Did you seriously not read my explanation and then called it disingenuous? That’s in there.

My guy, you’re the anti-intellectual person here. I’ve been nice and here you are getting to extreme levels of arrogance.

Could you tell us all how you learned about what these words mean? Have you gone to university for it? Are there any professional educators you follow that offer free courses or lessons? Could you name any books you’ve learned from? You mentioned looking it up earlier, where?

Compadre, I don’t know how you could think someone would spend that much time trying to explain something to you and be completely faking.

Yes, that is what it is. It is not my definition, it’s how the people who study these topics professionally use the terms. You can take your time to live with it.

Okay, what you’re misunderstanding is that what a political or social philosophy is differs from how it is colloquially referred to. It does not mean, “a person who values people” and if you knew the history of this brutal system you’d see just how insidious such an assertion is. Yes, “liberal” is an abused term in NA as it benefits liberalism (yes, capitalism is liberalism and vice versa) through the occlusion of any alternative way to understand the world. When they say that liberals are radical socialists, they are purposefully misrepresenting what socialism and social justice is. They are not talking about liberalism when they use it that way. Liberalism is fundamentally an individualist way to understand the world that emerged through the processes of European imperialism and settler-colonialism after the sixteenth century (but we really consider it recognizable once they start talking about republics and individual liberties at the turn of the nineteenth century. You’ll see why in a moment). Private property is at the center of its way of organizing and the value of individual human bodies (not beings) is built not despite of that but to facilitate it. Racism, sexism, and heteronormativity are all systemic constructions that emerged to devalue human bodies relative to their position in the hierarchy and consequently the form of exploitation they experienced in the service of white-settler-colonial reproduction. (i.e. Slavery preexisted chattel slavery and racialization. Chattel slavery was made possible through the naturalization of an othered group as deserving of generational forced labour, and so racialization emerged as a means of rationalizing that violence).

“Capitalism” refers to a social order wherein capital is the primary organizing principle in society, which is to say individual pursuit of capital. It is described economically by its imperatives of profit maximization and infinite growth, both hallmarks of colonial perceptions of land and bodies as commodities. It is the economic system that settler-colonial countries grew into because it is already consistent with how they viewed the world.

Liberalism’s appropriation of “progress” and civil rights (“equality”) is how this social order effectively responded to challenge of the hierarchy. The narrative that people “earn” their rights through civil disobedience presupposes that what we imagine to be rights is in fact an absolute truth that we either restrict or permit access to. Conveniently, those rights are legally constructed in terms of pursuit of capital and private property as a metric of human fulfillment. The black Civil Rights movements of the mid-twentieth century is imagined to end when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1968, which intentionally secures the state’s authority over the determination of inequality and redirects challenges to racism into the legal framework of the state. When Black Liberationist militant groups persisted, you get the War on Drugs and the Prison Industrial Complex (which is itself enabled through the legal end of slavery that still permitted forced labour of prisoners). There are many other examples of how this works, but slavery and racism tend to be very clear demonstrations. Message me if you want a reading list.

What you have done here is made the understandable mistake of assuming how the words are used is exactly what they mean, and yes language is fluid which is why they push these misuses in the first place. Make no mistake though, these are not distinct ways of organizing society, they are cooperative in their endeavour to reduce the living world to property. When you see this, liberal inaction at climate change is not only comprehensible, but expected.

What exactly do you think liberalism is?

We really have to start talking about the reality that capitalists will never concede or negotiate. The more real this becomes, the more the privleged people will convince themselves that it is too late to change and therefore it is a fight for survival. Settler-colonialism and imperialism are are very good at generating rationalities for brutal violence and genocidal narratives have emerged from far less dire circumstances. You think it’s a coincidence that doomer narratives appeared in the metropole once the effects of climate change became undeniable?

Climate change mitigation is a death threat to capitalism. There is no world where they coexist as a capitalist system will never accept the material constraints of our world and will seek to dominate any alternative in its imperative for infinite growth. Liberals will always choose a dead world over a living one because their entire way of life needs to construct the world as an object to extract from. When they lie and say they want change, they hope that it will buy them enough time for the genocide to be acceptable in metropole.

Dude, you can’t be satisfied by bites of moral superiority, it isn’t useful to you. Class solidarity doesn’t mean that they have solidarity with you because they strive for unity or whatever, it means that they have solidarity with people in the same socioeconomic class as themselves. Yes, they are self-interested and they exclude people who are not in their class from positions of power within the state. They correctly identify that most Americans have been neglected functional knowledge on how their system works – both literally as in the state and philosophically/sociologically as in how ideas work and why certain people subscribe to certain values – and make use of a “two-party” system to occlude their common interest in capital and hegemony. Democrats and Republicans do not differ on fundamental principles of how society should work, and they share those principles with anyone alive who hoards wealth because they all are in a class that is constructed through wealth hoarding, that’s the solidarity.

That someone can work for either party without missing a step demonstrates that there is not a fundamental difference between the two in a very funny way.

I mean, that’s a very good demonstration on the common values of these supposedly different groups. Their class solidarity is strong.

Yeah, that’s what the law is. Im curious about the mechanics of this, this certainly is not a new issue and AI could feasibly make mass surveillance necessary to enforce such a law easier. If that’s the case though, what kind of process would exist to confirm the person’s qualifications? Just some examples but that is more of what I’m talking about.

Arbitrary laws as a form of suppression is centuries old here in NA.

Genuinely curious if anyone has info on how something like this is enforced.