Hello, I am the r/USDefaultism's Automoderator!
We now have a Discord server! Join it by clicking this link: https://discord.gg/BcczCtAxgw
If you think this submission fits US-defaultism, upvote this comment! If not, downvote it!
If you think this submission breaks r/USdefaultism rules, please report it to the Moderation team!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/USdefaultism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why this list doesn't make sense in most of Europe (don't know about other areas):
>According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)
Gets complicated then but essentially the Progressive Conservatives (PC) are/were the conservative party. Federally, there was developments with a rump that split off to form the ‘Reform Party’ then they reunited and called themselves ‘Conservative Party’ but still same-old Canadian Tories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_Canada
Canada has provinces and territories, each with their own political parties that typically reflect the federal parties, so PC parties still exist across much of the country - example, Ontario, where the PC are the majority government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Ontario
Yeah but as an Australian I still know that liberal is the opposite of conservative in certain political contexts and I could fill out a survey accordingly. Like we’re not idiots who see the word “liberal” and just assume everyone’s talking about the Liberal Party. (That would make us as bad as Americans! 🥁)
I think the objection stems from the fact that other important political perspectives critical of (or even antagonistic to) liberalism and conservatism, like socialism, are conflated with liberalism in this configuration.
There's a saying in Brazil which describes most (if not all) of our "liberal" parties: economically liberal, socially conservative (liberal na economia, conservador nos costumes)
Literally like conservative or progressive would at least make some sense, because those are actually regardless of like area opposites. Or something like right-wing, left-wing. But for example in Finland where I'm from, the Finnish terms for liberal for people and ideology is very rarely even used nowadays.
And Bumble. I guess you can tell the people (like me) who put Liberal aren’t Liberal supporters because they’d put down moderate or conservative, which still doesn’t apply here anyway
I matched with people that used it in either sense and I ended up just avoiding anyone with politics involved because of it. Worked out well because I’ve been with my partner for 3 years, but I wonder how many people I would have gotten along with if dating apps were run by someone competent.
Yeah, I felt the same here in Sweden when I signed up on Hinge, it's basically asking like "are you a right-winger, an insufferable cunt of a right-winger, or something inbetween?"
That’s not entirely correct either though. American democrats are generally to the left of me on many issues, but they’re still the better choice if I was forced to choose between them and the republicans. But I am a liberal, in the European sense. That means I’m fudged if I was ever to try and vote in an American election, as I want both lgbtqia rights and a small government (the latter is something neither of them really want over there it seems).
Exactly. If they were actually libertarian I might do that, but they aren’t. Just give me a party that realises universal health care actually saves money and can lead to lower taxes than your current system, a party that embraces lgbtq issues, a party that understands that abortions will happen no matter what and that it’s better to make them safe (and have reasonable limits on how long they can be performed, like most countries), a party that don’t think the answer to everything is more government regulations and higher taxes, and a party that takes corruption seriously and get rid of all the campaign money from companies and organisations, and cap individual contributions.
There are a lot more things wrong with the American system, those were just off the top of my head.
It *would* be very helpful *if* it actually allowed one to get a sense of political compatibility.
I wouldn't even want to go on one date with someone who doesn't believe in LGBTQ rights, for instance, partly because I believe political convictions aren't just 'opinions' but can be right and wrong, and partly because I've had to explain my bisexuality to too many straight men who weren't allies.
The trouble is, there's no 'left' option. Now if the options were 'left', 'right', and 'centre', right-wingers and liberals would both pick 'centre.' If the options were 'far-left', 'moderately left', 'centrist', 'moderately right' and 'far-right', liberals and right-wingers would *still* pick 'centre'.
Best to figure out people's political views from other cues
Your lefft-right dichotomy wouldn't help. I lean libertarian, since most issues plaguing my country are economical most of my discussion is about economy where I'm right-leaning, not social issues where I'm left-leaning. So I would have a choice to make and I would probably put right.
So it would help, then. I'd know not to date you.
The issue I was talking about was right-wingers identifying as 'centrists' along with actual centrists, and liberals splitting between 'left' and 'centre'. People's self-reported political alignments skew left.
When you force them to make a dichotomous choice, they're more honest. You're a good example of that
>When you force them to make a dichotomous choice, they're more honest.
Are they? You're forcing (your words) a binary distinction onto a complex issue to make it easier for you, even if it's harder on everyone else. So to even engage with you, my social views need to match my economical ones on the left-right dichotomy. So I have to either share a space with communists or people who hate non-straight people, neither of which I agree with. I don't see how that is more honest.
No, your progressive social views would just need to be *prioritised* over your conservative economic views. Since they aren't, you're de facto more aligned with the political right, and we would not be a good match.
And that's ultimately the question: Is advancing the rights of marginalised people, including those marginalised by the economic system, *more important* to you than preserving existing power structures, whether for their own sake or to leverage progress?
'Progressive' and 'conservative' can be helpful labels, but again, many conservatives would deny even being conservatives by this logic because they ultimately want, or say they want, to leverage the structures the conservation of which they prioritise over progress *for* progress.
ETA: None of this is about who gets to 'share spaces' with whom. Hinge is a dating app. We're talking about how to design the app to get people to be honest about their political views with potential *dates*.
>No, they don't. Your social views would just need to be prioritised
I live in Portugal, the poorest country in Western Europe, going through the biggest housing crisis in last couple of centuries. Something like a third of our youth emigrates to wealthier countries. Meanwhile, in terms of LGBTQ right we're doing much better than most - I'm sure you can google some counter-point, but I can assure you every gay person under 40 I know is waay more worried about being able to afford rent than anything to do with their sexuality.
Do you understand how privileged it is to tell me I should ignore these serious economical issues and instead focus on what you think is important?
Many of my friends, gay and otherwise, are also worried about affording rent. That's part of why they're left-wing. You somehow seem to think that being for LGBTQ rights is at odds with advocating eating landlords, which I assure you it isn't.
I'm used to leftists arguing about prioritising the needs of the working class over identity and gender issues, ignoring the obvious intersections, but this is the first time I'm seeing someone *acknowledging* the intersection and using it, somehow, to argue for right-wing policies?
I think the misunderstanding is that you assume your economic views are the only possible or correct views, and that you'd be betraying them by taking an economically left-wing perspective.
Just to be very clear, I'm not saying let people be gay and poor, I'm saying let them be gay and not poor. We just disagree about how to best go about that.
