Is this a “the right can’t meme” thing? Liberals are opposed to the current Russia-ukraine war and Israeli-palestine war and are currently supporting the newest civil rights movement.
Nah I think it’s just the same snake-in-the-grass right wing propaganda bullshit that infects every leftist space online to sow complacency and disempower us with apathy by trying to convince us that the comparative left-ish-leaning party is the same or worse than the right so as to maintain the hold on power the right has. It’s bullshit anti-leftist wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing rhetoric. Same as it always was.
Edit: typos.
I don’t know OP, or the OOP, but I read this as criticizing liberals from the left which is something many leftists engage in all the time, I know I do
(Before I type all of this, important caveat: I am only going to be using “liberal” in the American context, meaning a milquetoast democrat. Save all of your “bUt AcTuAlLy ClAsSiCaL lIbErAlIsM” for where it’s actually fucking relevant; don’t bring that shit to me)
Yes, but you do it mostly because you’ve been taken in by these wolves. Obviously critique and push actual leftism on liberals and Democrats, but the leftism tribalism absolutely benefits the right.
Liberals aren’t leftists and we shouldn’t be complacent and settle for the liberal Democrat platform, but we also have to acknowledge that given the options the Democrats are absolutely the current harm-reductive choice. And importantly, unlike the fucking chudshits on the right, liberals are the demographic that can actually be reasoned with, educated, and brought into the light.
Anyone trying to tell you associating with or attempting to convert liberals is a waste of time is somebody who is only interested in stifling leftist growth.
You don’t have to agree with them, but conflating them with the wastes of flesh on the right is disingenuous as fuck as absolutely motivated by agenda, either intentionally or unintentionally as matter of coercion.
Exactly there’s leftists in America but no left political power, and you can’t win as a leftist because it’s like, “oh you don’t support the government that supports a fascist genocide? Well that’s how we get a fascist government!” When liberals shame leftists, who they probably agree with on every issue, for the failures of the Democrat party, I consider that more of a confession. Shaming your political allies for not being hypocritical enough rather than the party that doesn’t deliver is a pathetic position to be in.
The left isn’t stupid and understands strategic voting and the current state of US politics. Liberals are so quick to be condescending and love to liberal-splain how “if you don’t vote Democrat we get Trump” ad infinitum. As if leftists don’t understand the most basic logic. A leftist might unhappily vote Democrat out of pure strategic interest vs a liberal might take grandiose pride in their Democrat vote.
That’s how I took this, yes.
It’s hard to not make fun of liberals from the left, but I find a lot of my generation are liberals by default and friendly to more leftist viewpoints. The left has little to no representation so I don’t blame people for not being exposed to it. My parent’s generation is a lost cause because of cold war propaganda, and the most staunch liberals I know are well-to-do genx.
When I was young I thought liberal was just “not right wing” or just the morally correct political position. It took some more life experience to understand what the liberal attitude and mindset really was.
The original sin of the left is rejecting liberalism, because liberalism is the key to political agency. It’s why socialist revolutions never escape their dictatorship.
They’ll downvote because this message is a threat to campists. But at the end of the day, the way forward is liberal socialism.
You may be right, but I was giving OOP even less credit, assuming this was someone on the right making a bullshit, obvious strawman with others on the right as the intended audience, knowing that any semblance of accuracy didn’t matter in the slightest. They don’t care if it’s obvious nonsense, if it makes them feel good to repeat it, that’s all that matters.
I’m guessing they mean liberal in the classical sense and not liberal in the liberal/conservative meaning of the current US political parties.
They’re talking about the current wars and the current civil rights movements, so that wouldn’t make sense anyway.
“Whigs sure hate Instagram”.
Conservatives are liberals, too
No they aren’t
I mean conservatism directly spawned from liberalism and is correctly seen as a subgroup of classical liberalism but okay
That is shockingly ignorant or deliberately misleading.
Can you elaborate as to which one you’re going for?
Since I can’t be bothered I had Chatgpt generate a response
Understanding conservatism as a subset of liberalism requires a nuanced view of the historical and philosophical development of these ideologies. Initially, these terms might seem contradictory, but under a broader definition of liberalism, conservatism can be considered a variant or an offshoot.
