Yes, and I'm using the primary, common usages of the words. Especially with regard to liberalism, socialism, etc.
No, you're not. I provided the primary definitions to you,
with documentation. Obviously, you do NOT know how to use a dictionary, despite your admonitions of same.
You can't be "done" with something you never did in the first place.
You're either unwilling or incapable of understanding basic concepts, as I've demonstrated repeatedly. You're fumbling over HOW to use terminology, rather than the substance of the terminology. You don't understand that a variant of a term doesn't have to conflict with another definition in order for it to be applicable as a variant definition. This is grade-school stuff. Pre-school stuff.
It's a claim I never made. If you have to be dishonest, you must not be right.
I'm not calling bull**** on your definition of liberal
Oh, now THAT's bull****.
We are not speaking the same language, apparently.
I'm speaking the language where words mean things; you're speaking one where the words you use mean whatever they need to at the time you use them, and are otherwise malleable.
Both are forms of language, only the former is honest.
Nuance | Definition of Nuance at Dictionary.com
noun, plural nu·anc·es [noo-ahn-siz, nyoo-, noo-ahn-siz, nyoo-; French ny-ahns] .
- a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc.
- a very slight difference or variation in color or tone.
This is supposed to prove I had discovered "nuance" when I was pointing out linguistic precision and specificity?
Good lord; you don't even know what you're arguing from post to post.
Yes, I understand that they would be terrible to someone who cannot understand the difference between Classical Liberal and Modern Liberal and to this date has not acknowledged a distinction between them.
No, they're just terrible arguments.
I actually said the nothing approaching this. In fact, I said this:
More intentional dishonesty from you. You quoted me as addressing you saying this:
No, the primary definition for liberalism is not synonymous libertarianism, or even on the same planet as libertarianism.
Not "on the same planet" means no, or almost no, overlap. So, if that's true, then according to you, "liberalism" can't mean any of those things.
But of course it
isn't true, but you have to lie about what I said rather than admit it.
"Which doesn't mean that a modern liberal cannot believe in them, but they are not connected to the term."
English. DO YOU SPEAK IT?
I do, and because of it, I understand how you lied about my post.
Again, if you have to be dishonest, and obviously you feel you have to be, you can't be right.
I actually said the opposite.
Yes. You
said the opposite, but you're trying to make them the same. Because, well, repeated dishonesty.
Liberalism leans more towards social justice, human rights, civil rights, equality. It's a broad ideology, not a policy agenda. Progressives tend to be more policy focused; using the government to achieve a liberal objective, especially in the area of worker protections, taxation, and economics. Someone could be liberal-leaning, but might believe that there are other ways to achieve liberal objectives. They might be more corporate-leaning and free-market-driven.
So, the difference between "liberals" and "progressives" is one of tactics?
Neo-liberalism tends to skew heavily in this direction, for example. UH OH. I just introduced another term to confuse you.
If you're as young as your posting style, your being impressed with AOC's academic resume, and your general assumption that you're the first to have come across various ideas would indicate you are, I was quite familiar with all of these concepts before you were even born.
