yeah this meme is being intentionally dishonest. nobody is upset about a fucking fast food chain burning down.

This is like Orwell shit. The party was never at war with East Asia. We never denounced the George Floyd protests. We were always anti-billionaire.

What else? The Democrats never supported Israel? I've heard that one recently.

Sure. But the bucket of people that term encapsulates doesn't match that definition anymore.

Ok

You're going to hate this answer, but yes. Believe it or not, countries hate when civil unrest starts to manifest as damage to GDP.

During the BLM demonstrations right wing provocatours deliberately caused damage to discredit the demonstrations. Two were caught and prosecuted in Cleveland where i live. Don't be a tool

Would lighting up politicians offices and police stations not be a far quicker effect than waiting for damage done to uninvolved 3rd parties to trickle up?

If it was one of the 3 that are close enough to my job to get lunch I'd be a little pissed.

Keep in mind, the property damage after the murder of George Floyd was started by a white supremacist, too. "Umbrella man" smashed windows on an auto zone and spray painted it "free shit zone," it would later be set on fire. Out of 20 people charged in Minnesota for rioting, only 4 were actually local to the state.

That's not how that works. That only makes sense if like liberal parties didn't exist. Saying Social Democrats or Socialists or Greens are more liberal than Liberals on some issues doesn't make any sense, it like implies that the Liberals are ontologically the most progressive.

Yep. Pretty much all of the negative issues from the BLM protests were off duty cops or non-local white supremacists trying to provoke violence.

Remember the conveniently placed pallets of bricks?

I've said it before.

People are alive today that wouldnt be alive if someone hadnt shot that UHC CEO.

The entire insurance industry got so scared and so panicked that they stopped denying coverage for curable issues for like.. the next year. Hundreds, thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people are alive today, and are in better health today, because one vile piece of shit got shot and died.

Thats an easy trade to make any day of the week.

I think your conflating Democrats with liberals.

Democrats are centrist, at best. This is also why it's so silly when democrats are referred to as being radically left.

As a liberal, I'm gonna need these rules in a paper copy if you don't mind. Because I'm all for killing authoritarianism and budgening oppressors.... And I care little about my own private property in my pursuit to do those things.

Property can be replaced. Murdering your oppressors is forever.

I'm assuming you aren't a liberal? Or left of anything? On a scale of one to ten, how much do you love boots?

There are many points to protesting. Provoking the opposition is one of them. We see this in civil disobedience protests and noncooperation actions.

Provocation of state responders is one of the effects of protest, regardless of whether it is intended. But it's so consistent, especially in authoritarian regimes, that it is absolutely figured into the calculations of organizers. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., for instance, staged actions expecting casualties, but knowing they would ultimately further the cause by orders of magnitude.

It's unlikely you (a specific person) will get killed at a protest, but we see casualties at protests all the time, and they are often honored, such as the Kent State victims, who have a folk song written about them. It also sparked a student strike four million strong, and helped to speed the end of the war.

Not all antagonistic responses have to be lethal or even injurious to to create a backlash in support of the cause. The No Kings Snapchat account shutdown by Meta is already resulting in backlash against the Trump regime, against Zuckerberg, and against the tech bro coalition in general.

But again, all a state really needs to do is manage a protest with grace. Authoritarian regimes just jave a tendency to take visible dissent personally (or any criticism, really), and then more liberal states often fail to instill in their law enforcement a predisposition of deescalation. I suspect right-wingers just enjoy the notion of cracking dissenter heads so much they can't help themselves.

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK)

Is it democratic? Is it a Republic? Names don't always represent their namesake.

There also is no party titled "Liberal" in the USA, which is what I'm specifically referencing since this post is about USA "liberals".

Bruh, I live in a place where the liberal party is called the Liberal Party and they're functionally identical to the Democrats just without the same responsibilities of being the #1 state sponsor of war.

Like no, just no, stop trying to make "liberal" synonymous with progressive, they are different things.

Oh, you seem to misunderstand me.

I'm not. Me as an individual is not trying to do that.

It has already happened in the USA. I live in the USA. When you read the news or talk to your co-workers or friends and anyone uses the word "liberal", it is synonymous with "progressive".

I didn't know what the "true" definition was until I was in my 30s, because my whole life it has been used that way.

Then just use progressive. It's like pretty much just a US thing to use liberal as an adjective.

Tell that to the Nepalese.

And that change was the mass deployment of Flock cameras Nation-wide.

I do that. My original comment was just highlighting that "Liberal" has a different meaning depending on who you are talking to.

And now we're here.

Are you sure you are a liberal? Cuz it sounds to me that you're way to the left of liberals. I could be wrong though. Maybe you are a liberal. Maybe you're one of that group of people that every single time it comes to supporting the the workers or supporting fascism you'll support fascism. Cuz that's what liberals do.

Liberals will always turn against the working class. We have 300 years of human history that backs this lesson up and I have no sympathy for people who have refused to learn from it.

What private property do you have? Do you have like a factory or a own a forest or a mine or something? You sure you're not talking about personal property?

Don't forget order. Order is the other guiding principle of liberalism. Although I guess you could say that order exists to protect property. So maybe it's a 1B kind of thing.

