to is that we all need each other to keep fascism at bay

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Here’s a fun exercise: Ask queermunist what they think of some left wing issue that isn’t something that would be a good talking point for an outside adversary of the left to use to destabilize it, or make it lose.

      They’re very vocal about wanting the left to use violence. They’re very vocal about wanting people not to vote for Biden. Foreign policy in Central and South America? Justice for farm workers? Prison reform? Fuck all that shit, let’s talk about some guns.

      Idk, now that I have given the game away they may have a different reaction. 🙂 But that was my experience when I asked about it, and I made from that an inference about them and some other parts of the Lemmy left that may form a good potential answer to the original question you were asking.

      • MarciaLynnDorsett@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        how about you don’t engage in bad faith red herrings? instead, you could address the points other people raise in their comments.

        this is some smug, manipulative bullshit.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          This was literally a conversation I had with queermunist (I am almost sure; it was a while ago but I am fairly confident that was the other participant when I had the exchange). I’m just filling OP in on the content and recommending they try to experiment themselves, because I think it’s an extremely relevant contribution to OP’s understanding of the answer to their question.

          smug

          Dude I am King Smug; it is 100% fair

          manipulative bullshit

          Not really

          • MarciaLynnDorsett@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            it is manipulative. it is designed to distract from the subject at hand and imply that the person being asked is acting in bad faith if they don’t chase your red herring.

            • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yeah that was how the person reacted when I asked it that other time, too. Like HOW DARE YOU ASK ME ABOUT MY BELIEFS, THAT IS A DIRTY TRICK

              I found it very notable, too, that perfectly normal reaction. Not like “why is Central America relevant to this lol” but “how dare you”