If Patrick were a liberal today...

you sure? because that looks more like what Hannity shrieks every night,rather than an actual,fair representation of what liberals are looking for.

What is the fair representation? We have seen demands for Universal Basic Income, Free Healthcare, Free College Education. How is that being misrepresented?

I gave you a fair chance to make your representation. You chose not to.

Uh no...not how the big boy world works

you ABSOLUTELY have to set parameters to move forward in a discussion on political philosophy,christ,ANY philosophy!

I need to gauge where you are in ordre to sufficiently answer your question.

"liberal" is an amorphous term,it can mean a multitude of things depending on perspective and/or understandings.i would ask the same thing is you asked me about "conservative",and define a fairly comprehensive representation.

this is not rocket science.
hmmm..i may have over-estimated your understandings.
goddammit,got me all excited too.

now I am just disappointed.

you gonna call me a bunch of names and try to insult me?
wow..what a shocker.
stay in character bro,and don't ever change.

Enoch, you claimed the OP was misrepresenting liberal democrats? I plainly asked how. I then listed policy proposals that support the OP's claim and asked for your representation.

Where I am, on the political spectrum is entirely irrelevant to your representation. Its even more so in philosophical discussions. Basically saying, a Philosopher must query everyone who would read his doctrine before espousing his doctrine. That is utter hogwash.

So please, will you just state your case?

so../claps hands..
let's get to it,shall we?

the reason I asked for clarification was because there are different forms of liberalism.one of them is pretty "liberty" oriented and is in direct conflict with this meme:

classical liberalism:Free trade and world peace. Many classical liberalism propose that liberty and prosperity can be increased through empowering commercial classes and abolishing royal charters and monopolies. They believe more in mercantilism and entrepreneurship. Human Nature, Government, World Peace.

then you have the more "progressive liberalism",which began in the late 19th and early 20th century:While the term “American progressives” represent a range of diverse political pressure groups (not always united), some American progressives rejected Social Darwinism, believing that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated, and believed that government could be a tool for change.

which would still not be the "liberals" this meme is addressing.

then you have radical leftism,or also known as anarchism(anarcho syndicalism,libertarian socialism) which rejects systems of authority:
“Power to the People”; Reform is needed to continue society; out with the old, in with the new. Science reforms, education reforms, anti-religious zealots. Radicalism is the belief that the king’s power – or in America’s case, government — is illegitimate

the closest this meme comes to is FDR,new deal liberalism,and was a political successor to classical liberalism.in which the ideology is that some things should be considered "rights" i.e:livable wage,right for trade without monopolies,decent home,decent health care etc etc

there is my case.

First, thank you.

Yes, I am well versed the ideology of classic liberalism, and as well how politicians adopt names (to serve as false anchors) for their beliefs that actually run contradictory to the name they have chosen.

Now the meme is addressing the modern, adopted definition of liberal. Think Kamala Harris or Corey Booker. Both of these "liberals" have advocated for free handouts.

In that light, I don't see how this is being misrepresented.

don't really see where we have anything more to say.
you asked,i answered.
we are finished here.

Enoch is right. The big boy world, and by that, I mean the think tanks and anyone else who is actively trying to ascertain factual criteria for holding a real debate, will often establish what Enoch calls "parameters", but which is more accurately labeled as a "definition of terms" portion to their writings. It's important to establish a baseline of agreed upon definitions to the words being discussed so that the accidental "equivocation" fallacy isn't committed. When people fail to agree on definitions of terms, the conversation loses any significant meaning itself and quickly devolves into people arguing past one another, never making a point except within the confines of their own head. And we ask, "Why don't they get it?" when neither side is even speaking about the same thing anymore.

For example: Liberal...what does this word mean? Depends on who you ask. Left leaning people understand this word to mean something else entirely from what conservative minded people accept as a definition, and both think they are right. To add to the confusion, there is variance even among and within these two groups of people. If you're debating from your definition and your opponent is debating from his, then neither of you are talking about the same thing. That's why "parameters" are useful. They enable conversation to be more productive. And that's just one word! Debate is nearly impossible in this era where words common usages are changing more rapidly than we can keep up with. Someone making the attempt to lay the foundation for a conversation isn't side-stepping, but trying to establish a common ground from which both parties can proceed.