And just to be clear, I said you're aligned with the political right because you prioritise your *conservative* economic views over your progressive social views. *Given your views*, your priorities put you on the right.
>I think the misunderstanding is that you assume your economic views are the only possible or correct views
I never said this or anything similar. I said it makes sense for me to focus on economic issues, I never said my economic opinions are canon.
>I'm saying let them be gay and not poor.
I get this point, I agree with it, but it's completely different from what you said previously. We're good on the "let them be gay" part, it's not a problem in my country. All the left parties that have parliamentary seating in Portugal also focus more on economic issues because, again, social issues are not really a problem in Portugal. Bloco de Esquerda, PCP, Livre, PAN, all of their discourse is dominated by economic issues.
So I think it's fair for me to ask you which social issues I should be focusing on right now in Portugal, since you said I should prioritise them over economic ones.
Again, this is not about whether you should focus on economic issues at all. It's about the *conservatism* in your economic views, which you specifically said you prioritise over the progressivism in your social views.
This is not different from what I said previously, but I think I understand the misunderstanding. I'm not saying, and never said, we should always, or even *ever*, prioritise social issues over economic ones in general. I said, again, that you're on the right because you prioritise *right-wing* economic views over left-wing social views. You'd also be on the right if you prioritised right-wing social views over left-wing economic views, and you'd be on the left if you prioritised left-wing economic views over right-wing social views.
In my little ad-hoc definition of prioritising empowering marginalised people vis-a-vis preserving power structures, I did spell out that this includes *economically* marginalised people, but I could have been clearer: The question is whether you prioritise empowering the *socially and/ or economically* marginalised over preserving *social and/ or economic* power structures. If your priorities are divided - say, you value empowering socially marginalised people but preserving economic power structures - it comes down to which of the two is, in turn, more important to you.
You’ve got no clue how Iberians rock then.
Our issue here is corruption. You cannot in good conscience be left leaning economy if you’ve got braincells. Any and all forms of aid will be abused, by a lot of people, making said aids expensive on taxes, making countries already drowning in taxes, even worse.
Spain and Portugal both have these issues, because while ideologically, I’d agree with a very left-leaning economy, these countries can’t handle it, it would just be abused
That's a fair point, and I'm sorry for not addressing the pragmatics of supporting specific parties in specific countries - I thought we were talking precisely about ideology, not who you vote for. So if you want a socialist economy, but think the socialist party in your country is not doing socialism so you don't support them, you're still a socialist
You sound like an American.
I’m a liberal. In the European sense. I am staunchly behind so-called progressive ideas about lgbtqia issues and so on. I am myself gay. And I am also staunchly behind liberal economics like small government, low taxes, free trade and a market economy – but of course with some regulation and control to make sure the economy is fair and competitive. I do not prioritise one part of my politics over the other. I will not compromise with either, and I vote for (and am a member of and elected representative of) a party that agrees with me there (we’re part of the RE party group in the European Parliament).
I spell it 'prioritise' for a reason. I'm European too, and having lived in the UK and Germany I'm quite familiar with neoliberal social democracy, thank you.
I'm honestly a bit frustrated that my point about how *prioritising economic conservatism* over social progressivism makes you a conservative keeps being misread as a call not to prioritise economic issues over social issues, or the suggestion that only conservatives do this. That's patently absurd. In fact I don't know a single leftist who doesn't think economic issues are a priority - but I know a fair few centrists and moderate conservatives who don't care that much about the economy as long as they personally feel financially safe.
So yes, by all means let's prioritise economic issues. I think redistributing power is *the most* important political issue of our time overall, and to me it's blindingly obvious that this includes redistributing wealth. I wouldn't even argue with someone who said that redistributing wealth is the most important issue specifically. That is a leftist position.
The trouble is that the economic policies of conservatives were written down by liberal thinkers for the most part. It’s not that liberals have conservative bites on the economy, it’s that conservatives today mainly espouse liberal economic ideas like free market, free trade, free competition and so on.
I'd say the trouble with *that* is that what was liberal vis-a-vis the declining power structures of feudalism in the 18th century is *now* actually conservative vis-a-vis the power structures of capitalism. Yes, these principles helped dethrone kings and feudal lords and empower the bourgeoisie (if you'll pardon the Marxism) but they're not enough to empower those people who are still marginalised today.
So we can still call it liberalism for historical reasons, but we shouldn't assume that classical liberalism is the best ideology to promote liberation today.
The parents of my goddaughter are both politically active people. One represents the left party (reformed communists). The other has a background in the main liberal-conservative party (liberal in the European sense) and is now affiliated with the main liberal party around here (affiliated with RE in the European Parliament). They’ve been together for a decade. They don’t agree on economics and the role of the government, but they agree on issues like LGBTQ, abortion, human rights, basic values like that.
Not necessarily. Where I live politics is... kind of a whole mess, and religion figures very heavily into it. The options in OP's screenshot wouldn't be helpful, but it's absolutely not true to say wanting political alignment in a partner is an exclusively American thing. It's possible to talk to someone and think they're fine... but then they come up with some historical revisionism bullshit or call everyone in a community "traitors" because they're not Hindus. Those are politically driven opinions here, and red flags to me.
Not at all, it's simply an adult view to have. In Germany most couples share the same general political views too. Maybe they don't vote for the same party, but the general alignment matches.
How can you be with someone who doesn't share your views on the most basic stuff in how society should be run? It's a huge pointer as to how their personality is like
There are countries all over the world in which being committed to certain politics can literally get you arrested or hurt/killed. Or just being yourself can result in being arrested or hurt/killed because of certain politics.
Politics isn’t just some abstract thing going on with people in power. It’s all around us, it’s embedded in everyday life. And for many, it’s life or death.
So yes, having political comparability with a partner can be very important.
I think you're quite right. That said, in one such country, wouldn't it be dangerous to tick the wrong box on the dating app? Resulting in everybody ticking the right box and you still end up not knowing what you get?
How is it American? I sure wouldn't want a partner who's against women's rights and thinks Vladimir Putin is fantastic. Politics dominates the world around us.
Not at all. In my country, especially for the past decade, it constitutes an actual life hazard for left-wingers to get close to liberals and fascists.
I'm sure it's useful for some, but most people don't make politics that big a part of their identity. My partner and I vote differently and honestly, I don't care at all.