It is usually local people harmed by property damage when the people who are the problem point fingers from afar at strawmen. It seems no matter what you do, tribalism will overcome any change.

Return2ozma: posts accurate meme

Americans: (insert excuse or bad reaction here)

Always happens

I see the problem. You heard something from leftists, and then brought up something said by liberals.

Easy mistake in the bullshit US discourse

Bruh, it sounds like your "Liberal party" and the Democrats serve the same function, which is to be just left enough of the conservative party to capture the votes of liberals, while never affecting (or even advocating for) any actual progressive, liberal societal change.

You seem to not know the difference between personal property and private property.

If you own a single home which you live in that isn't private property, that is personal property.

I never said they were just McDonald's franchises. I know they are also cafe owners and petite bourgeois leeches of the sort.

I give zero fucks. If you're a business owner who sees to profit off of your community: go fuck yourself you utter parasite.

All profit is theft. Period.

"People need to earn a living" is capitalist realism Bullshit. People only need to earn a living because the owning class forces the need to pay for what rightfully belongs to the community. If people stopped forcing that need and refused to exploit their community for profit, instead organizing to provide for each other freely and reading, then people wouldn't need to "earn a living" and can still pursue their passions to learn a trade or gain education.

And if it is a place if business that seeks profit there is always an obligation to spend money (not capital, capital is property, not currency). There isn't a business out there that lets people loiter without paying.

Small business owners are just as greedy and slimy as corporate entities.

And like fuck they provide fair wage.s small businesses are the absolute worst offenders of wage theft out there. Most of them make excuses after excuses to pay less because "oh we're a small business and can't afford it". Your high as fuck if you think small businesses pay fairly.

Stop glazing the petite bourgeois. Go support your local co-op and non-profit instead.

Yeah the monolithing OP is doing is honestly impressive. Here, let me try another:

"Americans say trans rights are human rights, but then they also say trans people should be banned from public restrooms. Wtf lol????"

I will never forget when the neighborhood Facebook was alight about the hoards that were going house by house through the suburbs. That was almost 10 miles of suburban sprall...my nerd brain can't fathom the logistics of that and where that force would have come from.

But if the protests are supposed to go against the status quo why are they worried about whether those status quo liberals are angered by the protests that would be going on against them?

Demented centrist delusion to prioritize inanimate objects over the lives of real fucking people and their struggle.

Doubling down eh?

Why are you dogging on this guy if you think he's talking about his personal property?

Liberals aren't left wing, this is like B-tier trolling.

Inanimate objects? You know these are real resources, investments and livelihoods of normal people?

Go play your video games and shut the fuck up little kid

There is an enormous amount of evidence to disprove the idea that liberals will always support fascism. Fascism explicitly rejected liberal democracy, individual rights, and political pluralism. Liberals were among those persecuted by fascist regimes, and liberal democracies were instrumental in defeating said fascist regimes.

Never understood the lengths some Lemmy users go to describe liberalism in these ways. It's just as bad when people do the same thing towards ideologies such as communism

Yes. Resources that are being restricted from their community through the oppressive system of private property ownership that is intrinsic to the capitalist system.

Fuck your "investments". Fuck the livelihood of the owning-class.

The person I replied to conflated personal property with private property. The person I have been arguing with is explicitly talking about small businesses, which is explicitly private property.

Ok

"Having a conversation" is a stall tactic.

I still remember when students at the local high school organized a BLM march from the school to the police station (a 30 minute walk) I saw so many posts from people in this town itching to shoot them if they even looked at their house weird.

Temporarily IIRC. Didn't they quietly revert their changes later, denying just as many claims again?

Liberal has a completely different meaning in the US and has for about the last century. Wikipedia article on social liberalism in general and here's one on modern liberalism in the US, but if you don't want to read all that, here's an excerpt:

Modern liberalism in the United States emerged with Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s and is the prevailing version of liberalism in the country. It is most synonymous with the ideology known as social liberalism in much of the world, combining in the U.S. version elements of cultural liberalism, American progressivism, civil liberty and social equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy

and a bit later in the same article:

Economically, modern liberalism embraces a role for government to protect against market failures, ensure competition and prevent corporate monopolies, and supports labor rights through the strengthening of public- and private-sector labor unions, collective bargaining, unemployment insurance and minimum wage laws.

So I think perhaps you can see how the term means something completely different there. It's really closer to socdem than classical liberal.

And as a kicker, the US "conservative" party is economically liberal, whereas much of the "liberal" party is not (unfortunately much of the old guard there are more liberal rather than liberal).

TL;DR: Yes, the economic term "liberalism" means "let corpos do whatever the fuck". In the modern meaning of the word politically, it's more "all people are created equal and all deserve to be free".

If we try to do a proper protest, we’ll get killed by subpar gun laws and a shot by some members of the official Kyle Rittenhouse fan club.

Ah the great lie of American politics. That Liberals are somehow different in America than the rest of the world. But it's funny. When you look at the things that American liberals vote for and support it sure seems like the exact same fucking things they do in the rest of the world doesn't it?