• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -38 days ago

    liberal

    trying to rein in the 1%

    Choose only one. Liberals are those that subscribe to capitalism. You cannot be against the bourgeois while being for capitalism. It is contradictory.

    • Doug HollandOPM
      link
      English
      17 days ago

      You cannot ever get folks on our side using words like ‘bourgeois’.

      • Queen HawlSera
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27 days ago

        This, what you say is not as important as “How you say it”

        See the idiots going “I hate Obamacare, but I love ACA!”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27 days ago

        Baffling statement. “Bourgeois” is one of two words that define the way my ‘side’ views the world. I don’t think you and I are on the same side.

        • Doug HollandOPM
          link
          English
          17 days ago

          It’s a question I’ve wondered for decades: Why do so many socialists speak in code-words — Bolsheviks, bourgeoisie, Engels, Marx, proletaritat, etc — which only push people away? Socialism is a grand concept; why not translate it into English?

        • Doug HollandOPM
          link
          English
          07 days ago

          It’s a good start, but I’d go with ‘owners’ and occasionally stress, ‘all owners.’

          People respect plain speaking, and suspect convoluted speaking. If we want to win folks over, plain speaking is the way.

          • Dragon Rider (drag)
            link
            fedilink
            English
            07 days ago

            Drag owns a toothbrush. Drag isn’t a member of the owning class, but drag is in the most literal sense an “owner”. Drag recognises you’re using a technical definition of a common term, but drag doesn’t think liberals will understand. They’ll see your language as convoluted.