• OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

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

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                5 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?