If there’s nobody fashionable doing anything right, then there’s nobody to follow who’s doing anything right. Therefore the whole world is gearing up for the apocalypse instead of bothering to take the simple steps that would prevent it. We get Elon Musk instead of another Tesla, who died penniless and robbed of his legacy. The apocalypse becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The world gets worse because no one is trying to make it better.
A world populated by nothing more than gorillas is a waste.
What do you mean no one is trying to make it better?
You’re guilty of what you’re accusing others of.
Elon Musk has virtually no influence on your life other than being a famous person.
Why don’t you start following the Nobel Prize winners? Why don’t you start following the people who are actively involved in politics or humanitarian projects?
You sit there and judge the world and the people in it becuse you are too lazy to actually move your head away from the trough of social media.
You think anything is going to stop the masses from indulging in convenience, instant gratification, and dopamine rushes when there’s no incentive in their eyes to do anything else? Who do you think are behind the companies which promote such behavior for their own gains? It’s working as designed and the average person cannot get their heads around it long enough to care.
“what can I do?”
Hopefully the strikes and protests around wages become more frequent. The only place to fight the greedy is by affecting their profit margins.
LGBT rights, cannabis legalization, and certain disability rights are the big ones. Particularly the last one IMO - Europe is not great about having wheelchair ramps.
Overall I agree that the EU does tend to be more politically progressive, but the idea that it is a complete wash in either direction is pretty misleading.
I keep saying this to my friends but no one believes me. We talk about moving out of the country to look for a better place, but as a queer person there’s really no place better than the US and that’s saying something. It’s not even good here but it’s better than most places.
I’m afraid you’re under some serious misconceptions. Both my kids are trans, so this is something near to my heart. The US doesn’t even get listed in the top 10.
I’m trans too, but my experiences in other countries did not leave me with a good taste in my mouth. Maybe I just didn’t find the right circles, but people here are a lot more “live your life” than in certain other places. The nail that sticks out will be hammered down, and all.
That’s not to say the us is good for trans people, it’s not. Where did you/your kids have good experiences?
I have no clue what rights LGBT people want, but cannabis is legal in many EU countries, and even if it’s illegal then usually selling and growing is illegal while consumption is ok. Not sure about disability rights as well, but we usually have free medicine here, so I’m not sure what you mean at all. Ramps might be as common as in the US, but you can usually arrange an assistant who will either push you to your destination and even drive you around for free. I also know a few Americans who moved to the UK specifically because they can’t afford treatment for chronic diseases and will die in the US.
That’s sad to hear. I have heard that our left wing politics are pretty much on the same spectrum as European right wing politics. That makes our right wing politics way farther right… Basically fascists / Nazis, which makes sense considering the insurrection and the fact that Donald Trump may get elected again 🤮🤮🤮
Edit: I probably look like a communist compared to the right wing here in USA.
It comes also from the word’s meaning shifting over time. I stopped calling myself liberal and started calling myself leftist. It slaps harder and lets people know where I stand.
So you’re a typical liberal who both doesn’t like being called liberal, because the mean old Republicans keep using it as an insult, and doesn’t know what the terms mean, having mostly arrived at your the political beliefs by being born in a liberal society and going with the flow.
A leftist is a socialist. Even under American terminology. You are a lefty under American standards, but that’s just not the same thing.
You are lying. Her policies are in alignment with the definition of conservative by more than 30 of the the globe’s 40 developed nations. Most of her fiscal policies are aligned with Reagan’s.
The Overton window in the U.S. has shifted so far right, that anyone slightly left of fascist is considered a “liberal” by conservatives.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Never, ever trust the word of a conservative. Never.
Yep, and she also had to adopt Bernie’s entire rhetorical platform verbatim by the second debate because she was getting absolutely murdered in the polls.
It was great when she asked "Where was Bernie when I was fighting for this" and they found a picture of him standing right behind her at a press conference in the 90s.
Trump also ran on healthcare reform. So, what’s your point?
He called it “Repeal and Replace”. He swore he would put “the greatest health care system ever” in place. Just like every other conservative, he lied. He did nothing.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.