Philosophers lay these things out in their works because they know this and want their work to be analysed accurately by their peers. It prevents equivocation somewhat, which is the death nail for reasoned arguments. Many arguments or online debates would be shorter and more amiable if the parties could establish some mutually accepted definitions of terms before beginning. This is just my nickel's worth of commentary.

It's a broad list attributed to a broad term. "Liberal" is a meaningless term philosophically speaking. Who can define it anymore? I used it in a sense that the target audience would identify with, which, in general usage among the right, means all who fall within the Democratic party. So, in that sense it addresses the spectrum within that particular party, and overlaps into the Republican party. The Hannity reference is sound. We could parse the words all day, but in the end, based on the thread below, the term hit its target audience and was understood...the whole point of political rhetoric.

Uhhh...the Overton "Window" doesn't cover political parties. It covers a window, where policies are range from "More Free" to "Less Free" with each side of the spectrum ending in Radical policy proposals.

So again, I am not sure how you are arriving at your conclusion. Logically that is.

Just look at "Most Democrats" today and their policies. They overwhelming lean towards "Less Freedom". I can list examples if you desire.

the overton scale can be utilized for pretty much anything,but I am sure you already knew that.

I could list examples as well.

is it your contention that legislators such as Pelosi,or hoyer or even schumer are "liberal"?
because that would be in direct conflict to what you stated earlier.
now if we used the scale to compare rhetoric to policy,then we would see a massive discrepancy.
corporate democrats tend to speak in the "feel your pain" populist language,but their policies almost always cater to big monied interests.

you are a very strange person to converse with,unsure if you a muppet,or just ideologically rigid.i haven't decided yet.

you certainly make demands of people you don't know.
but..maybe that is just a personality quirk.
I don't know..
meh../shrugs..
doesn't matter.it is a meme site.

toodles.

Here we go again. Its as if you intentionally delete things from your mind.

Are Pelosi and Schumer analogous to classic liberalism. NO. Yet, they are self proclaimed "liberals." Stop getting hung up on this.

Again, you claimed by observing the Overton Window, that "Most Democrats" would be moderate republicans in today's time? You offered nothing to substantiate your claim.

"corporate democrats tend to speak in the "feel your pain" populist language,but their policies almost always cater to big monied interests."

So now you are using "big monied interest" as a term being analogous with Republicans. Okay got it. This seems suspect. Both parties have their big money interest. This is undeniable.

Again, lets examine policy on the Overton Window:

Obamacare: mandates purchasing health insurance: Less Free or More Free?
Multiple instances of proposing banning firearms: Less Free or More Free?
Carbon Taxation: More Free or Less Free

you appear to be quite pleased with your own knowledge and understanding,and continue to hammer away at..what? exactly?

all I am witnessing in your inability to digest a opnion that differs from yours,and your responses are incredibly smug and self-righteous.

at least I KNOW I do not know everything.i have the self-awareness to recognize when I am wrong,or have presumed too much.
where is THAT in any of your interactions on this site thus far?
because I certainly have not seen it.

but ok,let us go hand and hand down this road you appear to be so determined to walk.

1.just because someone claims they are something,does not necessarily make it so.which you then butcher to the point of absurdity by using my "feel your pain" reference continuing,by your logic,to be analogous with republicans.

something I never said,nor even implied.
you may want to get that bias and prejudice checked out,might be contagious.

*I am sure you will impress me with some incredibly talented mental gymnastics here.can't WAIT!

and then,for the cherry on top,you expose your utter lack of understanding how the overton scale is utilized by cherry picking the smallest slice to confirm YOUR bias.we also call it a "red herring"

but let's give it a look,shall we?

Obamacare:this was never a "liberal" policy.this was a rightwing think tanks policy,the heritage foundation,written in 1993 to counter Hillary Clintons health care proposal.

oh..you were looking for "less free".sure.. totally agree.

proposing gun bans.
this is a 2nd amendment issue,and we will not see guns banned anytime soon.this is just political theater utilized by the democrats to fire up their base.*just like republicans utilize abortion,but will never actually get rid of that boomstick.sorry pro-lifers.the power of the boomstick is too strong..

carbon taxation?
good god,this little nugget...
just more political theater,and not actual substance,and….the carbon tax is just another way for corporations to game the system and continue on doing what they were doing.

anything else I can get for you today sir?
a foot rub?
back massage?
a young Chinese woman?

Challenge Enoch's views, even he is clearly making errant statements, and you will be accused of being intolerant of other people's opinions. LOL.