Liberalism, in its broadest historical sense, refers to a range of ideas centered around the importance of individual liberty, the rule of law, and, often, limited government. This broad category emerged during the Enlightenment and was instrumental in shaping the modern Western political and social order. Classical liberalism, in particular, emphasizes individual freedom, economic freedom, and minimal state intervention.
Conservatism, while often positioned in opposition to liberalism (especially in its progressive or social liberal forms), can be seen as a subset of liberalism in the context of this broader historical perspective. This view holds when considering that conservatism in Western political thought often shares with liberalism a commitment to certain fundamental principles such as the rule of law, individual rights (although conservatism places a stronger emphasis on communal values and traditions), and, frequently, the free market.
However, conservatism diverges from liberalism in its emphasis on tradition, authority, and often a skepticism of rapid social change. Conservative liberalism, or liberal conservatism, is a term used to describe ideologies that blend liberal values (like economic freedom) with conservative stances (such as an emphasis on traditional social structures).
In summary, while conservatism and liberalism are distinct in their traditional definitions and core philosophies, conservatism can be viewed as a subset of liberalism in the context of a broader, historical understanding of liberalism. This perspective sees both ideologies sharing some fundamental values but differing significantly in their approach to tradition, social change, and the balance between individual rights and communal responsibilities.
deleted by creator
“Liberal” means differently to the left (socialists and far-left to be precise). In the classical sense, a “liberal” promotes individualism, free market and private property, which many on the far-left rejects.
Which classical sense are you referring to?
From Wikipedia:
Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism which advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism?wprov=sfla1
And your contention is that OP, commenting in 2023, without qualifiers, is referring to a term referring to 200-year-old conservatives?
Either way, the meme is either using an incorrect or irrelevant term.
You are giving op more than the benefit of a doubt.
You obviously did not know why “liberal” is a pejorative term used by those from the left, of all the people you would least expect to do so based from contemporary (mis)understanding.
Not even close. Like OP, your false assumptions render your point invalid.
Umm… do you realise what lemmy community you are commenting on? Probably not even close.
If someone was opposed to a war they wouldn’t want to contribute to it. I don’t see anyone saying they want to fight or bomb Israel but lots of people do want to fight and bomb Russia.
Liberals don’t want to contribute to the wars, they’re against both the Russian invasion and the IDF atrocities, as well as the hamas atrocities.
The difference between Israel and Russia is that Israel is responding to a terrorist attack in a horrific way with 70 years of animosity and attacks behind their retaliation, while Russia is breaking treaties and trying to invade and steal a country that they have already stolen part of back in 2014.
While liberals are calling out for Israel to pull back and stop the atrocities, they’re content at watching Ukraine kick Russia’s ass for the illegal russian invasion and attempted second annexation of Ukrainian territory.
These are not the same situations at all.
That’s just the same thing in more paragraphs. Unless you want to stop the contribution of money and weapons to Ukraine you are in support of the war. Nowhere did I say that’s a bad thing by the way, I just like things to be accurate and I’ve been watching the meaning of “anti war” turn into a meaningless label that people feel like they need to put on themselves to be a good person.
If you like accuracy, you must be furious at yourself.
You’re being deliberately vague, disingenuous and narrow-minded.
You’re arguing for any country that is illegally invaded by a superior military force to just give up their country.
Placation is not the way to stop wars, promoting illegal invasion and annexation actively causes more wars. So does not doing anything.
Russia already illegally invaded and stole territory in 2014 and is now doing it again because nobody stopped them.
You’re arguing that we should just let any country invade and steal territory.
You are wrong fundamentally and on the specifics.
If you support a war then you support a war and it sounds like you do support the Ukraine war. Do you want your country to give money, weapons, and people (aka support) to Ukraine or do you not?
You appear to have a very over-simplified view here. Supporting a country that is being invaded is not the same as supporting the war itself. Supporting a war specifically implies someone supports the aggressing country and their goals. Supporting Ukraine does not mean someone also supports Russia invading Ukraine.
Acting like anyone who thinks countries should be allowed to defend themselves from invaders is pro-war is a truly terrible take.
Your flawed argument is that the soldiers fighting Nazis were pro-war. No, they were anti illegal genocide, invasion and annexation.
