What is a "liberal" in your mind and why do you hate them?

Liberal = anyone who knowingly or unknowingly is a proponent of capitalism without being a fascist.

Attached: bess.jpg (400x400, 21.43K)

Chapo people mean it as people to the right of them ala Phil Ochs, Zig Forums at the best of times means it in the way people here are describing but it is going to vary depending on post quality.
I had a great screencap describing how the term liberal turned from this centrist concept of individualist freedoms into a variety of different viewpoints - americans treating it as interchangeable with leftist, britain partially retaining the original meaning and aussies going full retard with liberal basically meaning neoconservative over there but sadly I don't have it anymore sorry! I hope this sort of gives the idea that the term liberal isn't this single term with a single modern meaning like living in the US can make it seem, though
the further you get into this shit, the less you relate to the goals and results of liberal ideals. it's not as noticeable to you since (i assume) you're fairly apolitical or politically centrist and so the details of what makes a hard leftist see liberalism as fundamentally flawed look like minutiae rather than significant divergences like how we see it

Disparagingly using the word Liberal in common usage as if it indicates "capitalist" because saying "capitalist" is cringe worthy

Attached: 2c0ccf8e6fc79932e2656f895015e770a43652ee196d6cdbd7352bfb7830f2b2.jpg (255x255, 18.96K)

Only in burgerstan's lobotomized political culture does 'liberal' mean 'left-wing', in the rest of the world liberalism refers to the political philosophy of the same name. In the rest of the world 'left-wing' means communist.
Please endeavor to read at least a general textbook introduction about political philosophy if you intend to discuss it in good faith.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (294x475, 231.99K)

I would love an elaboration on this. Never heard of this character.

I(OP)'m American so "americans treating it as interchangeable with leftist" is essentially how I perceive it. I don't spend time in left communities but if I did I would be able to differentiate that someone implying liberal is something other than leftists is obviously a foreigner. It would quickly become a "tell." But most of r/chapo are Americans and they tend to use the same linguistic tic, so it comes across as misleading, whether it be deliberate or caused by personal mental gymnastics.

pretty much this, if you read Hobbes, and then understand the crisis of the state under capitalism

pro-tip Hobbes did not live or write in the time of industrial capitalism

I put forth that this is from the American point of view, talking to you from a website created by several American expats, still owned and run by Americans, and coming to this question, in good faith, after seeing this word "liberal" be used by primarily American podcast hosts and audience members who seem to think it means something other than what it's percieved as by the vast majority of their countrymen.

Capitalists are a class, liberalism is an ideology pushed systematically.

It is more or less nested in everyone in a capitalist society due to living in one.

Communists try to rid themselves of this by means of education, criticism and self-criticism.

I would say that Liberals can become fascists under certain circumstances, you cannot equate the two.

A lot of the most popular leftist theory is older than the modern usage of the term liberal's birth in post-war America, so people get very comfortable using the language they read and then the language they use to discuss those ideas with others, and by the time they move down the grapevine to talk to you it's stuck and they sound like weirdos rather than merely people speaking from a different perspective. Language loves to shift terminology and reuse terms for all sorts of different, yet related ideas, it's all too common for people to get confused by it.

Phil Ochs is a leftist figure most well-known for his song 'Love me, I'm a Liberal' which is in essence mocking the classic concept of the young leftist with a heart of gold who ends up conservative-minded by the time they're middle-aged. It's not 100% accurate but it's a popular way of mocking people who give the spiel of 'well I used to think things could change but then they didn't so now I'm jaded and thus smart', but it's not exactly backed up by tons of complicated theory and thinking thus why you're more likely to hear chapo-types using liberal in the looser definition like this as compared to the definition used by modern society or the one used by your well-read leftist types.

This is word salad to me. I am coming to this honestly and I'm not getting clarity.

It's basically what these anons have said

Okay, since you're having trouble I'll try to explain.
Liberalism is a belief system first arising during the 18 and 19th centuries. It promised freedom, liberty, equality, and all that jazz. Cool, right? Thing is, it didn't deliver on those promises. We disparage liberals because they're under the delusion that all those things have been accomplished, and that we need to stop being so "radical". Communists want the things Liberalism promised but never delivered on.
This is probably as simple and reduced this is going to get.

I've only recently encountered this use. It happens to be in a space where these people who've gotten "very comfortable using the language they read and then the language they use to discuss those ideas with others" are interacting with people who are not involved in their scenes and are not familiar with the implications you're saying are attached. But I've noticed they tend to feel free leaking this esoterism into these other areas while assuming it should be understood. I don't sense that it's a good faith usage based on their insular cultural usage where the definitions are more understood than outside their culture.

