Your failure starts with summarizing everything under one single label, here we are dealing with the word “liberalism.” Most of us on this platform live in societies where such term have quite a ubiquitous understanding of the issues the word encompasses. The correct way to go about this is to stop grouping different issues under specific political policy memes. Instead of countering the social dynamics that has manifested on equal footings the word “conservatism,” we need to simply look at the issues themselves without associating any forms of political leaning into the discussion. Such social dynamic provides no productive values to actually discussing and solving the issues themselves.
Of course by public discourse, I can say that liberalism has applied more empirical reasoning methods because simply the demographics associated with those terms. It doesn’t mean that it’s not susceptible to the type of tribalism failures that you often see the other teams succumb to.
Political frameworks are simply the inefficiencies we have to deal with at this time. They are the social patterns that gets things done. We can continue to be trapped in this existing paradigm, or we could work toward a better one.
Your failure starts with summarizing everything under one single label, here we are dealing with the word “liberalism.”
This reflects an empiricist view of language which is not compatible with analytic rigor. The kind of “liberalism” undermined by info about unequal capacities (a leftist commitment to economic leveling among citizens) is only associated with the word due to contingent facts about American coalitional politics. The natural cluster in political perspectives that “liberal” was invented to represent does not entail this position. Zack Davis’s Where to Draw the Boundaries? is relevant. If you don’t know the technical meaning of a term, this is a fact about you, not about the person using it.
In both cases of US local and global understanding of the word, it limits the scope of the discussion to be had. Once you start categorizing actions regarding specific issues in this way, you inadvertently start drawing boundaries in relations to other issues that are related to the issue at hand. It’s a failure of methods, not language. For instance, the issue of abortion is closely tied to the issue of personal beliefs, which is also tied to the beliefs and laws regarding the preservation of life. The method is merely a simplification for the political machinery that take actions on resolving these issues. US has its own local political climate, but it’s not to say that when other countries use the same rhetoric for the same functions, they would be much different other than the details.
The “liberalism” framing came from Tailcalled and not me, so I’m not sure why you’re labeling this as my failure. I agree that it is likely to be deconfusing for Tailcalled to decompose “liberalism”.
I’m sorry I wasn’t saying you personally. I don’t know who you are. I was referring to the writing I replied to. Maybe it was someone else who brought up the topic, I didn’t read enough up the thread, that’s my bad. I will try to be careful next time.
Your failure starts with summarizing everything under one single label, here we are dealing with the word “liberalism.” Most of us on this platform live in societies where such term have quite a ubiquitous understanding of the issues the word encompasses. The correct way to go about this is to stop grouping different issues under specific political policy memes. Instead of countering the social dynamics that has manifested on equal footings the word “conservatism,” we need to simply look at the issues themselves without associating any forms of political leaning into the discussion. Such social dynamic provides no productive values to actually discussing and solving the issues themselves.
Of course by public discourse, I can say that liberalism has applied more empirical reasoning methods because simply the demographics associated with those terms. It doesn’t mean that it’s not susceptible to the type of tribalism failures that you often see the other teams succumb to.
Political frameworks are simply the inefficiencies we have to deal with at this time. They are the social patterns that gets things done. We can continue to be trapped in this existing paradigm, or we could work toward a better one.
This reflects an empiricist view of language which is not compatible with analytic rigor. The kind of “liberalism” undermined by info about unequal capacities (a leftist commitment to economic leveling among citizens) is only associated with the word due to contingent facts about American coalitional politics. The natural cluster in political perspectives that “liberal” was invented to represent does not entail this position. Zack Davis’s Where to Draw the Boundaries? is relevant. If you don’t know the technical meaning of a term, this is a fact about you, not about the person using it.
In both cases of US local and global understanding of the word, it limits the scope of the discussion to be had. Once you start categorizing actions regarding specific issues in this way, you inadvertently start drawing boundaries in relations to other issues that are related to the issue at hand. It’s a failure of methods, not language. For instance, the issue of abortion is closely tied to the issue of personal beliefs, which is also tied to the beliefs and laws regarding the preservation of life. The method is merely a simplification for the political machinery that take actions on resolving these issues. US has its own local political climate, but it’s not to say that when other countries use the same rhetoric for the same functions, they would be much different other than the details.
The “liberalism” framing came from Tailcalled and not me, so I’m not sure why you’re labeling this as my failure. I agree that it is likely to be deconfusing for Tailcalled to decompose “liberalism”.
I’m sorry I wasn’t saying you personally. I don’t know who you are. I was referring to the writing I replied to. Maybe it was someone else who brought up the topic, I didn’t read enough up the thread, that’s my bad. I will try to be careful next time.