Data Is Beautiful

6884 readers

206 users here now

A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz

(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

satur@lemmy.ml

otter@lemmy.ca

518

New gender gap (lemmy.ml)

submitted 9 months ago by BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml to c/dataisbeautiful@lemmy.ml

397 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You make it clear with your audience that you’re talking about the “liberal” in the economic sense and not “liberal” in the philosophical sense.

Liberalism as a philosophy is connected to the economic structure? Are you referring to a different philosophy and calling it liberal?

From a philosophical perspective is the difference between being pro changes (liberal) vs being against changes (conservative)

Okay, yes, you are. Liberalism is literally the status quo.

in this sense you could say there are conservative communists (want to follow Marx’s philosophy to the letter) and liberal communists (believe in the basic principles but feel some things need to be adjusted)

You literally can't be a marxist and take Marx as dogma. Marxism is a process based ideology.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal

There, maybe you'll manage to understand if we dumb it down for you 🙂

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The issue is that your definition is "dumbed down" to the point that it loses utility when discussing politics and conceals cultural hegemony.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

No it doesn't because, you just have to specify what you mean because the word has multiple definitions and in OP's example it's the definition I've provided that's being used and you should have known because of the context (liberalism as opposed to conservatism).

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Of course the word has multiple definitions, that definition just obscures the shit out of everything and isn't very useful. It literally obscures that conservatives are also liberals (in the more meaningful sense) and obscures the difference between left and liberal.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It literally obscures that conservatives are also liberals (in the more meaningful sense) and obscures the difference between left and liberal.

Only if you use another definition of the word.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How do you talk about liberal hegemony (marxist definition) while using the nonsense definition in a non-bulky way?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

First of all, I already answered that question many times and second of all, you calling it a "nonsense" definition shows that you're just arguing in bad faith because you're not ready to accept that you just didn't know that the word has multiple definitions depending on context.

Good night.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No, no you haven't, you've just been smug.

But I'm glad we are the point of the pigeon shitting all over the board and flying away, if that is how you insist on acting.

you’re just arguing in bad faith because you’re not ready to accept that you just didn’t know that the word has multiple definitions depending on context.

Do you think anyone born in the US doesn't know the most common definition? The rejection of it is because it is a bad definition that serves to obscure how politics actually functions. I also literally reference this, but you insist that I dont know that words can have multiple meanings. Who is arguing in bad faith?