Since we're on good faith, i mentioned noticing this in a more mixed space where those freely and readily using the lingo could assume other readers wouldn't be familiar with this "well-read" definition of the phrase. And I have to point out that the casual usage of the term 'liberal' by American Democrat Cops of America and other various online 'leftist types' can only come across as a kind of bull-baiting, where the leftist derogatory user of the phrase "liberal" dares other "less read" people to demand a differentiation from the common perception and meaning of the term, whereupon they will be enabled to engage in sophistry or intellectual showmanship.

Due to your lack of knowledge oversimplification can lead to misunderstanding. (No offense)

I will try to explain.
Every sociopolitical system has an overarching ideology produced by its very existence, to justify itself.
For example in slave societies the ruling ideology held that slave/master relation was natural due to human nature/religious beliefs and thus citizens were justified to own them.
In capitalism, private property relations are held as basic human rights and the basis of morality, freedom and equality.

It's generaly used about leftists/centrists who think the implementation of the capitalist system is the problem and not the system itself, and so they promote policies to reform capitalism rather than replace it.

Whoa there! Don't associate democracy with liberalism. Liberals don't give a shit about democracy.. only that it works in their favorite TV character's favor. Dialectical synthesis is impossible without the democratic tradition. The lost causes of strongmen almost invariably lead to toxic evolutionism, and regression back to capitalist characteristics. That's because it's just one side that won over another and a waiting game until they influence and reaffirm capitalism. You gotta negate the negation through synthesizing the contradiction of classes. This happens with the least amount of deviancies through a government run by and for the proletariat. Democratic communism is the perfect blend, and only pure democracy.

Honestly, that kind of thing is an issue with the internet in general. People can, easier than ever, find hundreds of people who can discuss things on the exact level that they're at that they forget there's actually the need to explain things in a way that other people get. It's going to take time for people to balance out and remember that talking to regular people isn't like talking to StalinForPres2020 on an imageboard. Just look at all the people out there who have forgotten that shitposting isn't actually socially acceptable in most of the world, here's hoping that little phase ends soon.

Read Mao

'Combat Liberalism'

Attached: FB_IMG_1532904782422.jpg (720x960, 105.24K)

So liberal = capitalist = defenders of private property. And therefore (somewhere in that discursion) "liberals" are "capitalists" are "defenders of private property" and are thus evil?

My question would then be, why is the phrase "liberal" used so commonly among your type in public discussions, which you know full well are public and not intended for private audiences who have a more appropriate understanding of the meaning of the phrase "liberal", when another phrase or saying would be more clear, direct, and honest?

And do you not understand how, as an outsider, trying to make sense of this only leads me (and perhaps many others) to sense that you are misleading, dishonest, and disingenuous?

no you're just a fucking idiot
we're using the term liberal correctly

we're shitting on them not because of "evil" but because they're opposed to us

That's the best definition ITT, but liberal also means self emasculating compromisers negotiating for unprincipled harmony in socialist circles and in Mao's writing.

Genuinely, the shitty thing about leftism is that there isn't really a lot of alternate terminology for what we try to describe. Someone above mentioned private property - when they mentioned it, they meant it completely differently than how you would understand it but there is seriously no other way of putting it succinctly that is understood by anyone at all, even within leftist circles.
There have been pushes to try and modernize the language of leftist thought - people who prefer reform of parts of capitalism could be called reformists! But then you get into the issue where reformism has already been used… to describe people who want the total elimination of capitalism, albeit through the systems already in place.
I know it's frustrating, I know it seems like a lot of people are talking at you rather than to you especially because this is an imageboard and nobody cares that much about swaying minds but people aren't trying to be dishonest with their descriptions of things, it's purely that bridging the gap between old leftist theory and modern society is an exceptionally tricky subject that nobody's 100% figured out considering, y'know, hard leftism is still a fringe opinion.

In political philosophy, American or otherwise, "liberalism" is also used the way it is in the rest of the world. Even disregarding that, American "liberals" are almost without exception center or left-liberals and occasionally even right-liberals. It isn't a misnomer.

It is clear, direct, and honest. American liberals are almost without exception liberals in the general sense.

Try reading a fucking book. If you feel "misled," it's entirely due to your own ignorance.

The way it is used in American politics as the antithesis of conservatism is wrong.

That is, but liberals in the US are still almost always liberals by the general definition, however.

