I'm honestly kind of confused about american liberals digging their heals in on this definition when it has historically been taken to mean something they don't seem to agree with anymore.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

'Liberal' has an actual definition with a history.

The word "awful" has an actual definition with a history too. That history starts with it meaning "full of awe"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/awful

Word usage and definitions change over time. If you know people use a word differently then you need to at least explain the definition you are using or you're just going to confuse or alienate people who understand the word differently.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 6 months ago

I'll happily state my case for whatever usage I'm adopting, and ask for clarification when I suspect someone is operating on a different one, but I don't see any case to be made for the vague american label when discussing anything beyond american electoral politics - for the same reason i'm happy to jab at the usage in the same context, because it's the assumption of neutrality it asserts that I take issue with and am calling attention to.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I’m honestly kind of confused about american liberals digging their heals in on this definition when it has historically been taken to mean something they don’t seem to agree with anymore.

Because regardless of history or whatever, the definition were giving you is how the 300 million Americans who actually use the term define liberal. Doesn't matter what you or I think, if we want to have effective communication we need to use words as they are used. I really don't feel like dying on that particular hill.

I made my stand with "literally", I'm not wasting effort on holding fast to a Eurocentric definition of liberal.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Doesn’t matter what you or I think, if we want to have effective communication we need to use words as they are used.

I don't actually disagree with you, I just find it frustrating trying to use a more precise meaning to make a point and being met with resistance. I think a part of the problem is that leftists are trying to point at a distinction that exists within the overbroad american-liberal label that separates leftism proper and center-right democratic institutions, and i feel as if some centrists don't enjoy the discomfort of being singled out from the more progressive side of the caucus. I could be wrong, and I don't really care if I am, but I think it's important to acknowledge the tensions and to try not to erase the diversity of ideology that exists within the 'liberal party'.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think Leftists are trying to play up those tensions more than they truly exist, and some of the smarter ones are specifically exploiting the difference in terminology to do so. "Liberals", in the US, are actually quite left wing (outside of the "anyone right of Lenin is literally Hitler" lemmy bubble). But by associating US liberals with European economic liberals, it muddies the water and allows for a ton of motte-and-bailey style arguments.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

“Liberals”, in the US, are actually quite left wing (outside of the “anyone right of Lenin is literally Hitler” lemmy bubble).

Even with whatever scale you're using to make that statement, there is still a distinct ideological divide between socialists/anarchists/communists and modern democrats. A centrist may fundamentally agree with the central tenets of liberalism (the right to property being the biggest point of disagreement), even if they ostensibly agree with many (if not most) progressive issues. Most people wouldn't notice those differences because they result in the same types of value statements, but leftists see them in high contrast because liberals will cater their policy decisions around preserving liberal institutions (e.g. the right of private property, small businesses, market-based financial instruments, ect).

But by associating US liberals with European economic liberals, it muddies the water and allows for a ton of motte-and-bailey style arguments.

I don't think it muddies the water at all, I think it precisely identifies the point of disagreement. I'm also not even sure what 'motte-and-bailey' arguments you could be talking about, let alone having seen one in practice.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

As I said

outside of the “anyone right of Lenin is literally Hitler” lemmy bubble

Bailey: Democrats are right-wing

Motte: Democrats are liberals, and liberals are right wing

Establishing that "liberal" = right wing allows for a motte they can retreat to whenever someone clues in that they're trying to say Democrats are the opposite of what they actually are

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Far be it from me to point out you're doing exactly the kind of disingenuous re-framing you're accusing others of by excluding those to the left of you as fringe. Yes, American liberals are 'left-leaning' compared to conservatives (on exactly the same arbitrary binary scale that is being critiqued by the comparison), but they still share core elements of classical liberalism, particularly by the emphasis on protecting liberal institutions like private property and market-based mechanisms. This isn't about muddying the waters—it's about acknowledging the nuance in political ideologies. There's real divide between those who support these liberal institutions and those who aim to dismantle them. It doesn't matter if you think that perspective is fringe - the distinction being made is still there. We're pointing to a genuine ideological distinction, not just retreating to safer rhetorical grounds.

People making the liberal comparison aren't trying to place you on a political binary, they're trying to point to a distinction that you're actively trying to erase or dismiss.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They're pointing to a distinction that no one cares about (except the fringe - yes, fringe - Leftists who want to abolish private property) and using that as a platform to imply or outright say false things about American liberals.

Very similar to the above example.

Motte: I, a Leftist, am criticizing the liberal support of private property, that's all

Bailey: liberals also support fascism/colonialism/laissez-faire capitalism/insert Republican ideology here therefore Democrats support fascism/colonialism/laissez-faire capitalism/insert Republican ideology here

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Jesus, I can't keep having this argument with you. I will accept "Leftists who want to abolish private property [are fringe]" as an acceptance of the assertion that American Liberals share all or most of the central ideological tenants of Classical Liberalism.

liberals also support fascism/colonialism/laissez-faire capitalism/insert Republican ideology here therefore Democrats support fascism/colonialism/laissez-faire capitalism/insert Republican ideology here

LMAO, nobody is saying american liberals support any of those things on the basis of their liberal ideology. I'm not even sure you understand what a motte-and-bailey is, those two arguments don't follow.