Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I'm not policing anything. It'd just be nice if you had anything recent to contribute instead of relying on the same tired tropes. Do you truly believe the socioeconomic, political, etc., climates haven't shifted since those articles came out?
At least the people ranting about the UCP are using current topics and articles. You keep regurgitating stuff that is 3-4 years old and has already been debated on here.
|
Mounk’s book came out a few months ago and got a lot of coverage. It’s a good-faith attempt to describe a movement that’s reluctant to even acknowledge that it’s a movement or accept any name. The deep cleavages between whatever-we-call-it and liberalism remain. They’re still relevant to contemporary issues.
And again, all sorts of stuff gets debated here endlessly, for years and years, with the same people making the same points. There’s nothing saying these threads are restricted to current events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Also, you seem to keep confusing "the left," which has traditionally spanned from social democrats to communists, but are generally similar in their class-based discourse and opposition to capitalism with socially conscious liberals, who subscribe to identity politics but are still neoliberal in terms of their economic beliefs. They're not interchangeable just because conservatives keep shifting the overton window to the extreme right.
|
I didn’t use ‘the left’ anywhere in my comment. And differentiating between politics centred on economic egalitarianism, and politics that reify race, gender and sexual identity is exactly what I’m trying to do. ‘Liberalism’ is not a useful term for the latter, since the champions of whatever-we-call-it vocally disavow core liberal principles.
If you don’t find the subject interesting, just keep scrolling.