On the separate narrow note you’re trying to equivocate with false narratives only you are putting forth, I personally want Ukraine to receive as much support as possible, because it’s radically weakening a violent hostile country that has already proven it is hell bent on stealing territory.
Proving to the world that Russia is not a threat militarily and removing any further capacity for violent Russian hostility for decades has been a great investment.
Try again
You support genocide.
… in Ukraine. They want to fight and bomb Russian soldiers in Ukraine.
Alright Chamberlain. Brilliant logic you’ve put into this situation.
Liberals have come down hard in uncritical support of the nazi militias in Ukraine and on the Israeli side of the Palestinian struggle for freedom. Both are the pro-war stances.
Liberals have been against the Russian invasion from day one, and Russia is driving that war.
Most people have been ignorant of the Israel and Palestine conflicts until recently, and most western media glorifies the IDF because it’s a stabilizing democratic force in a notoriously anti-west region, but liberals are all upset with the current Palestinian genocide.
There are liberal pro-Palestinian anti-hamas civil rights movement right now.
Removed by mod
I’m against both current wars and for the current civil rights movements, so you’re 0 for 3 there.
By your logic, you’re the lib the meme is talking about.
Your Russian propaganda is b*******, russia invaded and tried to annex the rest of Ukraine the same way that they annexed Crimea because Putin is a cowardly, greedy dictator.
And you’re just agreeing with me about the IDF, so thanks, I guess.
Removed by mod
You’re close about Putin using a baseless pretense to invade and steal further territory from Ukraine, wrong about the Russian-Ukrainian peacetime relationship, and you haven’t mentioned that putin also disarmed Ukraine in a nuclear anti-arms treaty to ensure ukraine couldn’t fight back before putin broke the treaty, annexed crimea and then invaded a second time when nobody stood up to him the first time.
But hey, you got the names correct. Mostly.
Two, You’re agreeing with me about the IDF because I condemned the Palestinian genocide by the IDF. You, then, ostensibly condemned the Palestinian genocide.
This part might be difficult for you to follow, but if you condemn the same thing I already condemned, you are agreeing with me.
Man I shouldn’t make fun of you sorry. Your response is the kind of shit I would have said a couple weeks ago.
Removed by mod
Which ones exactly?
The ones who hold political power, mostly. If you’d like a list the just take every dem congressperson and remove Rashida Talib and there it is.
Not me.
Lol the one person that gets the post is downvoted.
Hey libs, we’re talking about you wanting to send hundreds of billions of dollars to literal Nazis that we helped move into power by overthrowing Ukraine’s government.
Whoops, looks like hexbear is leaking again
You hate that Palestine is getting food and water supplies, don’t you?
Nice projection zionist liberal
What is opposing a war?
People call themselves war opponents when they oppose invading Vietnam, which is good.
People also call themselves war opponents when they oppose Ukraine defending itself, which is bad. They support Russia invading Ukraine. They support wars except the ones when the US is invading.
There is a lot more context to the war in the Donbas.
A lot more context than Russian soldiers in Ukraine shooting down a civilian aircraft with Russian weapons?
nobody opposes to Ukraine defending itself.
Anti-War stance involves opposing Russia for invading Ukraine along with blood thirsty neoliberals like Victoria nuland who will sacrifice Ukrainian people to advance US strategic interest. They want this war to go on as long as they can make it go on. no price is too small.
No one buys what you’re selling. Russia can end the war today, but they won’t, because they’re run by a literally evil kleptocratic dictator.
wow such a nuanced take you got there. I wish I had the intellectual capacity to engage with you.
We wish you did too. More informed dialog always benefits a conversation.
Most self-aware idiot.
The Ukrainians want to join the West than align with Russia. Conspiracy theories or not, the Ukrainians in the run-up to the Maidan revolution were agitated when then Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych reneged on the deal with the EU only to sign a deal with the Russians at the last minute. Unlikely that Ukrainians as a whole were somehow brainwashed and “coup” the government.
No one ever asked the Ukrainians what they want, haven’t they? Or are we talking to Russian bots speaking on Ukrainians’ behalf because they think Ukrainians are their little brothers who doesn’t know any better? Ukraine is always “little Russia” for them, isn’t it?