American Liberal => Liberal
American Conservative => Liberal

I made this thread because (whatever) types have been using the term "liberal' to mock a supposed out-group in a space where, to the rest of observers, they are what is mean by liberal.

If you're going to fall back on
Rather than use more succinct, direct, clear language examples of what you are referring to, I think you should reconsider your confidence and arrogance about this subject

That's like a Not Socialist saying "we're using the term Socialism correctly"

I mean, if we're saying that the modern American definition of a thing is in fact the only way a term should be used then that statement is pretty solid.

Maybe it would be more productive if you laid out your definition of a liberal and the ways in which that overlaps with marxist thought>>2599384

Have you considered that you're just new to politics and thus unfamiliar with the jargon relevant to it as with any field one is new to?

It's been the "succinct, direct, clear" term for centuries now. You've already been educated, and it took probably all of three seconds. At this point, you're merely indignant that you had to be educated.

Ok lets simple this shit

Liberal = Supporter of democratic capitalism
Liberalism = Ideology of capitalism

Probably the best response would be:

I very vaguely posit this for the simple reason that every space I've seen this phenomenon has been within American originated and dominant communities. I'm getting that you're British or otherwise from across the pond. I'm familiar with the European meanings of the terms and how they differentiate with the American meaning. I'm not concerned with that, I'm concerned with seeing this in American communities with accepted American standards of the phrases. And all my accusations of disingenuousness and intentional misleading are meant to be understood in that context.

This is the problem you guys have when you interface with braoder public platforms. Say whatever you want, but you're talking to someone from "the outside" and it would probably be more profitable to analyze your own reactions to me than to try to deconstruct how stupid or under-read I am.

I literally just asked you to consider the characteristics you deem to be liberal, and unless we're to presume that those who aren't familiar with communist thought are somehow too stupid to do that, I see no reason why that shouldn't be our response.

When we propagate our ideas in groups that don't understand our terms, we use broader sentences to describe the same thing.

Also this is not a European way of using the word, its how the word has been used historically.

People are not using terminology in an alternate way to be misleading, as I mention in there has been a massive struggle to explain theory in an easily digestible manner to Americans and the working class in general. That's what happens when, at least in the US, your ideology and ability to continuously update the way you describe things gets shut down for over half a century and you're only now starting to recover from it.
As frustrating as it may be to have people talk down to you, keep in mind that places like these get dozens of people asking questions like these and people can and will get tired of trying to explain themselves to you.

Most Americans don't think of the common term "liberal" as you would hear in public conversation or on daily news in terms of how it "overlaps with marxist thought."

If i need to explain why this is the case I don't think you're coming to me in good faith. You're trying to trap me in some dumb logic or verbal game. You and I both know what "liberal" means without me having to give you a laundry list.

On the one hand you accuse us of criticising you for being uninformed as if we're stuck up pricks, on the other you accuse us of 'miselading' you, whatever that means, when we patiently explain what we mean. Damned if we do and damned if we don't
You just seem to be making a whole lot of uncharitable assumptions about people here as if we were some super sekrit club of people who understand political vocabulary you've convinced yourself are hiding some big truth from you.

So then casually using the phrase "liberal" in the derrogatory in a public space where the overwhelming majority of onlookers perceive a different conception of what is meant by the phrase "liberal" than what you purport it to be is a kind of deliberate mind-game. This alienates you from "normies" you know

You know, when you constantly say that you're coming at things from good faith but the majority of your comments are how other people aren't discussing things in good faith and you're constantly declaring their attempts at explanations as disingenuous because of that, people are going to get tired of talking to you. That has nothing to do with you not understanding theory, that's just you being an overly confrontational dick.

No. I see your explanation to me. I recognize that this has some ideological backing if one digs deep enough, butto imply that a common understanding of these ideas exist in public conversation, in the framework of the label "liberal" is a sophistry.

This is a left specific space, where people are supposedly informed of the terms we use.

Liberal is used in the derogatory by all types of people with different meanings of the word. I don't give a shit.

We're not "interfacing with a broader platform"; you're on a left-wing board because you're unhappy that leftists use the general, historical definition for a word correctly, one also used also in political philosophy in the English-speaking world.

"A kind of deliberate mind-game"? You're beyond silly.

Why don't you next go to every non American and tell them how using the metric system is a kind of deliberate mind game?

Throwing your expendables under the bus at every given opportunity is not self-criticism.

I'd tell you to kill yourself but you'd just go kill some harmless flunky.

