Just to be clear, you're complaining about the right redefining words and then posting an image that redefines everything to the left of nazis as liberals? The suffragettes and civil rights leaders were very much not liberals. They were socialists, communists, anarchists. Not liberals. Liberals were capitalists with specific views about the market and the government's place in it; Close cousins to libertarians and conservatives. Guess how that word got rehabilitated? By assholes calling it a bad word and people on the left going "nuh uh!" And shifting to the right while waving it around like a banner.

Kinda like how a government plan to force people to buy private healthcare got redefined as socialism and was defended as good just because the assholes were against it. Etc. etc.

I believe it was a young Andre Romelle Young, PhD. who said*, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Quit feeding the trolls and letting them set the narrative. Set your own fucking table and make them come to you. And read a god damn book.

*I mean he wasn't the first to say it, but he did say it.

I see you still don't have the balls to back your bullshit. How you can think this is standing for anything is beyond me.

And I think you are having a little trouble with the definition of the word liberal as well.

You do realize progressive is just a word people started using after the right made liberal a dirty word right?

2 comments and 3 edits later and you finally address my point.

And I think you are having a little trouble with the definition of the word liberal as well.

Am I though? Or are you just oversimplifying the hell out of the argument?


Economic liberalism is an economic system organized on individual lines, which means the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households rather than by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement, but its basis is on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberals can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, they tend to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition.

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7] The term "classical liberalism" was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[8]

Social liberalism (also known as modern liberalism[1] or egalitarian liberalism)[2] is a political ideology and a variety of liberalism that endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights while also believing that the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education.[3][4][5]

Notice the shift? You know who actually created that shift? The people erased by that dude's claim in your linked image.

When Medicare 4 All finally passes who do you think will get credit for that? Unless Bernie wins in 2020 you actually think he'll get more than a passing mention? It'll get transcribed as this epic battle between Democrats and Republicans, completely glossing over the battle for the Democratic Party between the establishment and those on the left. I mean, it's not like we're not seeing it happen in real time or anything.


The NYT Article. The closest they get to discussing the left is mentioning that Bernie endorsed somebody. Totally normal battle, just women being women. Right. :P

And finally, if you don't quit editing your comments so much, I'm going to delete your edit privileges. Editing is there to fix grammar, typos, and broken HTML, not so you can rewrite your entire comment hours after people have responded (mod/reply) to them. Raph called you out on this once before so don't give me some "I didn't know" crap. What you're doing is disingenuous, and frankly, rather suspect.

And don't be surprised when I downmod your (what I'm sure will totally be a well mannered, calm) reply to this. You've taken up enough of my weekend.

First of all thank you for responding.

It'll get transcribed as this epic battle between Democrats and Republicans, completely glossing over the battle for the Democratic Party between the establishment and those on the left.

Oh I am aware, that is the part that wasn't mentioned. The right are the ones who started the negative rhetoric about Socialism but they are not the only ones playing into the native. The 3rd way are more scared about the rise of Socialist candidates than the GOP. It threatens their only reason to exist.

The Third Way is a position akin to centrism that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of some centre-right economic and some centre-left social policies

Third Way

For them to continue they must convince people that they are doing something good with social policies...Identity politics...we are on the side of Black/gay/women etc. At the same time they are ponying up at the trough of big money and making it easier for their donors. A socialist like Bernie put holes in that...big time.

And yes once they use the energy that the populist have generated they full intend to go back to the way things were. But it ain't going to work. Yes we are going to eventually get to a single payer healthcare system...but don't expect help from the 3rd way...and no they won't be able to take credit for it.

And the word liberal...there are all kinds of liberals I'm sure these were even liberal Nazis...you were simply triggered by the word.

lib·er·al
ˈlib(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: liberal

1.
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people

Liberal =progressive=snowflake=left wing...all the same in the mind of the right.

It is the opposite of conservative

con·serv·a·tive
kənˈsərvədiv/
adjective
adjective: conservative

1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Then the bullshit comment about "Do Not Feed The trolls" Like I said just something else you have been brainwashed with that is not true.