The Ukrainians want to join the West
The majority do but nobody in a comments section should claim to speak for what Ukrainians want. We’re finding out more and more about how peace may have been achievable as early as spring 2022 if Ukraine committed to not joining NATO. I don’t claim to speak for the preferences of a nation, but you can see how this may change the context of the prolonging war. WW1 was expected to be short and quick, but when people saw what it had become we heard things like, “never again.”
A lot of Ukrainians are escaping conscription right now just like my pacifist Ukrainian ancestors did. In my western country there’s a whole network of support for these people, where you might know of someone organizing resources for Ukrainian families but never know the individuals themselves for secrecy. This isn’t talked about in Western media very much because our countries are very pro-Ukraine joining NATO. Our media mostly talks about isolated incidents where Ukraine came out on top using Western weapons, and how supporting Ukraine with weapons is the only way to counter Putin’s strategy. It’s a cartoonish version of what’s going on that people can feel invested in and good about, the material human situation is a different thing.
Ukraine did not even want to join NATO, they just want to join the EU. However, Russia, because they want to carve their own sphere of influence, think Ukraine joining the EU is tantamount to joining NATO.
Also, Russia invaded the entirety of Ukraine, why would Ukraine say they don’t want to join NATO anymore after Russia occupied nearly half the country? And Putin’s claim of stopping NATO expansion is obviously a load of crap when two nations just joined NATO! How would that exactly stop the alliance from expanding after invading another country? Even if Ukraine gave promise not to join NATO in spring 2022 (which, by the way, sounds implying demanding surrender from Ukraine), Finland and Sweden still would have joined after what Russia had just done.
Even so, the previous NATO summit did not even provide guarantee to Ukraine that they will be allowed to join! The narrative of Ukraine joining NATO from Russian perspective was not a forgone conclusion until Putin decided to annex Crimea, support the separatists and invade the rest of Ukraine. The very thing he feared from happening just happened because of his own hubris. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy of his own making!
There are many draft dodgers from Ukraine, not surprising there. Any wars have them, not that I would blame them personally. Nevertheless, most Ukrainian men and women of fighting age are still willing to fight.
The idea of Russia as a single irrational actor surrounded by rational actors just isn’t accurate, it purports that there are no rational reasons for their actions and thus explains nothing. So you’re left thinking what you’ve typed there, just no ability to explain the actions of Russia other than being dumbfounded by it in this cartoonish way. Ukraine is easy to rationalize because they’re defending themselves as they have the right to, as well as entertain and control their own alliances as a sovereign nation does.
The rich soils and gas reserves of Ukraine are exploitable resources, and Russia is an imperialist actor competing for these resources with the EU and NATO, and Ukraine. The capitalist class in Russia want access to these resources and pressures the government to act in their interest, the government must support the economic arrangement that sustains their legitimacy and power. All the stuff you’ve said about how Putin is dumb may be completely true but ignores these structural causes of this conflict and assumes it’s one man’s irrational decisions that have caused all this. Seeing the structural causes here provides rational explanations for why not just this conflict, but why these types of conflicts occur. Competition between capitalists for who gets to exploit limited resources, yes it’s that simple.
Nobody should be compelled to violence by a greater power than their own. Radical non-violence is a different mindset than that which sustains state powers and it takes a strong belief that another world is possible to follow it. People say it’s not realistic while dying in the service of fairy tales, at least my fairy tale offers an alternative.
The idea of Russia as a single irrational actor surrounded by rational actors just isn’t accurate, it purports that there are no rational reasons for their actions and thus explains nothing.
Yes, if the person subscribes to realpolitik/realist theory then what you say is correct. Which is why I said Russia wants to carve their own sphere of influence. As you mentioned, Ukraine is resource-rich. But even so, Russia is a huge country and they already have loads of resources under the sun. Having Ukraine’s resources just adds to their collection.
But the most rational reason for Russian imperialism from the realist perspective is that Ukraine being in the West’s influence would make Russia feel insecure and vulnerable. Ukraine’s flatlands lead straight to the vital Russian oil supply in Caucasus-- the Volgograd gap as they call it. Even before the German invasion of the Soviet Union in World War II, many German planners proposed ro concentrate their forces in Ukraine to strike USSR. The Soviets have (incorrectly) anticipated this and put most of their armoured forces in Ukraine. But as history unfolded, the Germans focused straight to Moscow not Ukraine. Although the German forces in Ukraine in 1941 suffered heavy casualties because they faced the best Soviet forces there.
