• ComradeSharkfucker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Liberal in this context is used to refer to the political and economic structure that is liberal democracy; not necessarily the western social definition of liberal.

    Conservatives are liberals because they support the status quo that is liberal democracy

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      edit: this sounded like I was disagreeing with you, but I was just trying to add context so the joke was legible. I completely agree with your comment

      OP is addressing both definitions.

      “Liberals” (in the American bipartisan usage of the word) in the US think of themselves as the counterpart to “conservatives”, but leftists regard them both as liberals in the classical sense as mentioned.

      It’s a cynical jab at the american liberal self-identity, because their self-image is primarily defined by their opposition to conservatives but this is suggesting they are actually the same.

        • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Usually when I read “both sides are the same”, it’s a blue conservative like you trying to make people critical of the Democratic party seem unreasonable.

          Both sides are capitalist and conservative, but there are differences for sure. Dont you want more differences?

          If you wanna really shut up those people removed from the sidelines, the best way to do so is to put them in the game! Force them to show us how to do things since it’s so easy and they have it all figured out.

          Switching away from first past the post voting allows people to vote for who represents them best while still counting their vote against those they dont want to win. Just search for videos on FPTP voting if you want an explanation on how and why the spoiler effect exists.

          Electoral reform is possible in each individual state (for now), we dont need federal reform! Maine and Alaska have already passed electoral reform.

          Republicans are moving to make alternative electoral systems illegal in their states. Why would you want to use the same voting system republicans prefer?

          More political parties means a higher percentage of the population is represented by their choices in the voting booth. More people involved in the electoral process, more people engaged.

          Its a win win win all around for not just the people, but also for the democratic party. More people voting means more democratic votes. The numbers dont lie. So what’s the hold up blue states?

          Electoral reform needs to be the number one priority for every democrat. This is a existential threat to our nation, so we must use EVERY tool at our disposal. No more waiting.

          Consider starting a campaign to change how we vote in your own state! Force our representatives to compete with fresh outside ideas. We deserve the best representation, not excuses.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Republicans are moving to make alternative electoral systems illegal in their states. Why would you want to use the same voting system republicans prefer?

            Because if we stop using FPTP but they keep using FPTP, they will win every presidential election for the rest of all time? That seriously never occurred to you? We’re splitting votes in blue states but they’re consolidating them in red states. It needs to happen everywhere at the same time.

            What a terrible suggestion. Seriously, you didn’t see the huge, obvious flaw here?