When did "Liberal" become a bad word?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we band around this term 'free' a lot, but are these things really all that 'free'?;)

This is it: you'd swear some people had never heard of taxes before.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Billy86 wrote: »

It's been covered many, many times - the alt-right is a rebranding of white supremacism, the founder of which is banned from all of Schengen on account of his organising neo Nazi rallies in Hungary. The rebranding was initially successful and until their masks kept slipping.

'The right' are conservatives of all forms, which would include the alt-right as a subset (just as groups like communists would be a subset of 'the left'). It's pretty basic stuff.

The alt right was not in fact originally white nationalist, although Richard Spencer did claim it. It’s a title imposed on a group of beliefs rather than any kind of self describing movement. Basically people on twitter who mocked the left. There were many beliefs in there.

Back to the modern use of liberal - I’d prefer (and tend to use) Americanist left for the US identity politics nonsense lately imported into these fair shores, although it’s an unwieldy term for sure.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This is it: you'd swear some people had never heard of taxes before.

If It’s free for the user of the service it can be called free . He may or may not pay for it in taxes.

WinnyThePoo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The alt right was not in fact originally white nationalist, although Richard Spencer did claim it. It’s a title imposed on a group of beliefs rather than any kind of self describing movement. Basically people on twitter who mocked the left. There were many beliefs in there.

Back to the modern use of liberal - I’d prefer (and tend to use) Americanist left for the US identity politics nonsense lately imported into these fair shores, although it’s an unwieldy term for sure.

I think you should read up on the origins of the alt right. White nationalism was there from the start. White nationalism is not about mocking the left. Its identity politics funnily enough

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

If It’s free for the user of the service it can be called free . He may or may not pay for it in taxes.

To the user, yes.

But if people want free education or free health care, the government has to find some way to fund it, which would most likely mean taxes.

The same argeument is true in reverse: if you claim that health care should not be free and you don't think taxes should be increase to pay for it, you're still going to pay for it in the form of health insurance.

No such thing as a free lunch, as they say.

Taytoland

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

If It’s free for the user of the service it can be called free . He may or may not pay for it in taxes.

To the user, yes.

But if people want free education or free health care, the government has to find some way to fund it, which would most likely mean taxes.

The same argeument is true in reverse: if you claim that health care should not be free and you don't think taxes should be increase to pay for it, you're still going to pay for it in the form of health insurance.

No such thing as a free lunch, as they say.

It amazes me how people just use the word free. So people automatically assume someone somewhere is working for free? It's crazy. If you are doing a job, you get paid for it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Taytoland wrote: »

It amazes me how people just use the word free. So people automatically assume someone somewhere is working for free? It's crazy. If you are doing a job, you get paid for it.

No idea what that means. If I get a free meal in a local restaurant because I’m the 100,000th customer then it’s free to me. I can legitimately call it free. Regardless of the cost to the proprieter.

Anyway we are off topic.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I think your argument more depends on distance; i.e. how far one os left or right.

When you say bring up censorship, identity labels and unequal social hierarchies" this is more strong political group that could be either conservative or liberal, without actually defining a either group.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Liberal does not mean authoritarian or identity politics.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Umm.... you're the one who initally made the point that liberal DOES mean those things, so YOU have to explain that argument first. It's not possible to counter a point that hasn't been referenced in the first place.

It's the same logic as asking an athiest to prove God doesn't exist.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Burden of proof doesn't shift until you actually make the effort to prove something. I can't disprove your thinking until I know what it is.

A defence can deny something, but it can't counter a case until it knows what the case against it actually is - this is why plaintiffs go first in court.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Not what I asked for. I asked what YOU meant and what YOU considered when you said it. Not various political theses. Couple of sentences would have done it just to let me know what, specifcialy I was countering.

But seeing as there's nothing for me to counter and you're going to act like the pigeon on the rhetorical chessboard and, as you say, it;s been a long Sunday, I guess we're done here.

I leave you the last word, I'm guessing it's not going to be debatebale point. PM if it is, I won't see it otherwise.

voz es

Liberal had became misused, there was an agressive loud organised agenda to lable any disagreement as anti liberal in some recent campaigns.
Here is a hypothetical example, say a media and governmental alligance to push through an agenda on say for instance the right to murder and aimed the debate around it being a liberal thing to have the right to murder as people should have a choice to murder if they wanted. You still have somebody getting murdered like but that would be irrelevant because only those with a real wish for the choice can be heard as the people at risk of murder would not have a clue. So you have only one voice which is loud and claiming anybody who is in disagreement is anti liberal.
So basically is has been diluted vulgarised in order to push a social agenda.
For me it is still a beautiful word, i think of Liberation as an emerging freedom from an unjust.