Let’s face it though, the term “realism” and “realpolitik” is a misnomer and counter to “reality” and “rationality”. The reality is that there is no reason as to why people across the world should not get along and try to usurp one another. There is no rational reason for it other than our un-evolved lizard brains trying to be competitive with one another.
The fields of dead russians are a grisly cartoon. I think you’re the one with distorted views, personally.
They want this war to go on as long as they can make it go on. no price is too small.
Bullshit. Russia can end this war tomorrow by respecting the treaties it signed with Ukraine.
The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation was an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.
Russia invaded. Russia can leave. Otherwise Ukraine has every right to defend itself and it’s allies are wise to arm it.
I’m liberal and support trans/gay rights, woman’s body autonomy, social umbrellas for the poor and unhoused, legalization of recreational drugs, but I also like guns and desire all minorities who have no agency to own them, as well as support all wars against bullies because pacifism does nothing to stop them otherwise. Where do I stand? I guess I’ll go fuck myself then.
That’s the fun thing; go far enough left and find that guns become an important tool for the proletariat to protect itself from the ruling class.
I agree with all of those except I don’t like guns. Don’t want nothing to do with them, and those that do should be required to take mental and physical competency tests as well as mandatory registration. I wouid also impose a minimum 5 year prison sentence for letting one of your guns fall into somone else’s hands owning a gun should come with massive responsibility to keep the gun secure.
Similar to nuclear proliferation, it doesn’t matter if you don’t like nukes because if your neighbor simply has only one of them, then they can leverage it to force you to do things against your own interests with the threat of your complete destruction.
Your recourse is to bend over and let them fuck you, or build/buy your own nukes to deter them bullies. Pandora’s box is open; guns are necessary and are never going away. Either you arm up the helpless to allow them to speak at equal footing using them as deterrence or let them slowly and eventually be destroyed by the growing intolerant majority.
So everyone just gets guns? I should carry a gun with me at all times and live in fear of my neighbor? This is an absurd viewpoint, guns don’t deter shit, if someone wants to shoot me, owning a gun won’t stop them. Nuclear deterrence doesn’t work with gun ownership because if I own a gun, and you shoot me, I’m not shooting back because I’m dead.
If all your neighbors have guns, you might want to get one too, or you’re at a disadvantage when they gang up to kill you.
That’s why it’s like nuclear proliferation.
Why would they need to gang up to kill me? They have guns, they can kill me damn near instantly even if I have a gun myself
This.
Gun fetishists live in this wild west fantasy where someone planning on shooting is going to slowly and deliberately approach while announcing their intentions so you can respond and have a showdown ensuring only the gunliest gunner wins. If somebody’s going to shoot you, you’re just going to get shot - probably before you’re even aware, or at least without sufficient preparation time to grab your gun or pull your gun and aim.
These people just tell themselves fairy tales to justify their hoarding.
Pretty much yes. Literally the only reason you live in a peaceful society is because you have delegated all violence to a specific group of people and armed them to ensure everyone follows the rules: it’s fucking called law enforcement.
The cops are allowed the monopoly of all violence; if you need help, you call them because they have guns and can compel people (i.e. criminals) to do things by leveraging this fact, otherwise no one will listen to them.
Do you seriously trust ALL cops to all maintain the idea that all gays and trans people deserve life? Most of them would not mind if society leaned extreme right and imprisoned all the “undesirables”. You are fucking delusional to put all your trust into them.
I don’t trust a single cop, but I also don’t trust many people to be allowed to have guns either. If you look at countries where guns are not readily available there is much less gun crime, and any guns that people get are coming from the US because we hand them out basically for free. If the US has stricter gun control it would most likely lower gun crime around the world even.
Edit: another thing I want to mention, I don’t call cops if it can be at all avoided precisely because they do carry guns. Once you I produce a gun into a situation, it becomes instantly more dangerous and unless it is something like a mass shooting or a violent robbery I’m not gonna call the cops for shit.
Basically this, people should consider disarming when the police and military do as well
Until then, nobody should have a pure monopoly on violence
social umbrellas
Treat the symptoms not the cause
support all wars against bullies because pacifism does nothing to stop them otherwise.
