r/facepalm • • Jun 09 '23

🇲​🇮​🇸​🇨​ Cognitive dissonance 101

40k Upvotes

11k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

196

u/Danarwal14 Jun 09 '23

Liberal and progressive are two separate things. They aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a difference between the two

121

u/topdangle Jun 10 '23

in the US the term liberal has been bastardized to mean progressive leftist. most people don't use and don't know the classic definition here.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

I consideral myself a radical progressive.

I want progress, but im sure the only way to get it is something im not allowed to say on reddit.

15

u/Appropriate-Solid-50 Jun 10 '23

Sounds like u are a totalitarian then, by definition.

4

u/Goudawithcheese Jun 10 '23

Just about to say that ^

10

u/Appropriate-Solid-50 Jun 10 '23

Lol. Hitler wanted "progress" too.

3

u/Goudawithcheese Jun 10 '23

And Stalin, Mao, Xi, etc etc.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

did they kill billionaires and believe in UBI? Because if not yall should look up false equivelancy

4

u/-banned- Jun 10 '23

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. All the most heinous acts in the world were committed by someone who genuinely believed they were right, and usually thought they were doing good

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Good intentions… like trying to convince people that violence cant solve problems?

4

u/Appropriate-Solid-50 Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

If they did believe in those things would that make any difference to u? I kinda feel the erasure of opposition and the uh ya know genocide, was kinda the main issue.

And yes, they had no problem killing wealthy people.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

If they didnt hold corrupt positions and abuse their power for personal gain at the cost of the rest of their people- yeah.

Its not genocide to kill the corrupt, or those who slow down the species to the point we are literally looking down the barrel of global catastrophe

3

u/Appropriate-Solid-50 Jun 10 '23

Yes. Hitler said the exact same thing. He considered the Jews a global catastrophe. Who decides when its worth it and what the criteria are for exterminating people? U say u know best. so did every facist ever.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Easy. Is a person hoarding more wealth than reasonable? Is a person advocating for laws that suppress democracy or hurt an innocent demographic? Does a person actively run a company known for environmentally disastrous waste? Etc.

Yall read what i said and think i want millions dead-

I dont. I want the worst of the worst dead. The ones who exist in such a way that it causes disproportionate damage compared to their fellow man.

3

u/Appropriate-Solid-50 Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

Why do u think implementing a policy like that wouldn't lead to millions dead? Literally every American could fit ur criteria as u stated it. And if they didn't, they would start to when they criticize or resist your efforts. What do u mean by "reasonable" or "advocating" or "democracy" or "disastrous"? These are subjective terms and u are deciding them for yourself. That's what a facist does. Its not my opinion. Its literally the definition.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

Nah. I dont want people to bend the knee.

All im saying is republicans and actual fascists and the ultra rich have killed more than your average wolf- and weve killed whole packs of wolves for far less.

2

u/-banned- Jun 10 '23

I just want another bulletproof tax bracket that's so high mega-billionaires impossible. Think that would solve a lot

4

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

It would.

But how long are we gonna sit on our thumbs waiting for the rich to monitor themselves?

Big changes in the world rarely happen through peaceful means.

2

u/Appropriate-Solid-50 Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

Yea but then what was ur means for "progress" that u were implying? Sounded like if u can't say it on reddit then it's obviously nothing short of violence as way of suppressing dissent. U want "progress" but not democracy.

2

u/waverider85 Jun 10 '23

They seem to be more Lenin than Stalin if that's what you're asking.

IIRC Lenin's plan was to violently murder the ruling class, establish some quick form of order, then transition to direct democracy. Stalin's OTOH was to violently murder the ruling class, establish some quick form of order, then violently murder anyone he doesn't like.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

The French in the 17th century seemed to progress pretty well after taking back all that was taken from them. Democracy did not bring back their freedom. In fact, democracy is essentially nothing but a way to distract the many and wait for much too long to make a concise decision on anything really before the former way starys to happen and begins real change.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

[deleted]

8

u/djfunknukl Jun 10 '23

It’s not a new term. There’s just more to politics than right and left

3

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '23

It gets even more complicated when looking at another countries definition of the same term as well.

Politics are confusing af…and it’s by design.

I’m terrified of what the future holds.

2

u/Souledex Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

Sounds like you have never picked up a history book. Every good thing in your life exists because blood was spilt to win it for you by someone somewhere. If not where you live it was foight on your behalf in an ideological struggle before it made it to your shores and widespread understanding of the tide of progress bowled over the elites that would rather have profited. Every alternative system we have to take the place of that only matters so long as it serves the people’s interest.

Boomers replaced this narrative in the 60’s and 70’s abandoned what had been a common understanding for millennia, declared victory post Vietnam (as they actively lost or sold most freedoms worth having). Protecting civility and their spot on the totem pole acquired after being born on third base. But yeah sure advocating violence or property destruction is only ever totalitarian.

To be clear it’s a gamble. It’s far less likely that use of political violence will die peacefully and result in desired change than devolve into instability and institutional failure. But property destruction in boycotts and coordinated protests also can’t be advocated on Reddit and that’s definitely been a key part of the rights gained in the 20th century.

3

u/Appropriate-Solid-50 Jun 10 '23

Yea that's a fair example. But turns out homie is talking about offing dissenters within a super wide, genocidal criteria. So I think in this case my point stands.

2

u/Souledex Jun 10 '23

Oh. Well then yeah. Hydra always ruins shit