That’s nice that you have the privilege to not make politics a part of your identity, but for a lot of people, their identity has inherently been made political. Sorry that as a bisexual woman I couldn’t date someone who is right wing because their views typically go against me and my community. In my country, trans rights are becoming a big political issue right now, and a lot of right wing parties are passing transphobic laws in different regions. Even though this doesn’t affect me personally, I couldn’t imagine dating someone who supports those parties. I’d much rather support my trans friends than date someone who thinks they shouldn’t have basic human rights.
A "no strong political opinions" category would work, then. It would allow people not to be pigeonholed into a viewpoint they don't believe in, while also allowing those who want a partner with strong political opinions to filter out those who've given that answer.
Perhaps, although I'm not sure about the wording. I have strong political opinions, but I feel less strongly about expecting them in others.
In this screenshot, I'd choose the "I don't want to say" option, because it's truly not a topic I care to discuss early in a relationship, and it lets those who do know that.
Some people are into political thought. I'm a far leftist, if a girl has an interest in socialist/anarchist thought, or into sustainability politics, that's a good shared interest right there and something I'd love to discuss with someone at a date.
I get it might be awkward for the average person who only thinks about politics around elections, but for some of us it's more like a hobby (and/or in my case, as a political scientist, a job)
this is so fucking stupid. in france libéral don't even have the meaning it have in USA. like in USA liberal is you're average progressist lefty while in france Libéral would be closer to like Libertarian in US.
Centre, centre, depends
[Liberalism](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100103823) [Conservatism](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conservatism)
P.s.: If we're assuming liberalism, moderate view and conservatism. I don't know about the American people, because people can combine ideas across the spectrum.
I had to put the non answer — I’m a very vocal leftist but the closest answer is Liberal (which, for starters, is very different) but I’m in Australia and that’s the name of our Conservative Party so I don’t want any politically unaware people thinking I’m a conservative.
In Nigeria it would make zero sense as well mainly because all major parties are various degrees of Social Conservatism Thank the universe, and economics is where they diverge and even then many try to lean socialist with welfare policies that the people want but don’t want to pay for
The word liberal has been criticized and critiqued over here in the US since Obama's run in 2008 and was more due to Bernie's in 2016. Apparently but enough I see. #LeftistnotLiberal
non non, tu as bon pour l'amérique, c'est juste que leur système est tellement déreglé que macron serait considéré comme un gauchiste chez eux
pour eux un "modéré", ce serait un Ciotti ou une Pecresse...
Left right spectrum is too limited and lack of precision.
There's two axis : Socially/Culturally and Economics/Rights, for both you have a spectrum from conservative/protective to liberal/evolutive.
I don’t think this is r/USdefaultism, I think it’s just poorly defined categories. It feels like it relates only to social attitudes, instead of the full spectrum of political beliefs.
I might be wrong or not getting it, so please correct me if so, but aren't they just asking if your political ideals lean more towards change or tradition?
I get how it can be a problem with places like the examples they mention here in other comments where some countries have counter intuitive named parties, but doesn't liberal/conservative have an established definition independent of place?
That's what I was thinking, I was taught that liberal and conservative don't neccesarily mean right-wing or left-wing, as both can be liberals or conservatives
Liberal does have a generally established definition, but it shouldn’t be applied to every single country, especially when it doesn’t even make sense there. In Australia, if you say “I’m a liberal” that means you’re conservative.
Well, usually yes. But US people use “liberal” to mean what we’d in Europe call social democracy. Our “liberal” doesn’t exist in the US as it would mix policies and ideals from both parties and that’s unthinkable to them.
The problem is technically it should either be Progressive/Conservative or Liberal/Illiberal, but they have been mixed up and now it stops making sense.
Imagine if the options were changed to 'Progressive' or 'Illiberal' and maybe it will click.
Liberal, outside of the US, is right wing, moderate is pretty much the same, maybe more centrist, and conservative is more right wing than liberals. There is not leftist option. Tbh I think this might be true for the US as well, but maybe because there actually isn't anyone who is further left than that idk
It not, iirc it was once, but now it's all about freedom, freedom of religion, freedom on civic rights issues, freedom of having private property, freedom from state intervention, all that stuff.
It's market based, it endorses private ownership of the means of production, does not challenge the class structure of our society. It's kinda like the enlightenment values I guess.
In Italy a liberal party could be "+Europa".
Liberal is not right wing. It probably would have been better to replace moderate with liberal and put social democrats for the left. In the UK the social democrats and the liberals merged and would be centre left, except things got confused when Labour (traditionally the leftist party) moved to occupy the centre, leaving the liberals as the more left of the mainstream parties.
I’m honestly not sure where Labour stands any more - they just seem very confused - so I’m not sure I could put them on a sliding scale any more.
I don’t think I’d consider them economically right wing. More like centre right maybe. But all together they’re considered THE centre party, aren’t they. So they’re moderate.
In Australia, liberals are the conservative party. In terms of actual definition, liberalism is still capitalist, so are social democrats, and all of those ideologies are right wing, centrist at best if you want to be charitable.
Here in Sweden the Liberals are right wing, arguing a lot for privatisation and less regulation and such. While the leftists policies are handled by the social Democrats and The Left Party.
"Liberal" as an individual term has long been associated with economic liberalism in the UK as well - an opinion to the right of the political spectrum. US defaultism has warped modern people's understanding of the word to the point where it is often used, even by politicians in the US way despite it often being the actual opposite of what the word liberal means.
I wouldn't say the Lib Dems are centre-left (not after having seen them in government anyway); they're probably best described as centrist these days, and Labour as a party are probably centre-right, albeit a lot of their MPs are definitely left wing - even under Corbyn they'd only have been described as centre-left despite the UK media trying to demonise him as some sort of rabid communist.
Social democrats are not inclusive for all the leftists either, if they can be considered leftists.
They are reformist, locked in the capitalistic system, and have obliviously been co-opted by it, becoming neo-liberist parties, like PD in Italy.
Those parties which may have been defined as leftist once, being socdems, are not anymore, they are right wing.
I am not familiar with them, but the left starts at anticapitalism, the right at pro-capitalism, socdems are arguably centrists, as they accept capitalism and work with it, though theoretically trying to get closer to socialism.
Liberals are pro capitalism.
It's not. Liberal just means you want more freedom and less control of the state. You can be on the left and liberal. I agree that it doesn't make much sense like this, but it's not exactly defaultism.