And finally, if you don't quit editing your comments so much, I'm going to delete your edit privileges.

First of all I don't ever try and change the meaning of my post. I am dyslexic and type like a walrus wearing mittens...but I am not surprised about you wanting to further censor opinion that you disagree with...it is not new it seems to be your go to...down voting with out comment if you disagree.

And don't be surprised when I downmod your (what I'm sure will totally be a well mannered, calm) reply to this. You've taken up enough of my weekend

Oh I won't like I said that censorship seems to be your goto unless people follow your groupthink....and stop being a dick...You started this conversation , then down voted the response as boring...you do that a lot.

Still being a dick I see. Taking away any formatting, reducing the color of the type just because...your a dick.

I agree. Stripping the formatting out of downmodded comments was a bullshit change that negatively impacted my quality of life as a user of this site (if I'm going to talk/argue with someone I think it's my responsibility to read *all* their comments, not just their popular ones, to better understand where they're coming from; making those comments harder to read because someone else didn't like them doesn't absolve me of that responsibility, it just makes the website experience a little shittier) that hasn't done a damned thing to solve the non-problem of dumb trolls typing dumb things the way dumb trolls have since the dawn of internet time.

trolls are like weeds everybody has them and they really don't do any harm they just look like shit in the yard.

And it is nice to hear what the right wing media is pushing without having to go to fox or Drudge to read it.

The problem with weeds is that, if left unchecked, they tend to spread and crowd out desirable plants.

One can always upmod to return the formatting. If it's worth engaging, maybe it's worth a +mod.

Well, sure, that's what I did to bbq's comment below just so I could read the damn thing on my phone, but that hardly seems in keeping with the original spirit of the mod system.

It also makes me far less likely to want to downmod anything. It's one thing when downmodding is just a convenient way to express a negative opinion without going to the trouble of typing up a comment, but when it affects the functionality of the site for anyone who wants to read the comment after me, that's just gatekeeping bullshit that I want no part of. We're all big boys and girls here who should be able to read comments -- in their original un-mangled form -- and make up our own minds about them, even if someone else happened to dislike them first.

The text is preserved, it just takes up less space. Which is helpful when it's just an uncorked rant, obvious trolling, or the hottest meme off Breitbart. It's remedied by positive feedback. I can understand why you might hesitant to downvote, maybe because you figure a comment just won't receive enough attention to get a second chance. I don't know if the remedy to that is less participation.

Maybe a separate set of personal settings for mobile to preserve readability?

This isn't the first of steele's changes to make me want to participate less.

It looks like we wern't the only ones to disagree about this.

Tired of "liberal" being used as an insult; Proud to defend it!

Quit feeding the trolls and letting them set the narrative.

Why the hell do you insist on repeating the false narrative that not confronting a liar is the way to defeat the lie...Nowhere ever, did not feed the troll ever stop the troll..nowhere ever did not confronting a lie diminish the effect of the lie.

It is not like you are exposing people of the idea like they have never heard he word or don't have a preconceived notion of what it is...driven by years of negative commentary.

I can't believe that people think the best way to defeat propaganda is to ignore it and leave it unchallenged...amazing why you think that would be a good idea.

"The Debunking Handbook begins by asking scientists to abandon something, to abandon something called the Information Deficit Model."

The deficit model, however, has been discredited by a wealth of literature that shows that simply giving more information to people does not necessarily change their views.

Understanding the backfire effect Part 1 - You are not so smart - Air Date 2-10-17

not trying to change the peoples views that disseminate the information...trying to inform the next person who will read or hear the lie.

I think it's mostly the fact that you expect to dissuade them by feeding them even more propaganda.

Why, it's almost as if you're PAID to do it.

expect to dissuade them by feeding them even more propaganda.

facts are not propaganda...exposing a lie is not a lie. Not trying to dissuade the propagandist...trying to inform the next reader.

EDIT

I do get paid I get to live in a free country.

