No, because you’re going through a lot of effort to draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context. Which is an article headline calling a group liberal because they donated to both liberal campaigns *and conservative campaigns. When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
Because you’re bending over backwards to dismiss my original simple statement as something it never was so that it’s easier to dismiss as ridiculous falsehood. It’s called a strawman and it’s common amongst those who can’t defend their claims honestly.
draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context.
The context is an article about specific neoliberal institutions being economically conservative and people being surprised about that. Pointing out that the same is true of neoliberalism in general is hardly unrelated.
When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
And there you go again, pretending that there’s no overlap 🤦
lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌliz(ə)m/
See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun
1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
If them donating to conservatives does not meet the definition above then they are literally not a liberal organization. I can’t explain it any simpler for you.
Except definition 2 (the one that’s applicable here) gets the order wrong when it comes to neoliberalism: “free” enterprise is priority one, to which the others take a back seat almost every time.
An organisation betting on both sides is a textbook example of ideology taking a back seat to “free” enterprise and thus a very neoliberal thing to do.
Except for the fact that most people think of the Democratic Party when they say liberal and, other than a few outliers, the governing philosophy of that corporation is neoliberalism.
I can show you better than the other guy is doing, I think.
“liberal” is a spectrum of identities that are named by the right - from hippy liberals to bleeding hearts to champagne liberals. They share a common umbrella of ideology, but their individual quirks and passions set them apart.
Neoliberals have their own definitions, but again are characterized by the people who dislike them, in this case it’s generally people on the far left. They fall under the set of “liberal,” but because their opposition is also their in-group, they are a more isolated identity. They are also, interestingly, given that reality, by far the largest liberal segment of the Democratic Party.
This is why the left primarily attacks neoliberalism - they’re just going where the voters are, trying to change their minds.
No, because you’re going through a lot of effort to draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context. Which is an article headline calling a group liberal because they donated to both liberal campaigns *and conservative campaigns. When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
Because you’re bending over backwards to dismiss my original simple statement as something it never was so that it’s easier to dismiss as ridiculous falsehood. It’s called a strawman and it’s common amongst those who can’t defend their claims honestly.
The context is an article about specific neoliberal institutions being economically conservative and people being surprised about that. Pointing out that the same is true of neoliberalism in general is hardly unrelated.
And there you go again, pretending that there’s no overlap 🤦
lib·er·al·ism /ˈlib(ə)rəˌliz(ə)m/ See definitions in: All Theology Politics noun 1. willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; openness to new ideas. 2. a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
If them donating to conservatives does not meet the definition above then they are literally not a liberal organization. I can’t explain it any simpler for you.
Except definition 2 (the one that’s applicable here) gets the order wrong when it comes to neoliberalism: “free” enterprise is priority one, to which the others take a back seat almost every time.
An organisation betting on both sides is a textbook example of ideology taking a back seat to “free” enterprise and thus a very neoliberal thing to do.
You’re the only one bringing neoliberalism into the conversation. It has nothing to do with the discussion.
Except for the fact that most people think of the Democratic Party when they say liberal and, other than a few outliers, the governing philosophy of that corporation is neoliberalism.
Because liberals are one of the many groups that make up the Democratic Party. That doesn’t mean liberals = neoliberals.
And most importantly, it has nothing to do with the article.
I can show you better than the other guy is doing, I think.
“liberal” is a spectrum of identities that are named by the right - from hippy liberals to bleeding hearts to champagne liberals. They share a common umbrella of ideology, but their individual quirks and passions set them apart.
Neoliberals have their own definitions, but again are characterized by the people who dislike them, in this case it’s generally people on the far left. They fall under the set of “liberal,” but because their opposition is also their in-group, they are a more isolated identity. They are also, interestingly, given that reality, by far the largest liberal segment of the Democratic Party.
This is why the left primarily attacks neoliberalism - they’re just going where the voters are, trying to change their minds.