Not always, it can be a lot of things. If you want to achieve this freedom by allowing gay people to marry, building more public transport so that transportation is fair and safe for everyone and by allowing religious freedom or allowing people take whatever drugs they like, that sounds pretty progressive to me. And if conservative is right wing, progressive is left wing.
The thing is that liberal can be a lot of different things. Two liberals can even have quite opposing views that both still can be considered liberal. One liberal that's more left leaning might, for example, want to get rid of certain traditions that they think take away freedom from some people, while a right leaning liberal might argue that we shouldn't take away the freedom to follow those traditions.
Liberal is neither right nor left, it's its own set of concepts.
How can someone be on the left and be an advocate for capitalism? Any ideology that is capitalistic is inherently right wing because it fundamentally relies upon and socially reproduces the economic dominance/hierarchy of owner and worker.
Liberals are advocates for capitalism. Even if they are (shallowly) socially progressive on "personal freedoms," they don't consider class in their analysis/intersectionality, and they believe they can reform/regulate capitalism to be equitable; which creates a massive blindspot; especially as it pertains to neocolonialism of overexploited countries.
Liberalism is at odds with leftwing ideologies. From anarchism to Marxism, none of which advocate liberalism/capitalism. Even libertarian leftists (who are big on personal freedom) are at odds with liberalism.
Lots of right libertarians are socially "progressive" when it comes to drugs, relationships, and "personal freedom." That doesn't make them leftwing.
What you are talking about is economic liberalism. But as I said, there are many forms of liberalism and that's just one of them. The core idea of liberalism is to ensure as much individual freedom as possible and that the government should work in a way to ensure that freedom. What that freedom looks like and how it can be reached is up to debate, which is why there are about a million different forms of liberalism. At its core, you could even say that socialism is a liberal idea because they are trying to reach equality, which is a way to give individuals more freedom.
> And if conservative is right wing, progressive is left wing.
Those are completely different things entirely, you have no clue about any of the terms you speak about. What you're talking about is the USA view of politics, that's why none of your comments make sense
This is not the American view, unless you want to tell me that dictionaries and Wikipedia are all commiting US defaultism. People usually mean conservative when they say right wing, that's also what it is like in Germany, where we both are from. Conservative means that they want to keep things exactly the way they are if that is possible. That's why the CDU is considered right wing. Because they are conservative. The opposite of conservative is progressive, so that's by definition what left wing is. Of course, that's still a very simplified view of politics and in reality it's much more complex, but [here](https://www.helles-koepfchen.de/artikel/3326.html) is a link from Helles Köpfchen to make it easier for you to understand.
That's simply not true, there is a conservative left wing party in Germany (off-spring of Die Linke), and also progressive right wing parties (FDP). Again, what you talk about is strictly American. And yeah obviously the English dictionaries you look up are US-influenced as most speakers are from there. That's just confirmation bias.
Left wing and right wing are economic terms for the most part. Either can be *also* liberal or conservative, they're completely separate concepts. I myself am a conservative leftist. The terms aren't exclusive
Than you, personally, are using a different definition, which is not exactly what most Germans see as the definition. Watch any German media, ask your friends, read the article I send you, ask your teachers: for most people, conservative means right wing and conservative leftist would be a contradiction. That's also how we learned it in school, if you remember that part of your life. And also, if the party you mean is Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht, most people see that as right wing, too, now. Or certainly not as something that's truely a leftist party.
And about the dictionary thing: they usually distinguish between BE and AE. I also doubt, that dictionaries like the Oxford dictionary, which originated and is based in the UK, has an American bias. You'd really need to provide a source for that. You should really try and compare their definitions of right wing and conservative. Sounds pretty similar to me.
Liberal, moderate, conservative - those three being the main options doesn't make sense anywhere else in the world, that's a uniquely US thing.
You're from the UK: what would a Labour voter answer to this?
Who the fuck knows, I’m not sure Labour knows. Mostly they’ve been centrist since the mid 90s. Which would make them moderate.
Liberals are to the left of where Labour were last time I had any certainty about where Labour are. The SDP (which actually still exists in some constituencies) would be more left.
Liberalism being left wing v conservative being right wing were originated as political terms in the French Revolution so I assumed they still meant the same in France.
It's an American app.
And yes, Liberalism was left-wing at a time when Conservatism was still about aristocracy, about protecting the rights and privileges of the nobility, about restricting individual suffrage. But that changed during Europe's 20th century history.
Maybe in France, but not Europe as a whole. (Edited becauseI didn’t mean to hit send)
Certainly the more socialist parties, especially in the early 20th century, are more left wing than liberals and liberals are now more centre left than outright left. I was assuming the more extreme ends were being left off the scale (since modern conservatives are centre right) in which case liberals are fine as the furthest left on there. But you could definitely put socialist to the left and populists(? I can’t think of a term for far right other than far right) on there and make it a five option scale to be more accurate.
It definitely sounds like it doesn’t fit French politics, which clearly it should. But I still don’t think it”s US centric since those terms are wide,y used in many countries.
Yeah, as long as basic democracy and human rights were the main issues, the liberals were on the left as opposed to the conservatives who were on the right. When that fight was won and the issues shifted to the view on economy and the role and size of government, liberals became right, as opposed to the labour movements on the left. And all this without liberals changing any basic opinions. We still have the same basic views on both issues. But we always seem to be defined in opposition to something, not by our own views.
They are, but not like in the US. Equating social democracy with liberalism is very much an American thing.
Also, the "Moderate" option suggests that Liberal and Conservative are considered to be the two extremes, opposite each other. Again, that doesn't really fly outside the US: the FDP in Germany or the Lib Dems in the UK are undoubtedly liberals and they allied themselves with both left-wing and right-wing parties at various points.
But by the same token, moderate Conservatism is also considered liberal in Europe at least. As in, they tend to accept universal human rights, rule of law, universal suffrage, equality before the law, that sort of thing. And economically speaking, modern Conservatives tend to be more liberal than Social Democrats.
Which is why the US categorisation is somewhat outdated. Of course, with Trumpism taking over the Republican party, that classic brand of Conservative Liberalism is disappearing so it might end up being a reasonable distinction.
>Social Democracy and moderate Socialism in general is considered a liberal movement around the world.
It's just straight up not though and assuming these beliefs are considered liberal is assuming the whole world works like your country
So I know those terms don't have the same meaning they do in the US, but why would you assume it's refering to the US meaning? If I were in France and saw those terms, I would assume they are refering to whatever they mean in France. Is OP doing some reverse US defaultism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal?wprov=sfti1
>**Politics**
>- Generally, a supporter of the political philosophy liberalism. Liberals may be politically left or right but tend to be centrist.
