• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I guess it might be different in the US, but liberalism here in the US is primarily governmental, you can be liberal governmentally, and socially progressive for example.

    Provided you’re willing to make excuses when your party isn’t socially progressive.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      it depends on what you classify as socially progressive, but generally most liberals are going to be onboard with socially progressive ideas. Especially if well thought out and put together. They just don’t publicly champion them because nobody really cares and it’s not as popular, pushing support is more popular than just yelling about supporting it at the end of the day.

      It’s really hard to make an argument for removing the rights of people under liberalism. Unless it’s something like fascism, where you’re inherently removing rights, and therefore violating the principles of liberalism.

      • antiykns@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Liberals are capitalists and would be on board with socially progressive ideas as long as it doesn’t hinder their capacity to make business.

        The French revolution saw the rise of the rich bourgeoisie as opposed to nobility. “Human rights” include the ability to exploit others.

        That is why they care so much about gay rights and postering as anti-racist. It doesn’t cost them anything as opposed to decrease military spending, quit supporting american imperialism, reparation to first nation or universal health-care.

        The role of the liberals is to give crumbles to the working class so they keep voting for the boss. Enlightened rulers.