You're viewing a single thread.
Why did they photoshop the miserable Mitt Romney dinner picture
Oh my, his anguished face. This is a work of art.
because that, without context, might make someone feel sympathy for one of these ghouls.
But surely there are enough pictures out there of those ghouls together that you don't need to create fake ones. There's enough misinformation on the internet as it is.
even if there wasn't any misinformations on the internet, you still wouldn't need to create new ones.
libs don't give a shit about truth. they literally can't understand the idea. telling a liberal the truth is like reading poetry to your dog. it's a sweet romantic idea, and maybe it makes you a good person, but only the tone actually matters.
i guess you're wrong about that. what you're referring to is the fallacy that all liberals are extremely short-sighted and can't make reasonable decisions, which is why they're constantly manipulated and that causes them to be liberal in the first place.
there are liberals who can see reason.
if they could see reason in 2025, they wouldn't be liberals anymore, I don't think. the only thing liberalism ever had going for it was a big tent that could at least get its distasteful monkey paw version of good things done, and now they don't even want to do that.
lemmy has convinced me that neither conservatives nor communists know what a liberal is.
life has convinced me that liberals certainly don't. I guess if we're both right, only we anarchists can see the truth. as if my ego needed that.
Here's a work going through every major liberal philosopher and what liberalism meant to them, and how they dealt with the contradictions. It's the same definition used in every serious work for the last 200 years or so.
This confuses a lot of Americans whose political understanding is largely dictated by cable news, because since 1980 or so, conservatives started using liberal to mean "far left" as a pejorative due to Reagan calling Carter's policy too liberal. Later on, the American "left", social democrats, started using it to mean the same thing, but in a positive context.
I'll read that, but not today. For the sake of responding within the current month, I had chatgpt summarize it for me. The gist I get is that "liberalism" is a lie, and it's secretly fascism (I'm paraphrasing the summary pretty hard), benefiting the in-groups and oppressing everyone else. Would you say this is an accurate, if oversimplified, description of what you want me to understand?
Not really, it's more that liberalism contains contradictions between various freedoms it supports, and even contradictions between how the same "freedom" is practiced by different groups, and when those contradictions become unsustainable, the right to property by the dominant group always takes precedence.
It's important to understand any political philosophy as not an idea floating in a vacuum but as a social tool used by a group in society; liberalism is the philosophy the bourgeoisie use to justify their power.
I mean kinda since fascism is a tool used to buttress capitalism when it's own contradictions become unsustainable, but that's not really in the book.
chatgpt's summary didn't compare liberalism to fascism, I made that comparison myself based on what I read.
I wouldn't say that's entirely wrong, fascism being a failure mode of liberalism. The phrase "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" or Trotsky's "Not every exasperated petite bourgeois could have become Hitler, but a particle of Hitler is lodged in every exasperated petite bourgeois" come to mind.