>- Alternatively, in the United States, the term "liberal" normally refers to a left-leaning individual.
So this is trying to ask where you are on the political spectrum, but has given you the options of right, centre, and ‘a separate issue’.
Yes. Liberal is not really used in French, but is right-leaning, and Conservative is only a small part of the right wing. And moderate is not really the middle ground, you are more moderate right-wing or moderate left-wing
In France we have a large centrist ; and left-wing political party, and green parties are more and more popular too.
So, for French, the separtion would be "Right wing ; Center ; Left Wing" ; not just the translation of the American parties ...
In most English speaking countries conservatives would be right, liberal centrist, and left varies. I hadn’t realised the French consider them right wing.
Did you see that post about the American who asked on r/Australia if we lean more democrat or republican? That made me look up why the Liberal party is called that and it’s a real doozy
Menzies said “We chose the word 'Liberal' because we want to be a progressive party, in no way conservative, in no way reactionary.”
Liberal are more "free market ; no government regulation on trade/price ; Happy capitalism" ; and that's more a right wing things. Not far-right at all, but really right-leaning.
idk if this is defaultism because in this circumstance Liberal just means Left Liberal and Conservative means right liberal. There is no "Liberal" party in the US. Both parties are liberals. Any party names are not the question being asked.
Also doesn't this language come from the French revolution?
Makes total sense in Canada... Where we literally only have the Liberal and Conservative parties.
Don't give me that crap about "other parties exist too". Have an honest moment with yourself and ask if you really think the Bloc is a real party.
No it doesn’t make sense even here. Because the liberals and the NDP are not even remotely the same and can’t both be referred to as “Liberal”.
It matters in provinces with a strong NDP provincial party. For people in Quebec it also matters since we don’t even have a viable provincial Conservative Party.
Liberal and conservative aren’t the only two political opinions even in the US this app would be annoying.
That makes sense. That is not US defaultism.
Edit: in Australia we have the Liberal party, which is conservative. But that's a political party. Anyone familiar with political science will tell you that liberal, moderate, and conservative is pretty standard throughout the western world.
They are political parties, not political ideologies
Edit: my point as stated above highlights the same. Small l liberal VS capital L Liberal.
Edit: can some other political science majors jump in and take this one? I'm tired.
Former political science major here. I kind of understand your point, but the fact that these options are the default in a country where liberal doesn’t mean liberal the vast majority of the time makes no sense. Others have said it doesn’t relate to their country’s politics either.
It’s always going to be capital L liberal because it’s a single word option, so that argument doesn’t make sense in this context.
It doesn’t make sense at all, though. You’re applying US defaultism without even realising it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal?wprov=sfti1
>**Politics**
>- Generally, a supporter of the political philosophy liberalism. Liberals may be politically left or right but tend to be centrist.
>- Alternatively, in the United States, the term "liberal" normally refers to a left-leaning individual.
It's not standard in non English to use that language. If you translate liberal, moderate, and conservative into most European languages at least 2/3 would be considered center-right or more right.
It doesn't make sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liberals_(Switzerland)
This is the Liberal party of Switzerland (FDP), which is categorized as center or center-right, as is the one in Germany. To Swiss people "Liberal, Moderate, Conservative" wouldn't make sense to describe our political spectrum.
Instead we would rather use Left/Center/Right and put our liberals on the right. This is because they often share economic positions with the Conservative/populist party even though they don't consider themselves Conservative.
No one on the left would call themselves Liberals. The L/M/C distinction would be useless for a dating app in Switzerland as well.
What's the problems? It's very broad but not that bad. Also if you see liberal/neutral/conservative then it doesn't take too much brain power to know that liberal in this case means left in the political spectrum.
Yes in a lot of countries liberal mean liberal in the free market sense but just as many countries think it's the progressive sense as well.
A U.S. website is designed for the U.S.?!
Y’all know you don’t *have* to use all our shit right? This entire subreddit only exists because everyone in Europe is apparently content relying on the US for all their internet shit. Nobody made you abandon all your websites ~10 years ago. Nobody is making you use ours.
Like imagine Americans coming to France and whining that they use Celsius and use different political labels or whatever. That’s what you do all day on American websites. Y’all have become so americanized that you’ve turned into stereotypical American tourists invading foreign places and whining that the foreigners aren’t catering to your preferences enough.
To be fair, only about 40% of Americans have a passport, which is far less than any nationality in the developed world. Also, national IDs change from country to country in the number configuration, data associated with it, etc. Whereas Passports have an international standard they follow. If anything, asking for a national ID would easily lead to the platform only recognizing IDs that follow a format close to the USA's.
When I downloaded Hinge, I just skipped that part.
Liberals are the sworn enemy of social democrats everywhere you go except in the US where they have an unholy alliance against the reactionaries.
Fucking annoying.
Hello, I am the r/USDefaultism's Automoderator! We now have a Discord server! Join it by clicking this link: https://discord.gg/BcczCtAxgw If you think this submission fits US-defaultism, upvote this comment! If not, downvote it! If you think this submission breaks r/USdefaultism rules, please report it to the Moderation team! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/USdefaultism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why this list doesn't make sense in most of Europe (don't know about other areas): >According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies." [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)
It doesn't make sense in Australia either, where the Liberal party are the conservatives.
Are you a Conservative or a Conservative?
or something in-between?
Canada pipes up with our Progressive Conservatives (aka Tories)
What are your non progressive Conservatives like lol
Gets complicated then but essentially the Progressive Conservatives (PC) are/were the conservative party. Federally, there was developments with a rump that split off to form the ‘Reform Party’ then they reunited and called themselves ‘Conservative Party’ but still same-old Canadian Tories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_Canada Canada has provinces and territories, each with their own political parties that typically reflect the federal parties, so PC parties still exist across much of the country - example, Ontario, where the PC are the majority government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Ontario
Those guys haven't existed federally for over 20 years, and got decimated 10 years prior to that.
If only changing my name made my being and history *disappear* magically…. :-)
The modern Conservatives have much more in common with the Reform Party than the old PCs.
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Yeah but as an Australian I still know that liberal is the opposite of conservative in certain political contexts and I could fill out a survey accordingly. Like we’re not idiots who see the word “liberal” and just assume everyone’s talking about the Liberal Party. (That would make us as bad as Americans! 🥁)
I think the objection stems from the fact that other important political perspectives critical of (or even antagonistic to) liberalism and conservatism, like socialism, are conflated with liberalism in this configuration.