It lets democrats know they can’t just get away with being and inch left of Republicans, because they way shit is now they’re just gonna go as far right as they possibly can because it’s more profitable and doesn’t cost enough votes to not be worth it
We have fascism because of democrats sliding farther right along with republicans. We sure as fuck can’t just keep letting shit get worse forever and ever, unless you think that waiting until liberals are right of Hitler is preferable to not letting that happen?
And you want to keep voting for the people slowly turning into fascists until there’s no nonviolent way out. Seriously, what way out is there when democrats are trying to go as far right as they can? Are we just supposed to wait until shit is unfixable to try and make a stand against them?
Edited because what I said in my original comment was completely uncalled for, and I’m sorry for saying it
Fascism is unavoidable. We can let democrats know that we won’t let them perpetrate it, or we can VBNMH and let them know they can do literally anything and still get votes
It’s the only thing I can think of that might, other than a revolution that’ll never happen because Americans will let anything happen as long as they feel comfortable enough. Do you have a better idea?
So what’s the play? Democrats aren’t gonna magically start going left, and a revolution isn’t happening, so how do we stop dems from going farther and farther right?
I did answer, you didn’t. A revolution can’t happen here without things going completely to shit (or republicans will revolt because things aren’t shitty enough), and even then I doubt it’ll happen. So tell me, what’s the play? Keep voting for democrats until they magically start moving left against their own best interests?
My solution is that I vote for democrats locally and in bigger elections when they run against far right republicans (sadly that’s usually what happens, especially in the south), and don’t when they’re not running against horrible people and/or aren’t likely to lose. I just can’t stand people acting like criticizing any Democrat or voting for anyone who isn’t a Democrat ever is ontologically evil. A moderate Democrat nowadays is barely left of Reagan and that scares the shit out of me. I don’t see much of a way to curb that other than voting against them when literal fascists aren’t running.
Were you being totally honest about not recognizing my answers to “why not foment a revolution”? If you’re a troll you knocked it out of the park, you’ve been in my head rent free bc I can’t stop wondering how someone can be that oblivious to such obvious responses. One more time in case you still missed it: my answer is that things aren’t fucked up and fashy enough for it to be preferable to no revolution, and even if it gets that bad there’d likely not be enough people willing or able to revolt.
Can you tell me your solution to democrats going farther right?
Maybe you’re a fed and you’re stupid, I really can’t tell if your reading comprehension is that bad or if you’re just trying to bait me into calling for a revolution
With the pretty much two parties system the US has this is easy to happen.
You currently have a side that has profitted from your back, is being judged for it after getting kicked out, and is trying now to return and profit for even more personal gain disregarding what you want and need. Are you really sure you want to vote someone that has been shown to have no problem with commiting treason to his own country?
That is the current logic behind the no matter what. In the US you actually have a candidate that shouldn’t run for president of any country.
Just because the article is focusing on specific orgs doesn’t mean that it’s not a systemic issue. Just like there being articles about specific cops being abusive doesn’t mean there isn’t a systemic problem.
Although, there is a school of thought that Biden’s best chance for a second term is getting to run against Trump in the general. Hating Trump is great for turn out on the left.
Even if it is some 5D chess move (which doesn’t make sense since it can lead to conservatives winning), it’s still not something an organization that acts in line with liberal belief’s, would do.
It’s literally exactly what the DNC does. You can’t just ignore it and pretend they don’t try to boost far right republicans. Unless you’re saying democrats aren’t liberal, which would be ridiculous
Trump’s cult is absolutely fanatical and falsely believe they’re saving the world by supporting their messiah. Nobody except the most ardent party soldiers with no ideological core is that excited about Biden.
Besides, a few tens of thousands TOTAL in swing states was the REAL difference between victory and defeat for Biden in 2020 just like it was for Trump in 2016. Biden actually lost the popular vote by a smaller margin than Hillary did. More in raw numbers, sure, but a smaller percentage of total votes cast.
Add in the fact that voters statistically have ridiculously short memories, making “I’m not the other guy” MUCH less effective for an incumbent than a challenger, as well as not having fully kept most of the more progressive promises, you’d have to be an absolute fool to think that it’s not a risky strategy.
Don’t get me wrong, I ABSOLUTELY would rather Biden win than any of the fascists likely to run on the other tickets, which is why I’m so worried about the prospect of him employing such a risky strategy.
