Sarcasm, I’m making fun of the tankie tendency to characterize everyone who disagrees with their view of ‘AES’ as liberal or liberalism. As such, objecting to China’s billionaires here would be ‘liberal’ opposition to socialism, in the context of the joke being made; whereas here in reality, as you note, liberals are fine with billionaires.
I get a little lost in the rhetoric and misused terminology.
For example, when people say “liberal,” they tend to mean either “progressive” or the more left major political party (Dems), but when they say “liberalism,” they tend to mean the ideal of maximizing individual rights. Modern self-described “liberals” tend to have an “ends justify the means” mentality (which tankies take to the absurd), whereas liberalism is all about the means.
So yeah, it’s focusing even before getting into “tankie logic,” which is entirely oxymoronic.
Not sure where I’m going with this, but thanks for clearing things up.
You mean socialism/progressivism?
Because liberalism is a separate thing entirely and is generally okay with billionaires.
Sarcasm, I’m making fun of the tankie tendency to characterize everyone who disagrees with their view of ‘AES’ as liberal or liberalism. As such, objecting to China’s billionaires here would be ‘liberal’ opposition to socialism, in the context of the joke being made; whereas here in reality, as you note, liberals are fine with billionaires.
I get a little lost in the rhetoric and misused terminology.
For example, when people say “liberal,” they tend to mean either “progressive” or the more left major political party (Dems), but when they say “liberalism,” they tend to mean the ideal of maximizing individual rights. Modern self-described “liberals” tend to have an “ends justify the means” mentality (which tankies take to the absurd), whereas liberalism is all about the means.
So yeah, it’s focusing even before getting into “tankie logic,” which is entirely oxymoronic.
Not sure where I’m going with this, but thanks for clearing things up.