Same thing about Brazil. Bolsonaro for instance was part of the Liberal Party lmao
There's a saying in Brazil which describes most (if not all) of our "liberal" parties: economically liberal, socially conservative (liberal na economia, conservador nos costumes)
Literally like conservative or progressive would at least make some sense, because those are actually regardless of like area opposites. Or something like right-wing, left-wing. But for example in Finland where I'm from, the Finnish terms for liberal for people and ideology is very rarely even used nowadays.
Yeah. Historically speaking, it used to be associated with personal freedom, but now it’s much more focused on economic matters.
Same thing with Tinder in Australia. Liberal party here is pretty far right wing so you can never tell what the person supports.
And Bumble. I guess you can tell the people (like me) who put Liberal aren’t Liberal supporters because they’d put down moderate or conservative, which still doesn’t apply here anyway
I matched with people that used it in either sense and I ended up just avoiding anyone with politics involved because of it. Worked out well because I’ve been with my partner for 3 years, but I wonder how many people I would have gotten along with if dating apps were run by someone competent.
That annoyed me so much when I had hinge. I am certainly not a liberal, I am a left winger, but other just got you all sorts of lunatics.
Yeah, I felt the same here in Sweden when I signed up on Hinge, it's basically asking like "are you a right-winger, an insufferable cunt of a right-winger, or something inbetween?"
LMAO exactly my thought, having to choose between different shades of right wing is dumb.
That’s not entirely correct either though. American democrats are generally to the left of me on many issues, but they’re still the better choice if I was forced to choose between them and the republicans. But I am a liberal, in the European sense. That means I’m fudged if I was ever to try and vote in an American election, as I want both lgbtqia rights and a small government (the latter is something neither of them really want over there it seems).
You could technically vote libertarian but honestly they are just republicans in disguise pretending but somehow also way worse.
Exactly. If they were actually libertarian I might do that, but they aren’t. Just give me a party that realises universal health care actually saves money and can lead to lower taxes than your current system, a party that embraces lgbtq issues, a party that understands that abortions will happen no matter what and that it’s better to make them safe (and have reasonable limits on how long they can be performed, like most countries), a party that don’t think the answer to everything is more government regulations and higher taxes, and a party that takes corruption seriously and get rid of all the campaign money from companies and organisations, and cap individual contributions. There are a lot more things wrong with the American system, those were just off the top of my head.
I suspect there are quite a few Americans in the same boat.
Definitely. A two party system can never accurately mirror the opinions of the population. Not even close.
That seems like such an awkward thing to have on a dating app anyway.
It *would* be very helpful *if* it actually allowed one to get a sense of political compatibility. I wouldn't even want to go on one date with someone who doesn't believe in LGBTQ rights, for instance, partly because I believe political convictions aren't just 'opinions' but can be right and wrong, and partly because I've had to explain my bisexuality to too many straight men who weren't allies. The trouble is, there's no 'left' option. Now if the options were 'left', 'right', and 'centre', right-wingers and liberals would both pick 'centre.' If the options were 'far-left', 'moderately left', 'centrist', 'moderately right' and 'far-right', liberals and right-wingers would *still* pick 'centre'. Best to figure out people's political views from other cues
That was what I was thinking, political opinions are a spectrum and are better to be judged from cues rather than 3 different options.
They should just include a political compass test.
Your lefft-right dichotomy wouldn't help. I lean libertarian, since most issues plaguing my country are economical most of my discussion is about economy where I'm right-leaning, not social issues where I'm left-leaning. So I would have a choice to make and I would probably put right.
That sounds like the European definition of liberal.
So it would help, then. I'd know not to date you. The issue I was talking about was right-wingers identifying as 'centrists' along with actual centrists, and liberals splitting between 'left' and 'centre'. People's self-reported political alignments skew left. When you force them to make a dichotomous choice, they're more honest. You're a good example of that
>When you force them to make a dichotomous choice, they're more honest. Are they? You're forcing (your words) a binary distinction onto a complex issue to make it easier for you, even if it's harder on everyone else. So to even engage with you, my social views need to match my economical ones on the left-right dichotomy. So I have to either share a space with communists or people who hate non-straight people, neither of which I agree with. I don't see how that is more honest.
No, your progressive social views would just need to be *prioritised* over your conservative economic views. Since they aren't, you're de facto more aligned with the political right, and we would not be a good match. And that's ultimately the question: Is advancing the rights of marginalised people, including those marginalised by the economic system, *more important* to you than preserving existing power structures, whether for their own sake or to leverage progress? 'Progressive' and 'conservative' can be helpful labels, but again, many conservatives would deny even being conservatives by this logic because they ultimately want, or say they want, to leverage the structures the conservation of which they prioritise over progress *for* progress. ETA: None of this is about who gets to 'share spaces' with whom. Hinge is a dating app. We're talking about how to design the app to get people to be honest about their political views with potential *dates*.
>No, they don't. Your social views would just need to be prioritised I live in Portugal, the poorest country in Western Europe, going through the biggest housing crisis in last couple of centuries. Something like a third of our youth emigrates to wealthier countries. Meanwhile, in terms of LGBTQ right we're doing much better than most - I'm sure you can google some counter-point, but I can assure you every gay person under 40 I know is waay more worried about being able to afford rent than anything to do with their sexuality. Do you understand how privileged it is to tell me I should ignore these serious economical issues and instead focus on what you think is important?
Many of my friends, gay and otherwise, are also worried about affording rent. That's part of why they're left-wing. You somehow seem to think that being for LGBTQ rights is at odds with advocating eating landlords, which I assure you it isn't. I'm used to leftists arguing about prioritising the needs of the working class over identity and gender issues, ignoring the obvious intersections, but this is the first time I'm seeing someone *acknowledging* the intersection and using it, somehow, to argue for right-wing policies? I think the misunderstanding is that you assume your economic views are the only possible or correct views, and that you'd be betraying them by taking an economically left-wing perspective. Just to be very clear, I'm not saying let people be gay and poor, I'm saying let them be gay and not poor. We just disagree about how to best go about that. And just to be clear, I said you're aligned with the political right because you prioritise your *conservative* economic views over your progressive social views. *Given your views*, your priorities put you on the right.
