• Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just because a party calls themselves that and then does some shit, doesn’t change the definition of a word

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If the definition of the word was that clear we would both know and agree on exactly were “liberalism” starts and were it ends, and wouldn’t be having this discussion, plus you wouldn’t have made the distinction in your previous post between the meaning of liberal in the US and “everywhere outside the US”.

      In the absence of such perfect and worldwide agreed definition for “liberalism”, the best we can use is real-world examples of those who proclaim themselves as “liberals” (and in the case of New Labour, it’s not even in the party name) to show the common understanding of the word in various countries and the ones I listed on my last post are my real world examples which directly contradict your statement that “everywhere outside the US liberal still means progressive”.

      My notion of “liberalism” is one anchored on my experience of living and voting in 4 different countries of Europe so while I can’t prove to you that “that’s what’s understood as liberalism all over the World” (and, frankly, I doubt it is), it certainly provides a Western and Southern Europe-centric first person observation of what is said to be “liberalism” over here, a reasonably large area of the world which most definitelly counts as “outside the US”.