You're viewing a single thread.
I agree with his overall dissection of the weakness of writing and the nonexistent character, however I find it absurd to say liberals are afraid of change and fight change.
That's a whole new level of mental gymnastics
I think you're confusing liberalism with leftism. The post is talking about neoliberalism, which is fundamentally a political philosophy of "no bad systems, only bad actors", and is actually pretty darn anti-change and therefore conservative. If you'd like to watch a longer form essay that goes into more detail on the points that greentext brought up, and explains it within the greater context of Rowling's own politics, I highly recommend this video by Shaun (a leftist YT essayist): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1iaJWSwUZs
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=-1iaJWSwUZs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
One perspective I don't see very often in this discussion is one I heard in the appendices of the revolutions podcast. It is the following: People are moderate or radical in both means and ends respectively. So in ideological conflicts one will find:
- Radical radicals: people willing to use means outside the current system (e.g. violent force) to reach radical ends (e.g. communism or fascism).
- Moderate radicals: people only willing to use means within the current system to reach radical ends.
- Moderate moderates: people only willing to use means within the current system to reach moderate ends and go no further.
- Radical moderates: people willing to use radical means to reach moderate ends and prevent it from going any further.
I think this is a good perspective to have when looking at behavior of different political groups.
It's a broad stroke for sure. But there is definitely a demographic of milquetoast liberals who believe in progressive causes as long as it doesn't bring them too much discomfort. The sort of person who wants the far right to go away "so we can all get back to brunch", but is terrified of the sort of mass structural change that would be required to create a truly egalitarian society.
I believe that's the sort of person being addressed here. It doesn't help that the word liberal is heavily overloaded.
I believe the post is referring to those who are both economically and socially liberal. The rainbow capitalists. They believe in equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community, black and brown people etc. but refuse to acknowledge, learn or put the work into how a system like neoliberal capitalism results in these groups being oppressed in the first place.
In order for equality to be achieved the system has to radically change. A lot of liberals don't want this because it makes them feel uncomfortable (and a lot of the time this conflicts with a system they benefit from).
Right, it's the sort of person who thinks that female billionaires or black billionaires are icons of progress. As opposed to the continued existence of billionaires being a blight on society regardless of their gender or colour.
Or the sort of person who donates to a charity sleepout for homelessness, but opposes social housing development or improved renters' rights at the expense of landlords. Probably because they are a landlord themselves and are incapable of confronting the hypocrisy of being sad about the housing crisis while simultaneously profiting from it.
"Rainbow capitalist" is a great term btw.
That’s like me. I just want people to have freedom to be themselves as long as it doesn’t physically harm anyone. I don’t want a welfare state. People should be on the hook to find work and shouldn’t live outside their means. Bums are rare in Mexico because their isn’t any safety net. On the flip side, businesses need to be regulated to avoid monopolies, fight collusion, and ensure worker and consumer safety. That is the extent of government aside from protecting the country from foreign invaders and regulating interstate commerce. If you give a government too much power, then citizens become pawns to the system. It is a self-fulfilling truth that if you help people too much, many will become dependent. If those people have families and/or drug problems, then they become a burden on society. People should be encouraged to work or starve. We can have people too sick to work cared for, but this compassion is simply for the truly handicapped and not for lazy people.
No one is a bum because they're lazy. You're the second Mexican I've heard this ridiculous bullshit from this week, which isn't many but it's still concerning.
I’m not Mexican, but love Mexican culture and work ethic. Not so much the cartel violence, but the food is to die for. Yes. In America, there are lazy bums. There are also people with mental health issues and substance abuse. We should lock them in facilities or ostracize them to uninhabited regions. They can choose, thus providing them freedom from government overreach. Basically, they can’t just loiter around. They can be taken in by private residence or go to government facilities or leave, but no camping full-time in town.
Man, that's such a cold and unempathetic attitude. What do you think causes homelessness? How many homeless people do you think got there because they were just lazy, useless people? As opposed to being dealt a shitty hand by life?
Once you're in that situation, it's insanely hard to get out of it. "Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is a satirical phrase intended to highlight the physical impossibility of such a task. If you genuinely want people to be able to improve their lives, you have to give them a helping hand to get them started.
Instead, you basically want to hand a death sentence to anyone who's unfortunate enough to hit rock bottom. That's fucked up man.
I would encourage you to look into the stats on welfare abuse and see how rare it is. The number of people who abuse the system and use it as an excuse to be lazy is tiny in relative terms. Clamping down on that small minority is only possible if you are willing to accept huge collateral damage in the form of pain inflicted on disadvantaged people who just need some help to find their feet.
If you allow people to slide into abject poverty, it just causes more poverty and social problems. Do you want to increase the number of people who are desperate, have nothing to lose, and feel like society doesn't give a shit about them? What do you think that does to a person? Do you think that motivates them to better themselves? For some people maybe, but for many it means doing whatever they have to in order to survive, including crime, drugs, etc.
I would much rather live in a compassionate society that helps people when they need help. If that means that a small number of people get away with not pulling their weight then so be it. It's a small price to pay.
It's pretty damn clear that countries with a strong social safety net are happier and more prosperous over all than those with a callous sort of dog eat dog attitude.
american liberals are pretty much conservatives with LGBT rights by european standards. And well, our european "liberals" are mostly economically neoliberal, autocratic reactionaries and racist in many aspects but with LGBT rights and legalized pot. They'd sell out on the LGBT rights for a new car though.
It depends on where you live I guess. Some places are already liberal paradise so they don't have to plot to destroy any remaining worker right.