I'm looking for answers and explanations behind this strangeness. I found more strangeness.

You would need a new set of labels for common parlance. Hell, it can be done, look what the alt-right has done. But I haven't seen anything of the sort. And I've seen neutral or curious people interacting to only get "not my emotional burden to educate you" responses in many many contexts and situations. So for you to claim I'm just bullshitting or putting up confrontation for its own sake is to disservice yourself, if spreading your message honestly is in any way a part of your agenda.

I genuinely tried to discuss things with you. I came at it with good faith, I tried to clarify things for you but you instead responded to posts that allowed you to declare the totality of conversation here as unproductive and insulting. That's a classic trolling tactic, so I'm going to assume you are a troll.
This thread's going to reach 200 posts anyways but everyone can and should stop here. This is going nowhere, this person already had a plan for what they were going to say and what they wanted to critique people for before anyone responded to his post.

Liberals supported slavery. Liberalism has really never been progressive just less reactionary.

How antidialectical of you

He's a cartoon character if he isn't a troll: "I hate that words can mean other things sometimes! Speak American, you murdering pinkos!"

Your idea of what "liberal" means is corruption and nothing else, that liberal should mean everyone to the left of conservatives is nonsense and the rest of the world isn't going to adapt just because of you. If you want to blame anyone for being disengeneos it should be the severely lacking political education in the US.

assuming you're who I think you are in this conversation, you gave me the American retard definition of "liberal" as being insufficient and small-minded as one of or the main reason for my misunderstanding. I pointed out that nearly all of my interactions was within American communities where common understanding of the term "liberal" already has loaded meanings that are *generally understood* within society and public discourse. This is not my view or sense, this is a truism. Do a public questionnaire on "what is a liberal" and you will get a sect of answers. I guess you're not American but as an American we all know what it means. Which gets to the point of my OP: why do you use this term "liberal" like a squid's ink to diffuse your own beliefs and goals?

The answers I got in this thread have mostly confirmed the following 2 concepts

1) "not my obligation to spend emotional labor to educate you" excuse followed by sophistry and vague, generalized "read ____" responses

2) an active attempt to deny that a common conception of a term exists in the first place, which to my understanding (which this thread was a failed but honest attempt to counteract) indicates a desire, either conscious or subconscious, to obfuscate because clarity and directness would lead not to oversimplification of your views and aims, but the destruction of their credulity

were withn*

This was not in your OP, you dropped it after people tried to explain themselves and then spent the rest of the thread calling people's answers insufficient when you yourself won't even explain what you mean when you suggest that leftists are disingenuous for using terminology that isn't the most modern and popular beyond 'well it feels like they're being disingenuous with it' and when anyone suggests otherwise you just repeat your original point.
If you really were trying to have a good-faith discussion, you botched it hard, bud. Close this thread out and come back another time, try and clarify everything you want to ask in the OP that way people don't spend the whole thread going through the process of trying to understand what you want. Or, if you're a troll, just keep on posting the same thing. It's an imageboard so people (including myself) can't stop themselves from responding to solid-ish bait.

that's pretty much the use of the word in France. it's basically used to mean neoliberal, or Thatcher/Reagan policies.

When you're in spaces such as this one where politics is discused it is common to use terms correctly while asuminging that they mean what they're definied as in the sciences and not some layman corruptions. If americans started to refer to every color with a higher frequency than green as just green would you get mad when people discussing things differenciete between red, orange, yellow and green?

Reading is the actual answer to your question.

Because a word has changed meaning over the years in a certain country doesn't prohibit its original one.

We don't

I've literally never set up this troll thread before. I literally set up this thread just tonight for the first time ever because I've noticed, in my American communities, chapotraphouse and other types of leftists using the term "liberal" in the derogatory when to most outsiders they are closer than anyone they know to the pure conception of what is meant by "liberal." I presume this is some weird, fucked up verbal and psychological game played on their part where self-deception is a component.

I really don't know what to think after this thread. Sophistry, bullshit, and ultimately imperceptible and divergent agendas is all I can perceive from this. I don't think it's just your demands of how I should view your terminology that are outdated, I get the sense that the framework you are putting out is even more outdated and irrelevant, outside of a historical-scholarly context.

I'm the OP as you can possibly tell from style at this point and I cannot stress enough that everything I say is meant within the context of American communities. I am coming here with this question specifically from the context of American communities and those who, if not American, are interacting with American communities. SO they should have some conception of how common terms are perceived by the average reader, conscious as they are that they are in American dominated communtiies. Any divergence is a cute thought experiment but ultimately irrelevant

Alternetively, you've been lied to about what the words means in order to influence the political landscape in the country and you're just eating it all up.

