The term "liberal" is toxic. Liberal's are disliked by "the right" and by progressives. They are truly useless snowflakes that do nothing but virtue signal and sell everything and everyone out that threatens their convenience and comforts.

[–] unexpected@forum.guncadindex.com -4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't think it is toxic, as much as it is almost always misused. Read the following and tell me how many people you know have been using the term correctly.

WIKIPEDIA: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 26 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

For leftists that's exactly who we're talking about when we say liberals. The right to private property and equality and the consent of the governed are logically incompatible. Right liberals (e.g. US Republican party) emphasise the former, and moderate liberals (e.g. US Democratic party) pay lip service to the latter while only actually protecting the former. It's really only about property in the end.

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 1 points 41 minutes ago (1 children)

They are not logically incompatible, but we will have to make clear and specific decisions about where one ends and the other begins.

Unless you are asking me to live in a society where I must share my toothbrush with others because I am not allowed to keep any private property.

I do believe in private property: with modest, reasonable limits. Which we can and will discuss the details of over time, and I understand that will likely become a heated discussion at times, but I believe it is an inevitable and necessary one. Does that disqualify me from being a leftist? Does it make me a liberal too? Let me know.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 37 minutes ago

I'm coming for that toothbrush 😈

[–] frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

I wouldn’t say those three things are inherently logically incompatible, but there would be a lot of grey areas.

The power structure of the federal government doesn’t make it any easier to actually exercise the federal government to accomplish helpful objectives, but making things worse is a relatively easy exercise.

The focus on state level politics seems much more meaningful to actually accomplish any goals, since at least there is not as big of a hurdle where land and money have more power/representation than real people.