Holy bootlicking batman. You already had your argument dismantled elsewhere so I won’t do so myself, but what the fuck how delicious does the boot have to be for you to so persistently defend such blatant cruelty? This is “you don’t know why those IDF soldiers shot children in the head” levels of apologia and you should think deep and hard about why you’re doing this.

We have no idea what actually transpired here, but there’s no viable chain of events that would make it acceptable to evict a 93 years old. Full stop.

These clauses don’t apply to the rich.

Clearly the meme is referring to rebellions against the interests of the country in question. So since they brought up Ireland: How supportive were the British of the Irish war of independence? What about the IRA during the Troubles? How does France react when its neocolonial empire in Africa is disrupted? Before 2023, what was your average European’s image of Palestinian resistance? What’s the verdict on the Houthi “rebels” again? And so on. With some exceptions, these supposed liberatory ethos are thrown out the window the moment they become inconvenient.

Don’t join the army and don’t be a cop, especially not in 2025. Odds are you’ll be sent to beat up protesters.

Background people not smuggies, immersion broken.

Gee, I wonder if there’s a formative event in the early 90s that could’ve had some effect on this. Maybe a decline in quality of life that would make people liable to embrace a rightwing dictator. Perhaps neoliberals could be involved? Nah, no way.

how is this take any different than the u.s. propoganda that would say very similar shit about communism.

It’s true, that’s how it’s different. There’s nothing “complicated” about how Britain installed the Shah in Iran or America helped Saddam wage a war with Iran that killed half a million people. Some things are just fucking evil.

C’mon you can’t bring up Ireland as representative of the West when they’re the OG colony. By that metric the West is anti-Zionist.

High-quality ragebait, upvoted.

As a wise man once said: Things will have to get worse before they get better. The average American will need to suffer a lot more before they’re ready to think about taking their guns to protests, let alone using them.

Africa moment.

You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.

It’s that they’re not the core propositions of liberalism, at least according to the father of liberalism.

Locke is often credited for describing private property as a natural right,

If you’re not at least in broad agreement with John Locke (and other Enlightenment thinkers subscribing to the same philosophy) about what constitutes a natural right, you can’t call yourself a liberal, for the same reason you can’t have liberalism without freedom of religion.

Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?

Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights. And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property. That’s your house, your car, your toothbrush, nobody wants to take those away. Private property is a wider concept, which includes among other things the means of production. You can’t argue that private property is sacred (a fundamental proposition of liberalism) and then seize the privately owned means of production; that’s a contradiction.

Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist.

I read your link about liberal socialism, and my takeaway is that these guys range from reformist socialists with a veneer of liberalism (again, they’re out the moment they advocate for seizing the means of production) or liberals with a veneer of reformist socialism (those not advocating for seizing the means of production). I mean the article lists fucking Proudhon for ffs we already know how liberals think about Proudhon’s ideas.

Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets.

See above. Only personal property is permitted under socialism.

Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.

See above.

If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.

First, these all liberalized; I don’t consider any of them a success on the socialism front. Second, China at least is fucking big, which does matter. Notably,

One of the lowest ever recorded Gina was for urban China in the late 1970’s, with a figure of around 0.11. Czechoslovakia also recorded a Gini of 0.17 in the 1980’s.

Also again, social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right, so it’s not exactly the success you’re painting it as.

Oh shit you caught me. 🎣

And BTW I totes am a Russian propaganda bot here to destroy the currently thriving American democracy.

Me in a recent reply to one of these.

but you have to respect them for that reason alone, above all else.

No, baby killers should burn in hell.

How will they be after it is all said and done?

Nothing will happen to them, except maybe purging the most obnoxious Trump loyalists. People “volunteer” for the military for the money, so they’ll just keep doing that.

Remind me to get you to write my manifesto when I finally get around to seizing the means of production.

Anybody from any political standing could say the exact same thing that you just said but compare any other president within the last 100 years about any other topic and their point would still make sense.

Feel free to do so, then.

It’s unhelpful because it doesn’t further the conversation.

It does, because there’s a clear lesson to be learned from liberal flipflopping regarding the morality (or I suppose tolerability would be a better word) of whatever the evil thing du jour is: Just because liberals situationally agree with you, it doesn’t make them any less anti-worker. Leftists helping liberals beat a common enemy and then getting the boot after they stop being useful is a tale as old as time, so it’s important to remember what these people actually stand for. This is why so-called “unity” with liberals is such a ridiculous idea.

I don’t consider war crime apologists potential allies. Woe is me.