this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
2261 points (99.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6518 readers
3793 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Grow up. Attack ideas, not people.
The article only says what I'm saying: it's a term given to certain people as a pejorative, and not an actual ideological program endorsed by people who are labeled by it. You're telling me that there is a fundamental similarity between Augusto Pinochet, who threw communists out of helicopters, and the US democratic party, which is categorically unwilling to inflict any kind of political violence against their opposition? Pinochet was not a neoliberal, he was a fascist, and if you can't tell the difference, then I encourage you to not only read more, but to get outside more and talk to people who have actually grown up in fascist and communist countries and see if they think that living in the US is anything like growing up in a fascist state.
To try to label the policies of Pinochet and the policies of the US democrats with the same term is either an expression of ignorance or privilege. Again, neoliberalism is a term which was made up by liberal arts and philosophy departments, not economists
If someone telling you to read more to properly inform yourself is a personal attack id say your pretty fragile along with your argument.
No, you are saying that if someone disagrees with you, it is because they are misinformed. This is a kind of narcissism: you believe that your opinions are so correct and unshakably true that you cannot conceive of a world in which someone with equal access to information legitimately disagrees with you. You assume that if someone else disagrees with you, then they obviously haven't read up on the matter; that they are ignorant, stupid, or malicious. It IS a personal attack, because you're not attacking my words, you're attacking the speaker of the word because you've spent so long in an internet echo chamber that you are no longer capable of imagining a reality in which you might be wrong.
Conversely I could say that if your first recourse to someone disagreeing with you is to copy paste a Wikipedia article as proof that a term merely exists, I would wager you probably haven't read much about the topic other than mean internet comments. I would further wager that probably most of what you read is mean internet comments
You can disagree with me all you want, you cant simply redefine a words meaning because it doesn't fit your standard of a definition or hurts your feelers. That's what the right does till words have no definitions or meaning.
I have to assume your here to sow descent in discourse.
If the term conflates the policies of a man who threw communists out of helicopters and banned labored unions with the policies of the US democratic party, which is the strongest supporter of labor union in the US, then it is a useless term which, again, was defined by philosophy departments at ivy league schools. It is already meaningless. It's a useful way for people like you to conflate moderates with jackbooted thugs from 3rd world banana republics. It is an intellectually dishonest way to convey your political opinions: just label everyone who disagrees with you as a "neoliberal"
There's the trademark extremist schizoid disorder. Take your meds