No, this is exactly what liberalism is all about. The DNC supported Trump because they thought he would be more likely to lose, a tactic I think they’ve done before and I know they’ve done since
Secondly, even if for a second I was to humor your insanity, I said “liberalism” not “liberals”, which by your mental retardation means liberals don’t follow liberalism, but again - you’re insane. Also, you don’t know what liberalism is, or what liberals are or do. You suck on Fox news’ teat, slurping down that delicious Russian propaganda like the mindless drone you are.
The article claims the organization is liberal because they donated to a couple charities. How does that make them liberal? Especially if they also donate to conservative campaigns.
Liberalism, at least in the neoliberalism form governing the Democratic Party, is an economically conservative ideology that favors money, business “opportunity” and order over everything else whenever they’re in conflict.
That and it’s common practice amongst people who can afford it to bet on both horses so they’ll have bribed their way to influence no matter what.
Just because you can find similarities between two parties doesnt make them the same.
This organization calling itself liberal is acting in the best interest of conservatives by donating to them. So that makes them conservative and not liberal no matter what they call themselves.
Just because you can find similarities between two parties doesnt make them the same.
Never said that. I’m saying that they’re much more similar than many people think, which is true.
So that makes them conservative and not liberal no matter what they call themselves.
That’s part of what I’m saying: neoliberalism IS economically conservative, so the “conservative or liberal” is mostly only a question of degrees rather than two opposite poles when it comes to economical issues.
It makes PERFECT sense when it comes to social issues, though.
No, because you’re going through a lot of effort to draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context. Which is an article headline calling a group liberal because they donated to both liberal campaigns *and conservative campaigns. When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
Because you’re bending over backwards to dismiss my original simple statement as something it never was so that it’s easier to dismiss as ridiculous falsehood. It’s called a strawman and it’s common amongst those who can’t defend their claims honestly.
draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context.
The context is an article about specific neoliberal institutions being economically conservative and people being surprised about that. Pointing out that the same is true of neoliberalism in general is hardly unrelated.
When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
And there you go again, pretending that there’s no overlap 🤦
lib·er·al·ism /ˈlib(ə)rəˌliz(ə)m/ See definitions in: All Theology Politics noun 1. willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; openness to new ideas. 2. a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
If them donating to conservatives does not meet the definition above then they are literally not a liberal organization. I can’t explain it any simpler for you.
Except definition 2 (the one that’s applicable here) gets the order wrong when it comes to neoliberalism: “free” enterprise is priority one, to which the others take a back seat almost every time.
An organisation betting on both sides is a textbook example of ideology taking a back seat to “free” enterprise and thus a very neoliberal thing to do.
Except for the fact that most people think of the Democratic Party when they say liberal and, other than a few outliers, the governing philosophy of that corporation is neoliberalism.
I can show you better than the other guy is doing, I think.
“liberal” is a spectrum of identities that are named by the right - from hippy liberals to bleeding hearts to champagne liberals. They share a common umbrella of ideology, but their individual quirks and passions set them apart.
Neoliberals have their own definitions, but again are characterized by the people who dislike them, in this case it’s generally people on the far left. They fall under the set of “liberal,” but because their opposition is also their in-group, they are a more isolated identity. They are also, interestingly, given that reality, by far the largest liberal segment of the Democratic Party.
This is why the left primarily attacks neoliberalism - they’re just going where the voters are, trying to change their minds.
I agree with this in general, but it doesn’t apply to this situation from what I can tell.
The American Compass isn’t something I’m familiar with before this article, but the article says they are trying to leverage right wing populism to traditional conservatism which I read as social conservatism.
As such, both the liberal groups the article highlights donate because the American Compass is anti-corporate.
The Hewlett Foundation did not reply, either, though the group has explained its donations online, stating that American Compass is “working to restore an economic orthodoxy that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry,” eschewing “growth for its own sake” in favor of “widely shared economic development that sustains vital social institutions.”
The other liberal group cites their pro-worker stance
In a statement for the Omidyar Network Foundation, a spokesperson told The Daily Beast, “We would encourage you to reach out to American Compass directly for comment on the pro-worker elements they were able to advocate for related to Project 2025.” The spokesperson did not reply to follow-ups seeking specific comment on American Compass’ affiliation with anti-democratic groups and ideologies that appear at odds with Omidyar’s historical support for inclusive global development.
