How is being middle of the road,conservative in the grand scheme of things
I literally explained it in the comment. You should try reading it again.
Maintaining the status quo, opposing change, is still quite conservative. Hell the right-wing party in some countries are the “Liberals”. And note that I said lower-case-c “conservative”. Just because the self-described capital-c “Conservatives” are running further rightward and flirting with fascism, doesn’t make the middle position not conservative.
ntg but the general kind of surface level spectrum might look more like conservatives, not definitionally, or, in the sense of the origin of the word, conservatives want to regress society back to some previous state. centrists yadda yadda status quo. and then liberals want to progress society, and that’s kind of equivalent to progressivism or leftism. Which is partially because americans are not politically literate, or actually literate, and don’t understand the differences between different words, but also because america as a whole is so far to the right (so is much of the world), and so stuck in the past, that actual leftism is incredibly fucking radical, and advocating for liberalism, or at least, the identitarian implications of liberalism, rather than fucked up plutocracy and bigotry, is still thought of as a leftist position.
Why do you assume that liberals just want to maintain the status quo
Lived experience.
And like… Talking to liberals? Having conversations with people. Where whenever we discuss politics, any systemic change is always framed as too radical.
Think about climate change. Think about how many liberals view this as an issue where the solution is… More people buying electric cars. Rather than rethinking cities and infrastructure to allow for more pedestrians, bicycles, and public transport. Or where instead of regulating industries causing the most damage, the solutions is… To rely on consumers, who are already overwhelmed by information in advertising and often low on disposable income, to “make better purchasing decisions” to make the companies change by voting with their wallets. Where the fault for climate change isn’t the fact that our economies incentivise the destruction of the environment, but that people just aren’t recycling enough.
The system is always found faultless, it’s always the individual to blame. Any actual systemic solution is dismissed, precisely because changing the systems we live under is considered radical.
Some liberals might, ostensibly, say they want things to change for the better. But in practice, they tend to oppose any measure to actually achieve that change.
I will say that most liberals are definitely not opposed to measures to combat climate change, it’s just that those measures need to be sensible and realistic and most importantly costed.
Please actually read what I’m writing. Because this is fully consistent with what I’m describing.
Liberals often support change in abstract, they like the goals. But then oppose any measures to accomplish it because those measures are not “sensible” to them.
Good intentions can have bad outcomes, this is absolutely what many don’t understand.
Stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. We don’t think you’re correct, that doesn’t mean that we don’t understand.
I literally explained it in the comment. You should try reading it again.
Maintaining the status quo, opposing change, is still quite conservative. Hell the right-wing party in some countries are the “Liberals”. And note that I said lower-case-c “conservative”. Just because the self-described capital-c “Conservatives” are running further rightward and flirting with fascism, doesn’t make the middle position not conservative.
ntg but the general kind of surface level spectrum might look more like conservatives, not definitionally, or, in the sense of the origin of the word, conservatives want to regress society back to some previous state. centrists yadda yadda status quo. and then liberals want to progress society, and that’s kind of equivalent to progressivism or leftism. Which is partially because americans are not politically literate, or actually literate, and don’t understand the differences between different words, but also because america as a whole is so far to the right (so is much of the world), and so stuck in the past, that actual leftism is incredibly fucking radical, and advocating for liberalism, or at least, the identitarian implications of liberalism, rather than fucked up plutocracy and bigotry, is still thought of as a leftist position.
deleted by creator
You can think whatever you like, but that isn’t what I wrote.
deleted by creator
Lived experience.
And like… Talking to liberals? Having conversations with people. Where whenever we discuss politics, any systemic change is always framed as too radical.
Think about climate change. Think about how many liberals view this as an issue where the solution is… More people buying electric cars. Rather than rethinking cities and infrastructure to allow for more pedestrians, bicycles, and public transport. Or where instead of regulating industries causing the most damage, the solutions is… To rely on consumers, who are already overwhelmed by information in advertising and often low on disposable income, to “make better purchasing decisions” to make the companies change by voting with their wallets. Where the fault for climate change isn’t the fact that our economies incentivise the destruction of the environment, but that people just aren’t recycling enough.
The system is always found faultless, it’s always the individual to blame. Any actual systemic solution is dismissed, precisely because changing the systems we live under is considered radical.
Some liberals might, ostensibly, say they want things to change for the better. But in practice, they tend to oppose any measure to actually achieve that change.
deleted by creator
Please actually read what I’m writing. Because this is fully consistent with what I’m describing.
Liberals often support change in abstract, they like the goals. But then oppose any measures to accomplish it because those measures are not “sensible” to them.
Stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. We don’t think you’re correct, that doesn’t mean that we don’t understand.
Y’all are always so condescending.
deleted by creator
Good chat. Bye now.
He doesn’t assume that, and said the exact opposite.
deleted by creator