This is a dead thread. This person is incapable of understanding/trolling.
Please refrain from further feeding

dishonest either to me, or towards yourself. Seeing this behavior here when coming for answers only confirms the worst of my baises and preconceptions

The reason people are prone to using outdated terminology in terms of US discussion is because, again, leftist thought was purged from public discourse for about 60 years. People are starting to learn how to discuss things again, but they're not going to have the same exact terminology as modern political thought because they're having to learn from other countries and from older movements in the US.
People are not trying to fuck with you by discussing things in a weird way, this is the way they were taught to discuss things because no alternative has existed in the American political sphere. You're right that people need to work on explaining themselves better, but that's a two-way street. You have to care to listen, and you blatantly don't.

Libertarians are quite radical though, with many of the modern ones going into ancap territory.

crazy hour here on the east coast USA. I dunno if you are Aussie, british, or what, but I appreciate your attempts. Dunno if I haven't spelt out the core of my critique clearly enough or if you are being a bit thick, either way we're failing to meet each other half way. Best I can hope is my comments leave an impression

No the entirity of political discussion is not going to fall on it's knees for you and accept any changes you make on it's terminology. The entire rest of the world understands what it means but we're actually just too thick to not worship you.

In Marxist discourse, a capitalist is not somebody with a particular bundle of opinions, but somebody who makes a profit out of owning capital and hiring workers. A liberal is somebody who is pro-capitalist, but not necessarily a capitalist. A capitalist can even have communist opinions.

1. I live in a country with proportional representation and the mainstream understanding here is that liberal party = for capitalism and low taxes, and the word left means the left wing of the social democrats plus the communists.
2. A discussion isn't on/off either public or private. There are plenty of meetings of groups with all sorts of niche interests that are open to the public, without everybody there using language of the lowest common denominator.
3. Usage of terms is deliberately designed and spread by vested interests to throw a wrench into discussing lefty ideas. Words like "death tax" for "estate tax" are thought up by professional propagandists and focus-group tested. The term "anarcho-capitalist" is bullshit and the guy who came up with it admitted as much. Using such a term leads to conceptual confusions (and that was the intent).

If you believe a communist and a Clinton shill are basically the same, look in the mirror and check if you got Down's.

I don't include either libertarians nor ancaps to radicalism. The first are reformist who might become radicals by turning fascist. The second are utopians. They have no materialist basis on their hopes to remove the state.

(cont) who might also become fascist.

yeah this is basically what I got from Chapo types during the past year. It's a way to shield themselves from Hillary Clinton and generalized DNC cringe. You can parse it any way you want, but it seems to be a way to appear edgy and superior to that, in a similar way that the alt-right differentiates themselves from the GOP establishment. The problem is that you have much more in common with Hillary and the USA Democrat establishment than the alt-right and Trump do with the GOP establishment, thus the need to overcompensate with smarm. And really I think that's all that this is and nothing anyone has said in this thread has provided any clear contrary evidence besides "read more shit from people 90 years ago."

Don't kid yourself that you are parochial and that your politics are a minor key to the United State's, especially in the realm of broader online dialog. Be a fucking adult about it.

A while ago AnCaps used to talk about shooting mailman, basically all of them were arguing the ethics of it ten years ago, it wasn't weird to do back then. They all acknowledged that violent revolution was needed to overthrow the government and everyone should be killed and now everyone is shy about saying it. They also shared precedents set in states that shooting a cop that's falsely imprisoning you is AOK.

Such as? Being okay with black people having rights? Thats about it.

this thread is over.

Congratulations! You are an average American and exactly the reason why everyone here is frustrated. People here genuinely want revolution in order to completely be rid of multiple concepts that you would likely consider intrinsic to society, yet socialism and communism are just terms for medicare but bigger and high tax rates.

Thanks for the info. In that case they can be considered radicals, although they are still utopian as there is no material incentive for an ancap revolution.
If there was it would've happened somewhere by now.

ITT: literal Sargon of Akkads

sheesh. everyone knows liberal just means anyone to the left of OP. why are you all being so disingenious

OK.

I feel like this board would benefit from country flags.

This would result in more frustration

I don't have a brainlet image twisted enough for this post, anyone care to post one for me?

But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well–they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along–"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.

To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

liberalism is inherently left-wing

Only if you're a mutt that doesn't know what either liberalism or left-wing means.