This posting is inspired by something that happened in another thread, namely this exchange;
(Picked for illustration, not for the concrete contents in this exchange).
As seen from the outside, I think exchanges like this illustrate the bimodal state of politics in certain places of the world; not only in a certain country led by an orange with the IQ of a bag of rocks, but also elsewhere. The political and social polarisation contribute strongly to discussions ending up as quarreling, politicians implement blunt political instruments to get things their way, while at the same time everyone kind of forgets to discuss what kind of problems they are trying to solve, and why. Instead of trying to discuss the core issues at hand, the discussions end up as a poo-flinging shitshow where each individualās favourite tool is being promoted as the only solution, even if it means using the sharp and rotating end of an angle grinder to stop an arterial bleeding.
i just had to get that rant off my chest. Now discuss peacefully or move on.
Let me ask a question first. What industry is global, unaffected by tariffs, has an active customer base of over 65% of the global population and suffers from virtually no regulation to hamper their productās dispersal?
It took us most of our evolutionary journey make it to written languages. The problems started once some genius figured out you could monetize the written word for fun and profit. The first newspaper was published 421 years ago. Radio was the next progression just over 100 years ago. Television jumped in 85 years ago. Social media has only been with us for less than 30 years.
Social media companies are merely an evolutionary progression of how news and information are disseminatedā¦with one severely dangerous distinction. The algorithm. That silent little bastard running in the background designed to appeal to the caveman with a club in all of us. Algorithm Bias is designed to exploit human Confirmation Bias.
This evolutionary mismatch of modern digital information dissemination and manipulation creates a shit storm in our ancient amygdala. This creates the rage posting, shit posting and rabid need to pick a side, find a hillā¦and be willing to die on it.
And this is why intelligent lifeforms in the universe donāt come hereā¦
Personally I think that politics is just a proxy for oneās (lack of) ethical principles. Liberalism isnāt perfect and in some important ways had made itself vulnerable through various unforced errors (involving violating its own principles) but if you boil it all down it is really a question of whether life is a zero sum acquisitional game or an exercise in diverse community building and sharing. Whether it is all about tribal conflict or not. Might makes right or not.
āPrincipled conservativesā used to get along in the sandbox because certain things were unthinkable or at least unspeakable. Iād argue they were decent in spite of their core beliefs, and liberals are now decent in spite of abandoning the working class and catering to the ultra-rich.
When those discussions of core issues fail or are refused, and people start dying because of a commitment to fascism by those in control and their enablers, some folks get angry, very angry. And profound anger is not inappropriate. Folks start to hang out the window screaming, āIām mad as hell and Iām not going to take it anymore!ā
Iāll repeat, people are dying because this fascist regime is supported and enabled by those who are members of its cult.
Many people in the U.S. havenāt forgotten how to discuss the issues at hand, instead, when they do they are being gassed, imprisoned, shot, sued, charged with crimes, told to shut up, kidnapped, called names, told to ājust leave if you donāt like itā, had their cities overrun by masked military, and more.
How Pam Bondiā responded to questions in yesterdayās hearing is a prime example of yet another attempt to discuss that was refused.
Poo-flinging? Perhaps. Is it uncalled for?
I can understand why the word fascist is widely considered a pejorative, but can anyone explain why anyone thinks calling someone a liberal is an insult?
liberal
adjective
willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from oneās own; open to new ideas.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Itās hard to see where the insult exists in there? Or has another dictionary lead me away from an esoteric fact about the term, that i am wholly unaware of?
I mean what strikes anyone as extreme about wanting individual rights and liberties protected, while being prepared to listen to other opinions?
If that is an ideology, it seems a broadly beneficial one, surely?
But where to direct the anger? Directing it at politicians? Your fellow citizens?
A house divided cannot stand. As long as we embrace tribalism and derision we dig the hole deeper.
What created that anger? I would posit a strong case that the arrival of Newt Gingrich and agenda based media in the 1990ās has been the entry vector for this virus in America. Rush Limbaugh is likely the father of the āus vs. themā mentality in broadcasting. Rupert Murdoch saw dollar signs in 1996 and over the years brought us such bastions of fear as Bill OāReilly, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlsonā¦to name just a few..
The Left tried to emulate this tactic, but their inability to develop a consistent cohesive message hamstrung them from the beginning. Too busy falling in love to fall in lineā¦
Right now itās the monetization of bias that is fueling our current quagmire. Wherever it resides, it needs a serious effort by the great unwashed to address the real problem. Itās not my MAGA neighbor that believes China has no wind farms. Itās not my other neighbor with a Che Guevara flag on his garage.
Itās the flagrant protection of fear mongering and bias manipulation under the banner of free speech. Does free speech allow you to sell a car with no brakes? No, that violates product liability laws.
Attack the product defect of the algorithm, enact tort penalties paid to users for violations and revoke certificates or operation at the state level to flagrant violators.
Deploy gatekeeper AI tools as a mandatory component on all platforms, at the companies expense, to detect algorithm manipulations that doubles as a reporting tool of violations.
