That’s a really broad brush you got there. You can replace “liberals” with “people” here and be correct.
Most people tend to passively accept the political positions of their surroundings, yes.
Holy pedantry, you know exactly who I mean when I say liberals.
But let’s say political liberals, including the ones on both sides of the US political spectrum, since you need to frame it in a US centric way.
Even the most radical of the liberal thoughts in the world do not dare to think to address the fundamental issues with the socioeconomic system, though I guess that might be because they created it.
Even in your comment you can see the complete lack of political imagination, or any attempt to strive towards anything but the status quo.
I really don’t. You could be a conservative or a socialist ranting about “liberals” and those would be two very different groups of people. If you’re using it in the way a tankie would, then it’s literally anyone who isn’t a tankie. It’s a very overloaded term.
Even the most radical of the liberal thoughts in the world do not dare to think to address the fundamental issues with the socioeconomic system
That’s probably because they disagree with you on what the fundamental issues are, and what “ideal” looks like. Liberalism embraces inequality, preferring instead to focus on expanding opportunity. If your idea of the fundamental issue is inequality, of course you’ll find them unsatisfying.
There are a lot of interesting ideas within liberalism, but you need to be on board with the fundamental assumption that inequality is okay and even desirable.
Most people tend to passively accept the political positions of their surroundings, yes.
Holy pedantry, you know exactly who I mean when I say liberals.
But let’s say political liberals, including the ones on both sides of the US political spectrum, since you need to frame it in a US centric way.
Even the most radical of the liberal thoughts in the world do not dare to think to address the fundamental issues with the socioeconomic system, though I guess that might be because they created it.
Even in your comment you can see the complete lack of political imagination, or any attempt to strive towards anything but the status quo.
I really don’t. You could be a conservative or a socialist ranting about “liberals” and those would be two very different groups of people. If you’re using it in the way a tankie would, then it’s literally anyone who isn’t a tankie. It’s a very overloaded term.
That’s probably because they disagree with you on what the fundamental issues are, and what “ideal” looks like. Liberalism embraces inequality, preferring instead to focus on expanding opportunity. If your idea of the fundamental issue is inequality, of course you’ll find them unsatisfying.
There are a lot of interesting ideas within liberalism, but you need to be on board with the fundamental assumption that inequality is okay and even desirable.