So one of your arguments is that "back then" they were not liberals. Same as the GOP claiming to be the "party of Lincoln", I think. Today they are liberals, just as the GOP is the sworn enemy of Lincoln's policies.

I'm ultimately saying that the existence of a word through time does not predicate that the current day ideology extends backwards through time encapsulating everything that present day users find convenient. The people most to credit for these changes the writer is trying to appropriate were for the most part anti-capitalist (as were the causes!) and would have been insulted to be hidden behind the banner of liberalism. Liberalism taking credit for these things is like political grave robbing; They're wearing causes that don't really belong to them and, as far as the politicians are concerned, are often just for show. That's why they don't fit so well and are often forgotten. See my recent ramblings on neoliberalism for more about their incompatibilities. And to see me foam at the mouth a bit. :P

I think bbq just needs to come to grips with the fact that his side lost already.

But I'm sure if you match his donation, Bernie still has a chance to win.

I Think the more important point is that Trump supporters are now coming to grips with the fact, like was said on the clip..."He is not on your side"

How unpopular is Donald Trump?

Oh and by the way Bernie is not the only populist out there...

"Enemy of my enemy is my friend."
- Trump Supporters

Not sure what you are going for here?

Politicized, argued terms always wind up becoming vague. I'll support communism based on one person's understanding of it but oppose it based on anothers perspective.

And the sad thing is, from Bill Mahers piece, the tacit idea that the bulk of adults are only swayed by propaganda and advertising, Big Lie or otherwise. There's just not much deeper there.

And where's the Liberal Trump twitter? Just a voice making the same kind of ridiculous grandstanding statements Trump makes but from somewhere on the left -- if that's all it takes to influence people.

Trump's Twitter rants are propagated across all media. You hear or see his message whether you want to or not. The liberal response doesn't get the media echo.

Sadly most people on either side or the political spectrum are persuaded by bumper sticker "truth". The didculty comes when Trump screams "build the wall" the counter argument is not near that simple and won't fit on a bumper sticker.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell in August issued a ruling invalidating a Federal Election Commission regulation that has allowed donors to so-called dark-money groups to remain anonymous.

FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub on Saturday promoted the news of the D.C. Circuit’s decision to deny Crossroads' emergency stay appeal. But following Roberts’ granting of the group’s request, she quipped on Twitter: “Nice while it lasted.”

Chief Justice Roberts halts campaign finance ruling

OK, so after all that discussion, what's a good word to describe a woman of about 55 or so who's an elected official, mostly earnest in her efforts, but who has a thin-skin, so when you do something she doesn't like, she gets angry? She doesn't throw public fits and declare her antipathy--she notifies you privately and then just ignores you, even if you hold the same position on controversial issues on which she gets to vote, especially ones you created. She's done this to a few people I know. A trusted colleague sees her grab hold of an issue and get myopic.

She spread lies about me after I helped generate a lengthy city-wide process, saying I got a lawyer to sue--I have evidence she did so, and of course I didn't get the lawyer to sue. And she's so unpolitically savvy that she doesn't remember I derailed a candidate for her city council 11 years ago. I could do the same here. And I've been quietly raising a stink about her to friends but for some reason, despite her wide array of contact--she's running for mayor, but the vote isn't for two years--she hasn't heard that I've been asking people about her odd behavior.

I wondered if she spread lots of lies about me and so I requested and got all public records from October to January, and am thinking of getting the records from January to April. That made her call up a friend of mine and ask him why I'm bullying her. She's rich and white and blond and doesn't look Jewish, but she is.

It's not thin-skinned. It's not psychopath. I've talked with political consultants, wise friends who do mediation, and lawyers. The wise friend sees that I have her over a barrel.

All this writing and review got me the word: spoiled. She's a spoiled brat. Entitled. Thinks she's entitled. Thanks for reading, and if you have ideas, please do let me know.

It seems you have already worked this out by yourself. You answered your own question and have protected yourself against attack...seems to me the only problem is that you have feeling for the woman...that I am afraid no one can help you with.