I think my definition of the word liberal is the classical usage and yours is the colloquial usage, though. Liberal’s bare definition is “an advocate for human rights, freedoms, and liberties as long as those freedoms do not infringe upon the rights of others.” In practice this is not unregulated capitalism because an unregulated capitalism does not respect individual rights, a democratic state must exist to uphold those rights.
It comes from the Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free person,” from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious.”
Generally, the sort of people I see complaining about LiBruLZ are Tankies: proponents of eastern bloc dictatorships, or Conservatives: proponents of western bloc dictatorships.
The word “neoliberal” is just some bullshit tankies made up so they wouldn’t look so bad while directly opposing human rights, or possibly as an attempt by early 20th century French dudes to oppose laissez faire which already wasn’t largely associated with liberalism outside of France to begin with.
Well, that was just about the most liberal dreck I’ve ever seen.
No, I’m using it the way political philosophers use it, which is to refer to a specific system oriented around capital and individualism (which is why “rights,” refers to access to the pursuit of property) that emerged through European imperialism and settler-colonialism in the modern period.
Neoliberalism is a useful term if you care about all that intellectual (🤮) nonsense though, which you don’t seem to. Unless of course, you’re about to tell me about some amazing scholarship you read to form this opinion of “yours.” I mean, you know the Latin and everything and that’s like, most of the stuff.
Fittingly, you didn’t even care about eugenics in Canada with the exact thing you just advocated for.
The strangest part about this whole diatribe is the assumption that developmental disabilities or neuroatypicality are even hereditary in the first place. Every race has about 1 to 4 in 1,000 for autism with minute variations between, for example.
If anybody here sounds like a eugenicist it’s definitely you.
That all aside for a moment I never even really advocated for assisted suicide, just mentioned that it would fudge suicide numbers.
This is some echochamber shit for real, I don’t even know what this is meant to reference from my comments.
“I’m not a eugenicist because I use ‘race’ and ‘genetics’ synonymously to suggest that autism isn’t hereditary,” is a hyper-level of self-validating reasoning, so much that I’m seriously unsure if this is an AI that just read “eugenics,” and inadvertently plugged the idea that race is like, a natural thing (seriously, I’m surprised phrenology wasn’t referenced). “Disabled,” also doesn’t just mean “autistic,” but at this point who knows what the fuck you think you’re saying.
To anyone else who comes across this, is this a bot?
Right… which is why cancer isn’t hereditary (it often is highly effected by genetics), because all humans can potentially experience it, and as we all know, people are genetically incompatible along the lines of the 12 tribes of Israel.
What the fuck do you actually think you’re saying? I feel like I just came across some like, gestated Facebook conspiracy theory rn.
I do think it’s a bot. My grandmother used to love collecting sources that disputed the hereditary qualities of autism, could you find me a bunch of sources like she used to?
I think my definition of the word liberal is the classical usage and yours is the colloquial usage, though. Liberal’s bare definition is “an advocate for human rights, freedoms, and liberties as long as those freedoms do not infringe upon the rights of others.” In practice this is not unregulated capitalism because an unregulated capitalism does not respect individual rights, a democratic state must exist to uphold those rights.
It comes from the Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free person,” from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious.”
Generally, the sort of people I see complaining about LiBruLZ are Tankies: proponents of eastern bloc dictatorships, or Conservatives: proponents of western bloc dictatorships.
The word “neoliberal” is just some bullshit tankies made up so they wouldn’t look so bad while directly opposing human rights, or possibly as an attempt by early 20th century French dudes to oppose laissez faire which already wasn’t largely associated with liberalism outside of France to begin with.
Well, that was just about the most liberal dreck I’ve ever seen.
No, I’m using it the way political philosophers use it, which is to refer to a specific system oriented around capital and individualism (which is why “rights,” refers to access to the pursuit of property) that emerged through European imperialism and settler-colonialism in the modern period.
Neoliberalism is a useful term if you care about all that intellectual (🤮) nonsense though, which you don’t seem to. Unless of course, you’re about to tell me about some amazing scholarship you read to form this opinion of “yours.” I mean, you know the Latin and everything and that’s like, most of the stuff.
Fittingly, you didn’t even care about eugenics in Canada with the exact thing you just advocated for.
The strangest part about this whole diatribe is the assumption that developmental disabilities or neuroatypicality are even hereditary in the first place. Every race has about 1 to 4 in 1,000 for autism with minute variations between, for example.
If anybody here sounds like a eugenicist it’s definitely you.
That all aside for a moment I never even really advocated for assisted suicide, just mentioned that it would fudge suicide numbers.
This is some echochamber shit for real, I don’t even know what this is meant to reference from my comments.
“I’m not a eugenicist because I use ‘race’ and ‘genetics’ synonymously to suggest that autism isn’t hereditary,” is a hyper-level of self-validating reasoning, so much that I’m seriously unsure if this is an AI that just read “eugenics,” and inadvertently plugged the idea that race is like, a natural thing (seriously, I’m surprised phrenology wasn’t referenced). “Disabled,” also doesn’t just mean “autistic,” but at this point who knows what the fuck you think you’re saying.
To anyone else who comes across this, is this a bot?
If you don’t see how its prevalance across every race defeats the notion of it targeting a specific or distinct genetic group then you’re an idiot.
Right… which is why cancer isn’t hereditary (it often is highly effected by genetics), because all humans can potentially experience it, and as we all know, people are genetically incompatible along the lines of the 12 tribes of Israel.
What the fuck do you actually think you’re saying? I feel like I just came across some like, gestated Facebook conspiracy theory rn.
The fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to lose a Nike Contract, Kanye? 12 tribes, pfft, turtles all the way down I bet.
I do think it’s a bot. My grandmother used to love collecting sources that disputed the hereditary qualities of autism, could you find me a bunch of sources like she used to?