696
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
696 points (99.3% liked)
News
23600 readers
3835 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And yet you have prominent Liberal Governors like Newsom telling cities they can't have state funding if they don't go after the homeless.
The conservatives aren't doing this on their own, not in deep blue regions. You can't just hand waive away the Democrats doing this.
Sorry but you got a shit take on the situation. I have worked on a homeless task force for years. Guess who wants to solve the problem and who wants to send it away.
Are we all to blame for homelessness to some degree. Probably. Are the liberals the same or even close to as cruel as conservatives, fuck no.
While blaming sides may seem a weak move to you. Take it from someone who is still fighting the fight for homeless rights. You can't compare the two and your just coming across as disingenuous.
Oh and thanks for the laugh about Newsom being a liberal governor. By any measure he is the most moderate liberal around. Hell his election slogan was fucking social liberal fiscal watchdog. He openly admits capital is just as important as human rights.
What do you think a liberal is? I didn't claim he was progressive or anything leftist.
I'm sitting here watching city council after city council enact homeless bans after the SCOTUS ruling, no matter who they say they are. And I'm supposed to take your word that special, far enough left, Democrats don't support this? No. I'm not going to ignore the evidence right in front of my eyes. What's happening on homelessness in this country is disgusting.
And if I'm coming across as disingenuous, what must you be with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy towards anti-homeless Democrats?
You guys are arguing semantics. This is a conservative vs. progressive situation (which you both seem to agree on) and the Dem party is overrun with conservatives (neoliberals).
We should stop referring to Dems and "liberals" and instead refer to conservatives or progressives. The two of you agree substantially on this topic and are effectively arguing about flavors of conservative at this point.
Liberals and conservatives absolutely have different ideologies. People won't stop voting for liberals until we correctly assign blame to them rather than pass it off as a conservative thing.
Well if the liberals consider you a moderate then perhaps that is saying something. I think we can agree he is a poor example.
You can believe whatever you want. You are clearly passionate about this topic which is good. Look at the people in communities pushing for this. It is always the business every time and the solution is to always push them out.
You need to turn your anger towards those that are causing the problem. Your arguments the liberals are either A complacent or B accomplices both have some truth to them. This isn't the problem though.
At the end of the day the voters are the problem. We didn't show up with signs and fire them at the next election. Maybe this is the wake up call this issue needed
True. If the voters demand real progressives (instead of the conservative neoliberal business-class insiders the Dems always run) the party might actually become progressive.
This is a great example of a neoliberal being a conservative. Newsom is a neoliberal. Neoliberals are conservatives who pander to progressives to get votes. They work for the business class, not the human class.
The Dem party is dominated by neoliberals. There are a few progressives in the party as well, but they are marginalized by the neoliberals.
Please stop making up definitions for words that already have them. Liberalism has always been pro capitalist. Neo liberal specifically refers to complete deregulation of the market, abolishing the income tax, and getting rid of social welfare programs like SSI and Medicare.
You first make the above condescending statement, then immediately follow it up by describing right-libertarianism, thus making up a definition for a word that already has that description.
Modern neoliberals are not so extreme as to advocate for the total abolishment of fundamental social safety nets as you suggest. Instead, they are much more diabolical. They pretend to support such programs just enough to attract the socially progressive vote. They frequently hold a platform of "reforming" such programs to lower their costs. Once elected, the modern neoliberal gently strangles those programs to allow them to lower corporate taxes or provide benefits to the business class in exchange for their financial support. Some examples of modern American neoliberals are Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
So how 'bout you stop making up definitions for words that already have them? We don't have to debate fucking minutia and semantics at the expense of destroying our actual common enemies. Instead of being condescending to one another, why don't we try working together for a fucking change? I can see why the French started killing each other when they ran out of elites. I am fucking bloodthirsty right now and arguing stupid shit with people on my own team is a waste of both of our resources.
No. Just no.
They share a couple goals. They are not the same thing. And if you want to describe Neo Liberalism so broadly as to mean all American politicians who aren't Socialist then you're just spreading misinformation at that point. Usually this is some stupid take from tankies.
Go look it up. Because Maggoty class time is over. I've spent enough time today on this already.
Okay. Below are some links to sources to support my characterization of neoliberalism and my specific assertion that Clinton and Reagan are thought of as neoliberals in modern American politics.
Now, can you provide any evidence of your assertion that
Because I looked it up like you suggested, and I'm not seeing any evidence to support your claim.
Looks like maybe class is still in session for Maggoty. Please feel free to educate me. I may not be very smart, but I am curious and open to learn some of that Maggoty nuance you like to try to bully people with.
REAGAN AND NEOLIBERALISM
What is neoliberalism? A political scientist explains the use and evolution of the term
Neoliberalism from Reagan to Clinton
Ronald Reagan Was a Proud Neoliberal
First-wave neoliberalism in the 1980s: Reaganomics and Thatcherism
BILL CLINTON WAS A NEOLIBERAL
How Bill Clinton Became a Neoliberal
Bill Clinton Did More to Sell Neoliberalism than Milton Friedman
How the Third Way Made Neoliberal Politics Seem Inevitable
MODERN DEMOCRAT PARTY IS HIGHLY NEOLIBERAL
Democrats and Neoliberalism
How the Democrats Traded the New Deal for Neoliberalism
And not a goddamn .edu among them. Thank you for illustrating the problem. It's literally available for free. Have fun reading, they have one about normal liberals too.
Thanks for the link. Your own source absolutely destroys your case for you. Below is an excerpt. Notice how it is precisely the opposite of your description of neoliberalism.
You know we can all read that in context through the link right?
Yes! That's the best part about all of this! The entire paper paints you as a liar.
Why are you so hell-bent on creating wedges within the left on Lemmy? It's very weird.
Sure thing buddy.