You said liberals oppose strikes.

I have absolutely no idea where you think I said this. I think you're shadowboxing someone else.

This is what I was saying about your definition of “liberal” being shifty in a way where it can change to support whatever you’re trying to argue at any given time

It's not being cagey, it's just not a description or list of policy positions. You even just said that the framework has changed a bunch of times since Locke. It's an ideological framework for democratic systems of governance, and i've repeatedly explained why that framework is problematic.

As the source you sent me pointed out, the definition has changed over time,

Yup.

and since then more radical alternative has emerged, which “liberalism” often opposes.

Marxism-Leninism is at odds with Trotskyism, but they're both 'marxist'. Liberalism describes a bunch of different particular denominations of the same underlying framework. Does that make sense?

That’s what MLK was saying.

Err, no? MLK was criticizing moderate liberals who were claiming to agree with the civil rights on principle but were complaining about the inconvenience of the demonstrations, arguing (much like liberals in 2024 were) that they should wait for a better season. He wasn't complaining about libertarians, he was complaining about the 'progressives' who were standing in the way of liberation.

But at the time liberalism emerged, there was aristocracy or nothing.

Kind of? I mean there had been plenty of democratic systems since the Greeks and Romans, but broadly speaking, sure. John Locke was considered quite radical at the time, but liberalism as it came into focus after the french revolution took on a considerably more 'moderating' focus. But while Locke was certainly a radical at the time, his foundation is most closely related to classical liberalism and libertarianism today, both broadly reactionary and "conservative" in the modern american sense. The 'social' liberalism you're most familiar with probably didn't start taking shape until at least Kant in 1784, or more reasonably 1789 with Bentham. All of them, though, still centered around 'individual liberty' and framed their thoughts on democracy around it. All of the formative problems with liberalism that i've described has been there since the founding.

Like I said, it seems like your whole concept of it is as a limiting factor on progressive movements (which is certainly an element in the modern day), but that’s not the whole of liberalism and those progressive movements didn’t even exist in the beginning form of it. Liberalism was the progressive movement

That isn't my whole concept. Liberalism being a framework for the limits of the ideal democratic system is only it's reason for being, but that's not what it is. It's a set of political ideals that centers around the liberties of the individual. That applies just as much to modern progressives as it does to Locke and libertarians.

and then you proceed to explain to me why I take issue with the uncommitted movement.

Because your understanding of the uncommitted movement, and how protest is meant to work in-general, is quite limited. People expressing discontent with democrats online is an extension of that movement. So is asserting the reality of how that issue was shaping their unpopularity at the time - both of which you have been critical of, even in your own examples. You've expressed concern with that type of messaging 'influencing voters', even though bringing those issues into the public conversation is precisely the point of protest. You repeatedly assert your utilitarian calculus on others who are expressing despair with their options. Admittedly I am making a broader assessment of your intentions than you've explicitly stated, but you're still misunderstanding the issue with liberalism i'm describing. It's not a set of policy positions or opinions

I am asking you a question about your definitions, using various specific referents (myself, congressional Democrats, Bernie Sanders, Biden, users on Lemmy who are accused of being liberals)

Liberalism is a way of understanding political organization that centers around individual liberty and abides by a system of ideals that are together functionally incapable of resisting fascism. I don't know how much more explicit I can be. Sometimes someone with progressive positions can be a liberal, especially when they abandon them in favor of protecting liberal institutions. I can't tell you what category every person or user fits in because I don't have some magic 8 ball that tells me.

What I am saying is how some of your definitions fall apart or become contradictory once you have to apply them to specific people yes or no, and then defend the application of the label to those specific people.

I know what you're complaining about. I've been trying to tell you that it isn't a matter of policy, it's a matter of ideology. The policies that result from liberal thinking are not always consistent, because they are situationally dependent on opposing forces. Is Biden a liberal? Yes. Is Sanders a liberal? Probably not, but on occasion it can seem like it. Schumer? Pelosi? Jefferies? Harris? 100% certified. And not because they hold specific positions, but because the rationalization of those positions abide by liberal principles (does this or that policy or action infringe on individual liberties? Does this or that policy grant me greater influence to protect individual liberty? Does this or that policy depend on the practicalities of a capitalist system of governance?).