Now, I think their pro-worker stance is short sighted and self serving at best and disingenuous at worst, but, for reasons I can’t seem to glean, these organizations weren’t able to see that clearly. Or they could, but it doesn’t make sense with their other donations.
“economically conservative” is not a real thing. There is economic orthodoxy, and there is not. Modern economics no longer has schools of thought as distinct, competing identities.
My friend who is an economist, when I asked him about economic schools of thought
There are no longer schools of thought (e.g. “Austrian school economist”). Their debates have been settled. Now there is simply orthodoxy and fringe economics.
If you don’t know things, maybe just ask questions.
Like many economists, your friend is full of shit and it sounds like he’s probably a Keynesian who thinks that it’s the one true economics and as a result every other school of thought is illegitimate fringe economics.
Sounds like something a Keynesian or one of those Austrian School nutjobs would do.
As a side note, “Their debates have been settled. Now there is simply orthodoxy and fringe” absolutely takes the 2023 Dunning Kruger Award and would have regardless of which field you were talking about.
First of all, being a literal economist doesn’t preclude him from being a literal idiot talking out his ass.
For example, Milton Friedman is a Nobel price winning economist and has been so wrong so many times that he’s probably caused more deaths and economic destruction than most wars.
Ironically, dividing all schools of thought with regards of one of the most hotly debated subjects in the history of humanity into only orthodoxy and fringe is the kind of thing that would be the fringe of the fringe within RELIGION, let alone any academic subject.
Why would that hurt when I’m not a communist? Or even if I had been?
I don’t know who you’re trying to impress with your continuously failing powers of observation, but it’s not working. If I was you, I’d stop while I was only a few miles behind.
This guy is a troll he spends all day calling anyone who questions corporate rule of the economy a communist. The world is black and white to this dude.
It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Liberalism isn’t the opposite of conservatism. When monarchy was the norm, liberalism was an extremely progressive, revolutionary philosophy. Today, with liberal democracies being the norm, liberalism is essentially conservative. That’s not, in itself, a bad thing - I want to conserve the core ideals of liberalism myself, and we can have an anticapitalist, progressive form of liberalism, that keeps what’s most important, the real heart of liberalism - individual liberty, equality under law, consent of the governed - while also moving ahead to end warfare and establish pro-social economics. However, we can also have a liberalism that protects generational wealth and funds the war machine. It’s far past time for people to decide whether liberalism, alone, is enough.
The article is claiming that an organization that is donating to conservatives is liberal.
Why do they claim this organization is liberal?
According to the article:
“Of the five groups, two stand out for their prominent histories of supporting liberal causes—the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network Foundation.”
It’s because this organization donated to a couple charities.
How does that make them liberal? Answer: it doesn’t
So why is this article making that claim? What motives could they have to do that?
Alright. Your definitions are fine, correct even. But…
In American press, liberal means left. Full stop. You’re a socialist? American press will call you “extremely liberal”. American readers will understand that.
I get that your would like to use the definition of the word that has global application. Doesn’t matter. In the us, liberal means left.
This article is about left leaning orgs donating to conservative causes and the comments are worrying what liberal means.
Hopefully we are able to entertain several different ideas in our minds at once. You make a valid point, but I think the comment above you is spot on as well and in fact I welcome it as being a little more well thought out than the cheap and superficial sloganeering that’s so typical on Lemmy.
It’s so true. I like David Graeber’s characterization of this phenomenon as ‘the communism of the rich’. Once you have broken into the club, it’s all ‘OUR expropriated labor, eh, comrade?’
Not for nothing, but these “groups” are really just oligarchs with too much money. They fund things to buy influence. One of them is the guy who founded eBay. He doesn’t give a shit who is in the White House as long as they take his phone calls.
Of the five groups, two stand out for their prominent histories of supporting liberal causes—the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network Foundation.
I doubt I can burn them to the FUCKING ground on my own, but every day I start to wonder more and more if the cost of my personal freedom is a worthy price to pay to purge these aristocratic scum from our country…
Add comment