Simplify geopolitics into “bullies”, support the actions of NATO/US as though they’re not “bullies”
Pretty much liberal yeah
Treat the symptoms not the cause
Treat both. They usually give you a painkiller while setting your bones.
Wait until they find out that there’s a ton of “we don’t know what the underlying cause is” and “we don’t have a cure for that yet” in medicine. In which case you have to do your best treating the symptoms – which is also true outside of the world of medicine.
Sometimes a temporary fix buys you time to do it right. Sometimes a perfect or even “really good” solution isn’t feasible for myriad reasons: so you do the best with what you have.
It’s just such a stupid false dichotomy. Give the man the fish and teach him to fish. It’s a lot easier to learn on a full stomach.
You expect leftists to do anything but idly daydream about the day that a socialist revolution finally and magically falls into their laps?
Treat the symptoms not the cause
I definitely prefer my symptoms being treated while waiting to get the cure
Liberals don’t want the cure though. They want “ethical capitalism” or whatever. (A contradiction in terms)
I didn’t say they were the one with the cure
Treat the symptoms not the cause.
You’ll find that almost all liberals also want to treat the cause, but they are blocked at every step by conservatives and centrists.
But why do they defend the core underlying cancer - capitalism?
I think that makes you a leftist who hasn’t yet realized that liberalism doesn’t want many of those things.
Most Americans still don’t realize there’s a difference. I’ve been hoping the recent conflict in the Middle East would wake some people up to the major differences between libs and leftists - it sure did for me.
Leftists are literally losing their job for not supporting Israel and yet liberals are still out here confused about what’s even going on.
Liberals prefer negative peace - the absence of conflict - over positive justice.
If you prefer positive justice, you aren’t a liberal.
Sounds like liberalism can go fuck itself too if they don’t care about trans/gay rights, etc.
They care about them in a performative way. The minute it stands in their way or they can’t use it as a tool to get your support to gain or maintain power they will immediately drop the act. Before Oberfell even Obama wouldn’t give a clear statement of support for gay marriage because it was seen as political poison.
They care about them in a performative way. The minute it stands in their way or they can’t use it as a tool to get your support to gain or maintain power they will immediately drop the act.
Standing up for trans acceptance and rights is the right thing to do but it is by no means a winner of a political platform:
The public is divided over the extent to which our society has accepted people who are transgender: 38% say society has gone too far in accepting them, while a roughly equal share (36%) say society hasn’t gone far enough. About one-in-four say things have been about right. Underscoring the public’s ambivalence around these issues, even among those who see at least some discrimination against trans people, a majority (54%) say society has either gone too far or been about right in terms of acceptance.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/Democrats haven’t dropped it yet, despite anti-trans sentiment being one of the Right’s favorite things to rally around.
Those are all very liberal-minded interests and there’s nothing really wrong with them. The left largely agrees as well but would go further to the structural causes for why these issues are important, questioning the very economic and material arrangements for which these issues are contingent on. IE why does our economic system require people to be poor? What are the class dynamics behind these issues etc.
Liberalism is the ideology of free markets and individual freedom, but those mechanisms are contingent on exploitation.
why does our economic system require people to be poor
Let me guess, you’re from US. Or from Canada, and are stuck in US narrative.
Your economic system (or rather society) has never ditched slavery, which is nowadays masquerading as a penal system. Poor people are easy to enslave.
I think you’re missing how I’m rhetorically posing that question to the preceding comment and not sincerely wondering myself…
You are left.
Need to know his stsnce on capitalism first.
Sounds liberal af to me; definitely not a leftist.
Long live the American arms trade and long live the empire!
You can see this all the time with Hollywood liberal values. All the gay stereotyping and jokes through the 90s then all of a sudden they’re patting themselves on the back for being the arbiters of social progress.
I read new republic and nation
I’ve learned to take every view
You know, i’ve memorized lerner and golden
I feel like i’m almost a jew
But when it comes to times like korea
There’s no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, i’m a liberal
Correct
It’s almost like one must examine and consider each conflict individually.
I oppose war. I don’t oppose defending oneself. I don’t oppose helping somebody defend themselves.
A leftist is someone who opposes every war except for the ones the fascists might win.