Which is why I think it’s a bad idea to use “liberal” as a key part of your argumentative style.

Well it certainly seems to frustrate you, but I think that has more to do with your political framework necessitating clear declarative categories than with the coherence with my definition of liberalism.

Does that make sense?

Frankly? No. It might frustrate your understanding of the world but it in no way hinders my own.

I've repeatedly said I didn't care if you, specifically, were a liberal. When you asked me several times, I acquiesced with "probably", but nothing you were saying was 'proving' your position relative to liberalism - if anything it was making more suspicous. I never went through your history because it's immaterial to me if you, specifically, are the type of liberal I'm being critical of. Mostly I was just glad you weren't as bad as others who routinely complain about people castigating liberals, but you're still incredibly disingenuous with your own accusations. Take whatever you want from that as a concession.

Now if it was this scenario where the DNC could hear me here saying that I was planning to vote for them anyway to keep Trump out of power, that would bother me a lot, because that actually would produce this impact you’re talking about which could increase the genocide in the world.

When people all get together and say, "what the democrats are doing is absolutely horrible, but it's incredibly important to vote for them anyway", and then accuse anyone not explicitly declaring their intention to vote for them of being dishonest about their intentions, of course it's going to reinforce that behavior. And why would I assume you think otherwise? Why would you take issue with people sharing reporting that you think is 'misrepresentative' if it isn't because that reporting might shift public opinion in a meaningful way? It's not out of principle that you tone police those political news comms - if anything it's because you believe the best way to minimize genocide is to elect democrats over republicans, and that means protecting public opinion against popular resentment.

Yes, i'm interpreting your behavior. Yes I know you insist that's not what you're doing or why you're doing it. But you've given me no reason to believe otherwise other than a few quotes affirming that the genocide is a problem, and a bunch of examples of justifying your electoral position by comparing democrats to how bad the republicans are in comparison. Honestly, though - and I feel like i've said this a few times already - i don't give a shit if i'm describing you. I never set out to prove that you're a liberal. If you really think that what i'm describing as liberalism in practice, then fine.

Fixing that sounds great, but I’m disgusted in general with this big Lemmy contingent who seem to be a lot more vocal about not voting than they are about any other strategy for fixing US support for genocide. That’s a shit strategy, straight up.

Those people aren't being vocal about not voting, they're describing why electoral politics are a huge part of the problem, and that voting can't fix it. Yes, democrats are the harm reduction option. Yes, trump is a fascist. No, voting does not even begin to fix the problem with our liberal democracy, and insisting everyone make their intention to vote a prerequisite for being considered an honest broker online is the problem i'm talking about. That it remains the central issue in your diatribes serves only to reinforce my opinion of you.

IDK, I feel like you sort of halfway absorbed and halfway failed to absorb what I was telling you about my own viewpoint on protest and effective advocacy for change, and you’re still kind of stuck in this strawman model of “the enemy” who doesn’t believe in protest and so you have to lecture me, or doesn’t believe in criticizing Democrats and so you have to lecture me

Because you continue to carve out exceptions to what you claim to believe, like this:

What I was talking about was OP and the little gang of people who’ve been spreading the narrative that the Democrats are the worst thing, basically indistinguishable from fascism, and are now having trouble hiding their eagerness to double down on assuring everyone that it’s all the Democrats’ fault and this whole thing was inevitable

If that's not a hyperbolic comment about people expressing their distaste for the inadequacy of democratic policy and governance, I don't know what else to call it.

You’ll just yell at them that they’re okay with genocide and being aware that they absolutely are not

I'm not sure where you've gotten that assessment, I haven't told you that you're OK with genocide. I can see how you might have gotten there, though.

It's fine, you seem committed to your misinterpretation and your attachment to your label. You can have it.