"1.just because someone claims they are something,does not necessarily make it so.which you then butcher to the point of absurdity by using my "feel your pain" reference continuing,by your logic,to be analogous with republicans."

I never claimed your "speak your pain" was analogous to republicans. I said your "big monied interest" was an attempt to defend your earlier statement that "today most democrats would be moderate republicans" on the Overton Window. You were using the "big monied interest" as the baramoter to support that claim. Problem, it just doesnt hold up to critical review.

"and then,for the cherry on top,you expose your utter lack of understanding how the overton scale is utilized by cherry picking the smallest slice to confirm YOUR bias.we also call it a "red herring""

First, its funny, this is not a "red herring". A red herring is a CLUE meant to be misleading. There was no CLUE. It's funny to watch you pretend to understand concepts you don't really understand.

Lastly, the Overton WINDOW is a theory on which the acceptability of policy proposals are accepted in public discourse. They range from one side being More Free to other being Less Free and this added to by another person named Trevino who provided markers which overlay the window range from Unthinkable to Policy on both ends.

"Obamacare:this was never a "liberal" policy.this was a rightwing think tanks policy,the heritage foundation,written in 1993 to counter Hillary Clintons health care proposal."

This is amazing. Yes, the Heritage Foundation first concocted the scheme. But it became LIBERAL POLICY, when it was LEGISLATED by "liberals" with zero support from Republicans. So while your history lesson is correct, your still incorrect.

"proposing gun bans.
this is a 2nd amendment issue,and we will not see guns banned anytime soon.this is just political theater utilized by the democrats to fire up their base.*just like republicans utilize abortion,but will never actually get rid of that boomstick.sorry pro-lifers.the power of the boomstick is too strong.."

Political theater stops where policy is implemented. Gun bans have been implemented. Assault weapons ban of the 1990's? Again Democrats or what they call themselves (i dont want to say it, it hurts your nether regions).

IMGFLIP will not allow me to comment..character limit

Cries of Red Herrings...after this: Enoch starts by saying the OP is not a "fair representation" of what liberals think...This is argument A. I challenge him on Argument A. Enoch them moves to "we need to set parameters" there by introducing Argument B, trying to avoid Argument A.

That is the definition of a Red Herring fallacy

Another Red Herring introduced by Enoch: Pasquelean argues that the term "liberal" is meaningless and that definition is really hard to pin down. And that whole point was political rhetoric. This is Argument A.

Enoch then states in his meme that "Most Democrats today would be considered moderate republicans on the Overton scale".

This is argument B and a red herring as the conversation was shifted away from Argument A.

Summary, Enoch likes complaining about things he does.

but you keep on jerking yourself off buddy.
we see who you really are,anything else you would like to make up and presume?

little children,soooo invested in being right that they will do whatever it takes.it is like we are back in high school debate.yaaay.

notice pasc clarified and I actually agreed with him for the most part?
of course you didn't!
you were too busy trying to jerk yourself off.

thanks buddy!
wasn't sure what kind of person you were.you just gave me everything I needed to know.

toodles my love.

and now I know.

And most current Republicans would be considered 80s liberal Democrats based on how the their beliefs have leaned left over the past few decades. Terms are not keeping up with their definitions due to the rapidly accelerating pace of knowledge transfer. There is coming a time when people who believe the exact same thing will hate each other based on the different words in which they describe themselves...through no fault of their own.

but I do agree with how terms morph and evolve.

the democrats are experiencing an ideological civil war right now (republicans had there's over a decade ago).the old guard,corporate establishment democrats are pushing hard against the young,upstart insurgents.

this..tickles me.
*just like it did when the tea party forced the republicans to come to a more cohesive political ideology.

the political left has all but disappeared over the pas t3 decades.those liberal institutions that used to put pressure on the powerful and monied interests were slowly dissected and dismantled since FDR and his "new deal".

I mean seriously.what is left?
unions?
what are they? 7-8% of the working population?

which is why I find it kinda funny when people label the democrats as "liberal".they really aren't,not classicly speaking.

but you make a really important point about the meaning of words,and how they have been weaponized to appeal to our lizard brains,and feed into our own tribalism.

liberal,conservative,have been twisted to the point of being un-recognizable.
they are now perjoratives,meant to insult rather than define.
and if you talk to people,their politics tends to overlap...
but that doesn't make for good,solid TV watchin does it?
no drama there...people talking and discussing issues....god forbid.

that's why we need each other,to push back against the muppet class.