Make it $.01 per hit held in escrow pending resolution of the hit. Make a media CEO a poor man and he will suddenly see the value of the truth over flogging hyperbole to maximize screen time and profits.
Vocalization of anger at injustice is not tribalism. Getting angry and hanging out that window does indeed drive change.
Like when folks got mobilized, for instance, by their anger over segregation, their anger over taxation without representation, or their anger over the Three Estates system?
I see it as a differentiation between expression and action. If the expression is followed by a direct orchestrated action directed towards a correction, then it has value. If it is merely a question of pointing out the problem you have only created a choir.
Any lasting change to a system requires involvement inside of the system. At minimum a hybrid of internal or external agents.
While external forces alone are capable of change to a system, they face a mountain of resistance and invalidation from the system and itās adherents.
In theory yes; in practice, you are moving the Overton Window and giving political independents / moderates cover to āpunch leftā despite their wealthy donorās concerns or political wish-washy-ness or whatever their problem(s) are, which is what is needed right now. Giving those who are nominally liberal the sense that positions that were to their left (and may, sadly, be to their left again in the future) are now mainstream and itās in their interests to fit in.
Unfortunately a lot of politicians and āactivistsā are like this.
Newsom for example has a terrible political history of taking big on progressive issues and then literally never delivering. Gov Hochul of NY has been nothing if not a machine politician but she has at least soft-endorsed Mamdaniās free child care for all initiative because she can see where the wind is blowing (and she has a true progressive running against her in the next election).
Please donāt misunderstand my motives. I see no value in the current trend towards fascism anymore then you do.
I donāt want to impose my opinions on either side. I have no issue with a person holding whatever political leanings they have. I just donāt see how we ever get through this current stalemate without a common set of facts and reality.
I donāt see how the current monetization of bias manipulation for political gain can continue to stand free in the light under the cover of free speech anymore. Until there is a common platform for dialogue, the needle never moves and the ship never leaves port.
I see this as a time when social media has been so absorbed on the Clown Shop that is Trumpism and the divisiveness it proliferates, and the profits it generates, that next time, to boost user time on scroll, weāll get nothing but a parade of psychopath candidates and pundits preventing any genuine dialogue from occurring.
My point is, take the rage already built into people on both sides, which will need a new home when Trump toddles off into memory care, and redirect it at the real enemy of Democracy.
I have no problem with anyone sticking their head out of a window and yelling theyāre mad as Hell. I just grieve the waste of that energy in not tapping that into something more.
The word liberal is a pejorative and an insult, not because of the definition but because of how, usually right-leaning, social media portrays the people associated with liberalism.
Right-leaning social media usually depicts liberals as either weak, hypocritical, misandrists, or authoritarian-in-disguise.
Because these depictions are popular, when people say liberal, a lot of them would think about a āred-haired Karenā or some āblue balled soyboyā instead of people willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from oneās own.
Thank for supporting my argument. Liberal and Conservative are terms that have been in common use in America since the early 20th century. Prior to that Federalist, Jeffersonian, Whig, or Democrat may have been tossed around to define a political philosophy. Lincoln, in his time, was a Democrat and would be considered conservative by modern standards. Theodore Roosevelt was often described as a Progressive.
In a sane world, the only differentiation between the terms is whether they are used as a noun or an adjective. To employ them as a slur is an act of affective polarization or political tribalism. The two dollar phrase is term of opprobrium.
While not the sole driver, social media is acting as an accelerant\facilitator in perverting these neutral labels into dog whistles. Fun fact: 70% of all political social media content is produced by 6% of users.
Politics, in general is not the high engagement activity you might take it for if social media is your primary source of information. 237 million US citizens are of legal age to vote. In the 2024 election 174 million registered to vote but only around 154 million actually voted, or 64%. That number is on the high side, as election turnout in this country has varied from 49%-67% over the past 100 years. 2020 being the high at 67%, 1924 being the low at 49%.
That data is for Presidential elections. Mid term participation stays relatively consistent at 48%. 2026 may shape up to be the anomaly.
And 5% of those may well be bots. The 90-9-1 rule says 1% of users produce most content, regardless of the topic. Of course itās a rule of thumb, not a magic number, but 6% would be unusually high.
Itās sad to see the state of affairs in both the US and the UK from a political point of viewā¦
There itās conservative right wing, here left wing and both leaders are absolutely fucking useless.
The irony is that the vast majority of people here just want something slightly left or right, not the extreme versions being touted.
Here we have reinvigorated far left leaning green party, whos policies would be catastrophic.
And then on the other hand, the right leaning reform party that appear (so far) to be a bit of a one trick pony in regards to soley focusing on illegal immigration.
How do we tackle this? How do we get to sensible legislation and actually giving a fuck about the people.
I know what the intent is, but that wasnāt my question, my question is what in the definition would make anyone consider it remotely insulting to be called liberal, and why?
Though I see, that youāre suggesting what I suspected, that theyāre using the term, but in fact mean something else, some extreme political straw man they find it easy to demonise.
