this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2026
913 points (93.9% liked)
Political Memes
12722 readers
2489 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Always with the "liberals".
"liberal" here, smash that storefront for me I have to go to work thanks 👍
Yeah, exactly which liberals are we talking about? Maga? This shit is beyond moronic.
Philosophical liberals. Right to private property and engage in commerce, individualist, idealist, legalist ethics liberals.
maybe people who are really into Liberace?
Usually for posts like these I assume they're talking about the unfortunately large group of milquetoast left-leaning Americans who think the system destroying their livelihoods can be reasoned with, as if the people stepping on our necks are just unaware of their actions, and would feel really bad if we wrote them a letter explaining the situation. They're certainly better than the neck-steppers themselves, but neither will ever actually fight to improve the situation we're in.
Ah, the Liberal Surrogate ™️.
Insert the thing you want to use as a punching bag. The right, the left, the middle, doesn't matter. Choose your own adventure.
To be fair, back when I would have identified as a Liberal, I was exactly the type of person to say "If we just communicate that we're unhappy more effectively, they'll listen this time for sure!"
I mean, I miss those days.
Bright eyed and bushy tailed. Believing that most people are kind at heart...
Now I'm pretty sure my neighbors will call ICE on my other neighbors if they ever do anything even slightly annoying.
Spent nearly a decade doing data analysis for the corrections system. Just one small part, but we interfaced with many others in different parts of government, academics, and NGOs, spinning our wheels discussing how to implement progressive reform, reform we have had mountains of hard evidence corrects a lot of problems, especially reducing recidivism. The big hurdle wasn't corrupt politicians, or privatization of the prison system (not saying those weren't major problems, just different ones) the big issue was that the average person is vicious, and wants to sit in their house, seeing "bad" people on a screen, get destroyed by the system. A HUGE portion of the population have a vicarious blood lust for seeing people get punished, the harsher, the better. This allows for the punitive system we have, which makes it an open field for other predatory practices. Suggesting anything to the counter will not get anyone elected, and will stir backlash from throngs of morons asking why we should do anything less than just execute criminals on the spot.
Those who don't either are a minority that grew up differently, or had this unjust bloodlust targeted at them, or someone they care about.
They keep forgetting to put "neo" in front.
They don't learn that part during their tankie training
Where's that tankie factory anyways? They must come from somewhere
.ml mostly
I dunno man, there are some who ONLY operate under the Marxist definition of "Liberal". They don't believe language evolves and that maybe to most people "Liberal" is the term used to describe anyone with progressive ideals.
Because the Marxist version of liberals still call themselves liberals and have intentionally erased the semantic existence of all ideologies left of them so that they can pretend to be the left.
Sure. But the bucket of people that term encapsulates doesn't match that definition anymore.
That's not how that works. That only makes sense if like liberal parties didn't exist. Saying Social Democrats or Socialists or Greens are more liberal than Liberals on some issues doesn't make any sense, it like implies that the Liberals are ontologically the most progressive.
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK)
Is it democratic? Is it a Republic? Names don't always represent their namesake.
There also is no party titled "Liberal" in the USA, which is what I'm specifically referencing since this post is about USA "liberals".
Like no, just no, stop trying to make "liberal" synonymous with progressive, they are different things.
Oh, you seem to misunderstand me.
I'm not. Me as an individual is not trying to do that.
It has already happened in the USA. I live in the USA. When you read the news or talk to your co-workers or friends and anyone uses the word "liberal", it is synonymous with "progressive".
I didn't know what the "true" definition was until I was in my 30s, because my whole life it has been used that way.
Then just use progressive. It's like pretty much just a US thing to use liberal as an adjective.
I do that. My original comment was just highlighting that "Liberal" has a different meaning depending on who you are talking to.
And now we're here.
The word "liberal" is useless because there is no consensus on what it means. Similarly useless are the words "left" and "right". "Marxist" is still useful because nobody can deny that it denotes adherence to the ideas of Karl Marx. Similarly, even though people TRY to erode its meaning, "Christian" must ultimately mean adherence to the philosophies espoused by Christ. So for example anyone who identifies as "Christian" but makes no attempt to follow the principles he espoused, is simply lying.
It's a Tankie thing. They call everyone a liberal.
Nah it’s a leftist thing.
Liberals are centrists who maintain the status quo and at best ask for “reforms” without substantially wanting to change the underlying system.
They think improvements like ranked choice voting would make capitalism magically end poverty and inequality. That if a few more people benefit from social programs, that you can overlook the others still suffering because it’s “better”.
I am a leftist. I'm telling you they call everyone liberals. They even call Trump a liberal.
Liberals are moderate conservatives, a.k.a. Establishment Democrats. And then you have the GOP, which consists of extreme right Fascists, so far right they're practically the antisis of liberal. There is no dominant centrist or leftist party in the United States. The closest we have in office are AOC and Bernie, and even they're just barely to the left of center in my eyes.
Ranked choice voting won't solve everything, but it's a step in the right direction. It's worth giving it a chance.
Leftists often call them liberal because many of them use the term to define one who believes in Liberalism.
"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law."
Thus anyone who is liberal believes in the right to private property. MAGA strongly believes in such. No leftist believes in such. Thus in their use, a leftist cannot be a liberal.
It's just a different usage of a term based on cultural differences.
What kind of brainrot is this?
This worked in some places with social market economy and such.
Social democracies in the West also benefit from being imperialist.
classical liberals maybe
Classical liberalism was an improvement over what came before it. Neoliberalism is when it morphed into anarcho-capitalist-esque "austerity for the poor; rights and subsidies for corporations"
There is no such thing as "anarcho-capitalist"
Anarchism is fundamentally oppositional to capitalism.
These tend to be libertarians from Texas or something. You are right though
Confidently wrong. There are different kinds of anarchism, and yours might be fundamentally oppositional to capitalism. But to deny the existence of anarcho-capitalists is counterproductive, because they exist, and they're a serious threat to be aware of.
The idea is that in an anarchist society, there's no governing body to regulate businesses, and so they get to do whatever they want. It results in a neofeudal corporate oligarchy, a la Curtis Yarvin. You can argue that it's not really anarchistic if it results in oppressive systems. They might argue that it's only anarchy if there's nothing stopping them from oppressing you.
The point is, anarchy is a big umbrella, and just because you might be anarcho-syndicalist or something else doesn't mean that your version of anarchy is the only version of anarchy.
Arguing over what constitutes "the true anarchy" is pointless. Critique anarcho-capitalism to your heart's desire, but to deny that it exists implies that there's nothing to critique.
Yes, because it is neo-feudalism trying to wear the label of Anarchism. That doesn't mean it is Anarchism.
By your logic, "National Socialism" is a socialist philosophy because it calls itself socialism. Which is an utterly stupid thing to claim.
I never said what it calls itself is an accurate description, only that there are people who claim it
Are we talking about Martínez de la Rosa-era liberals? (that was on the 30's. The 1830's)