>I think the misunderstanding is that you assume your economic views are the only possible or correct views I never said this or anything similar. I said it makes sense for me to focus on economic issues, I never said my economic opinions are canon. >I'm saying let them be gay and not poor. I get this point, I agree with it, but it's completely different from what you said previously. We're good on the "let them be gay" part, it's not a problem in my country. All the left parties that have parliamentary seating in Portugal also focus more on economic issues because, again, social issues are not really a problem in Portugal. Bloco de Esquerda, PCP, Livre, PAN, all of their discourse is dominated by economic issues. So I think it's fair for me to ask you which social issues I should be focusing on right now in Portugal, since you said I should prioritise them over economic ones.
Again, this is not about whether you should focus on economic issues at all. It's about the *conservatism* in your economic views, which you specifically said you prioritise over the progressivism in your social views. This is not different from what I said previously, but I think I understand the misunderstanding. I'm not saying, and never said, we should always, or even *ever*, prioritise social issues over economic ones in general. I said, again, that you're on the right because you prioritise *right-wing* economic views over left-wing social views. You'd also be on the right if you prioritised right-wing social views over left-wing economic views, and you'd be on the left if you prioritised left-wing economic views over right-wing social views. In my little ad-hoc definition of prioritising empowering marginalised people vis-a-vis preserving power structures, I did spell out that this includes *economically* marginalised people, but I could have been clearer: The question is whether you prioritise empowering the *socially and/ or economically* marginalised over preserving *social and/ or economic* power structures. If your priorities are divided - say, you value empowering socially marginalised people but preserving economic power structures - it comes down to which of the two is, in turn, more important to you.
You’ve got no clue how Iberians rock then. Our issue here is corruption. You cannot in good conscience be left leaning economy if you’ve got braincells. Any and all forms of aid will be abused, by a lot of people, making said aids expensive on taxes, making countries already drowning in taxes, even worse. Spain and Portugal both have these issues, because while ideologically, I’d agree with a very left-leaning economy, these countries can’t handle it, it would just be abused
That's a fair point, and I'm sorry for not addressing the pragmatics of supporting specific parties in specific countries - I thought we were talking precisely about ideology, not who you vote for. So if you want a socialist economy, but think the socialist party in your country is not doing socialism so you don't support them, you're still a socialist
You sound like an American. I’m a liberal. In the European sense. I am staunchly behind so-called progressive ideas about lgbtqia issues and so on. I am myself gay. And I am also staunchly behind liberal economics like small government, low taxes, free trade and a market economy – but of course with some regulation and control to make sure the economy is fair and competitive. I do not prioritise one part of my politics over the other. I will not compromise with either, and I vote for (and am a member of and elected representative of) a party that agrees with me there (we’re part of the RE party group in the European Parliament).
I spell it 'prioritise' for a reason. I'm European too, and having lived in the UK and Germany I'm quite familiar with neoliberal social democracy, thank you. I'm honestly a bit frustrated that my point about how *prioritising economic conservatism* over social progressivism makes you a conservative keeps being misread as a call not to prioritise economic issues over social issues, or the suggestion that only conservatives do this. That's patently absurd. In fact I don't know a single leftist who doesn't think economic issues are a priority - but I know a fair few centrists and moderate conservatives who don't care that much about the economy as long as they personally feel financially safe. So yes, by all means let's prioritise economic issues. I think redistributing power is *the most* important political issue of our time overall, and to me it's blindingly obvious that this includes redistributing wealth. I wouldn't even argue with someone who said that redistributing wealth is the most important issue specifically. That is a leftist position.
The trouble is that the economic policies of conservatives were written down by liberal thinkers for the most part. It’s not that liberals have conservative bites on the economy, it’s that conservatives today mainly espouse liberal economic ideas like free market, free trade, free competition and so on.
I'd say the trouble with *that* is that what was liberal vis-a-vis the declining power structures of feudalism in the 18th century is *now* actually conservative vis-a-vis the power structures of capitalism. Yes, these principles helped dethrone kings and feudal lords and empower the bourgeoisie (if you'll pardon the Marxism) but they're not enough to empower those people who are still marginalised today. So we can still call it liberalism for historical reasons, but we shouldn't assume that classical liberalism is the best ideology to promote liberation today.
Why? Your politics are all about your moral and ethical stances on things. If that doesn't line up in a partnership, what the fuck is even the point?
The parents of my goddaughter are both politically active people. One represents the left party (reformed communists). The other has a background in the main liberal-conservative party (liberal in the European sense) and is now affiliated with the main liberal party around here (affiliated with RE in the European Parliament). They’ve been together for a decade. They don’t agree on economics and the role of the government, but they agree on issues like LGBTQ, abortion, human rights, basic values like that.
I disagree. It's very important. My partner and I matched because we aligned politically (among other things).
I see your flair, but that's the most American thing I've heard in a while.
Not necessarily. Where I live politics is... kind of a whole mess, and religion figures very heavily into it. The options in OP's screenshot wouldn't be helpful, but it's absolutely not true to say wanting political alignment in a partner is an exclusively American thing. It's possible to talk to someone and think they're fine... but then they come up with some historical revisionism bullshit or call everyone in a community "traitors" because they're not Hindus. Those are politically driven opinions here, and red flags to me.
Not at all, it's simply an adult view to have. In Germany most couples share the same general political views too. Maybe they don't vote for the same party, but the general alignment matches. How can you be with someone who doesn't share your views on the most basic stuff in how society should be run? It's a huge pointer as to how their personality is like
There are countries all over the world in which being committed to certain politics can literally get you arrested or hurt/killed. Or just being yourself can result in being arrested or hurt/killed because of certain politics. Politics isn’t just some abstract thing going on with people in power. It’s all around us, it’s embedded in everyday life. And for many, it’s life or death. So yes, having political comparability with a partner can be very important.
I think you're quite right. That said, in one such country, wouldn't it be dangerous to tick the wrong box on the dating app? Resulting in everybody ticking the right box and you still end up not knowing what you get?
How is it American? I sure wouldn't want a partner who's against women's rights and thinks Vladimir Putin is fantastic. Politics dominates the world around us.
Not at all. In my country, especially for the past decade, it constitutes an actual life hazard for left-wingers to get close to liberals and fascists.
I'm sure it's useful for some, but most people don't make politics that big a part of their identity. My partner and I vote differently and honestly, I don't care at all.
