feddit.org

-1 points

5 months ago

To dismiss any information merely because it emanates from a source they disfavor is the epitome of liberalism, a testament to their steadfast commitment to ideological purity over factual veracity.

report

[ - ]

Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org

1 point

5 months ago

dismiss any information merely because it emanates from a source they disfavor is the epitome of liberalism

But there are sources that we’d doubt more, right?

In this case, I think the info is decent, since other sources say similar stuff and it makes sense withp previous info/experience.

Not related to science news, but I’m careful of sources with a right-wing bias in the context of general news. I’ve had experiences where they had exaggerated or twisted news. Not that left-wing sources are totally free of it, but it the scale n frequency in exaggeration seems different. And it often gets criticises by left-wing people too.

So, I am more careful of those rightwing sources. Am I a liberal because of that?

report

[ - ]

0 points

5 months ago

The reality is that every source will have some sort of a view point which constitutes a bias. I think people should be careful with all sources, and it’s actually good to look at viewpoints from across the spectrum. You don’t have to agree with them or trust them, but it’s often useful to understand their perspective even if for the purpose of framing a counterpoint. If you know a source like quillette has a particular bias, then you just keep it in mind when you read it.

The sources I dismiss are the ones that can’t provide primary sources for the claims they make or are known to be factually wrong. These are the kinds of sources that constitute a waste of time and should be avoided.

report

[ - ]

vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone

0 points

5 months ago

Hold your horses pardner.

First of all, I didn’t comment on the merits of recycling plastic. I know it’s stupid. Everyone knows it’s stupid.

Second, the assertion that “To dismiss any information merely because it emanates from a source they disfavor is the epitome of liberalism” requires some seriously odd definition of “liberalism” to be true.

Third, quillette can go get very fucked all the way.

Fourth, “the epitome of liberalism, a testament to their steadfast commitment to ideological purity” is legit the funniest shit I’ve heard all week. You are accusing liberals of striving for ideological purity? Liberals?

report

[ - ]

0 points

5 months ago

Yes, libs value ideological purity above all else, and anybody outside the lib bubble can see that. It’s the most insular ideology by far.

report

[ - ]

vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone

0 points

5 months ago

Ok, let’s do this.

Can you please explain to me the tenets of the supposedly dogmatic ideology of “liberalism” as you understand them?

report

[ - ]

-1 points

5 months ago

here you go https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/

report

[ - ]

vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone

0 points

5 months ago

I am asking you. And I’m asking a substantially more specific question than “what is liberalism”.

At least you could cite the relevant sections of that mammoth document.

report

[ - ]

0 points

5 months ago

It’s kind of weird to ask for what my view of liberalism is, and then immediately reject a detailed explanation you’re provided with. It’s as if you don’t actually care for the answer to your question. That said, I’ll sum up the relevant points for you here.

The English revolution of 1649 led to the rise of a liberal capitalist system based on greed, exploitation, and violence. The western political-economic system, with its focus on profit and expansion, is a direct result of this historical process. Freedom under liberalism primarily refers to freedom of those who own private property to exploit others for their benefit.

The commercial mindset permeates every aspect of life, with money becoming the central focus of thought and action creating a society that is inherently expansionist and imperialist, fueled by a relentless pursuit of new markets and profit. This expansion is achieved through violence and subjugation. The imposition of the capitalist system that is at the root of liberalism is based on violence and coercion, forcing individuals to conform to its principles or face dire consequences.

Liberalism has two distinct aspects: political liberalism, which champions individual freedom and democracy, and economic liberalism, which is synonymous with capitalism. While appearing compatible when fighting against oppressive regimes, the two faces of liberalism clash once power is attained. Political liberties are inevitably sacrificed to protect the economic interests of the ruling class.

When threatened by populism, liberalism readily abandons its political ideals in favor of preserving the capitalist economic system. Liberalism ultimately serves as a mask for capitalism, concealing its exploitative nature behind a facade of individual freedom and democracy.

The concept of property, central to liberalism, is presented as a cornerstone of freedom. However, it ignores the fact that individual property can represent a theft from the community, and its protection justifies state violence. Liberalism’s commitment to freedom of expression is undermined by its legal and constitutional protections of property, which remove the issue of property rights from the realm of political discourse.

Overall, liberalism is a deceptive ideology that masks the exploitative nature of capitalism. It prioritizes the protection of property and economic interests over genuine political freedom and open debate.

report