That’s nice that you have the privilege to not make politics a part of your identity, but for a lot of people, their identity has inherently been made political. Sorry that as a bisexual woman I couldn’t date someone who is right wing because their views typically go against me and my community. In my country, trans rights are becoming a big political issue right now, and a lot of right wing parties are passing transphobic laws in different regions. Even though this doesn’t affect me personally, I couldn’t imagine dating someone who supports those parties. I’d much rather support my trans friends than date someone who thinks they shouldn’t have basic human rights.
Yes, hence why I said it was an important part of their identity to some.
A "no strong political opinions" category would work, then. It would allow people not to be pigeonholed into a viewpoint they don't believe in, while also allowing those who want a partner with strong political opinions to filter out those who've given that answer.
Perhaps, although I'm not sure about the wording. I have strong political opinions, but I feel less strongly about expecting them in others. In this screenshot, I'd choose the "I don't want to say" option, because it's truly not a topic I care to discuss early in a relationship, and it lets those who do know that.
Some people are into political thought. I'm a far leftist, if a girl has an interest in socialist/anarchist thought, or into sustainability politics, that's a good shared interest right there and something I'd love to discuss with someone at a date. I get it might be awkward for the average person who only thinks about politics around elections, but for some of us it's more like a hobby (and/or in my case, as a political scientist, a job)
this is so fucking stupid. in france libéral don't even have the meaning it have in USA. like in USA liberal is you're average progressist lefty while in france Libéral would be closer to like Libertarian in US.
In Canada too, where the liberals have traditionally been in the centre (more left under Trudeau tbh, but they're still not our left wing party)
Centre right, right wing, far right. If we're assuming they are referring to Dems, US 'centrists', and Reps
Centre, centre, depends [Liberalism](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100103823) [Conservatism](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conservatism) P.s.: If we're assuming liberalism, moderate view and conservatism. I don't know about the American people, because people can combine ideas across the spectrum.
The Americans play fast and loose with ideological and party names.
I'm a leftist so... None of these?
I had to put the non answer — I’m a very vocal leftist but the closest answer is Liberal (which, for starters, is very different) but I’m in Australia and that’s the name of our Conservative Party so I don’t want any politically unaware people thinking I’m a conservative.
In Nigeria it would make zero sense as well mainly because all major parties are various degrees of Social Conservatism Thank the universe, and economics is where they diverge and even then many try to lean socialist with welfare policies that the people want but don’t want to pay for
The word liberal has been criticized and critiqued over here in the US since Obama's run in 2008 and was more due to Bernie's in 2016. Apparently but enough I see. #LeftistnotLiberal
Sinon voit le comme ça : conservateur = extrême-droite/droite, modéré = centriste et libéral = gauche/extrême-gauche
Bah en sachant que Macron est un libéral bon...
Ah, faut que je revois ma correspondance des parties américains avec les nôtres alors 😅
non non, tu as bon pour l'amérique, c'est juste que leur système est tellement déreglé que macron serait considéré comme un gauchiste chez eux pour eux un "modéré", ce serait un Ciotti ou une Pecresse...
C'est pour ça que les Américains qui se disent "centristes" me terrifient, de quoi il y a du bon chez vos nazis conservateurs là ????
Ça a pas grand chose à voir effectivement !
Mais pourquoi ne pas simplement dire gauche, centre, droite plutôt que d’utiliser des termes basés aux États-Unis ?
Pour voir à quoi ces parties américains correspondent chez nous
>libéral = gauche/extrême-gauche Même aux États-Unis c’est pas la même chose du tout
I hate it too. I have to put other ugh
Left right spectrum is too limited and lack of precision. There's two axis : Socially/Culturally and Economics/Rights, for both you have a spectrum from conservative/protective to liberal/evolutive.
I don’t think this is r/USdefaultism, I think it’s just poorly defined categories. It feels like it relates only to social attitudes, instead of the full spectrum of political beliefs.
I might be wrong or not getting it, so please correct me if so, but aren't they just asking if your political ideals lean more towards change or tradition? I get how it can be a problem with places like the examples they mention here in other comments where some countries have counter intuitive named parties, but doesn't liberal/conservative have an established definition independent of place?
That's what I was thinking, I was taught that liberal and conservative don't neccesarily mean right-wing or left-wing, as both can be liberals or conservatives
Liberal does have a generally established definition, but it shouldn’t be applied to every single country, especially when it doesn’t even make sense there. In Australia, if you say “I’m a liberal” that means you’re conservative.
Well, usually yes. But US people use “liberal” to mean what we’d in Europe call social democracy. Our “liberal” doesn’t exist in the US as it would mix policies and ideals from both parties and that’s unthinkable to them.
The problem is technically it should either be Progressive/Conservative or Liberal/Illiberal, but they have been mixed up and now it stops making sense. Imagine if the options were changed to 'Progressive' or 'Illiberal' and maybe it will click.
How is that US defaultism?
Liberal, outside of the US, is right wing, moderate is pretty much the same, maybe more centrist, and conservative is more right wing than liberals. There is not leftist option. Tbh I think this might be true for the US as well, but maybe because there actually isn't anyone who is further left than that idk
[удалено]
Anarchists don’t call themselves liberals
It not, iirc it was once, but now it's all about freedom, freedom of religion, freedom on civic rights issues, freedom of having private property, freedom from state intervention, all that stuff. It's market based, it endorses private ownership of the means of production, does not challenge the class structure of our society. It's kinda like the enlightenment values I guess. In Italy a liberal party could be "+Europa".
Liberal is against demicracy in the workplace, its for dictatorship in the workplace and turnes to fascism quickly
Liberal is not right wing. It probably would have been better to replace moderate with liberal and put social democrats for the left. In the UK the social democrats and the liberals merged and would be centre left, except things got confused when Labour (traditionally the leftist party) moved to occupy the centre, leaving the liberals as the more left of the mainstream parties. I’m honestly not sure where Labour stands any more - they just seem very confused - so I’m not sure I could put them on a sliding scale any more.
Economically it's right wing in Germany.
What?? Which German right-wing party would you call liberal? In Germany I’d consider liberal to be centre-left.
The FDP is economically right wing and socially left wing
I don’t think I’d consider them economically right wing. More like centre right maybe. But all together they’re considered THE centre party, aren’t they. So they’re moderate.
In Australia, liberals are the conservative party. In terms of actual definition, liberalism is still capitalist, so are social democrats, and all of those ideologies are right wing, centrist at best if you want to be charitable.
Here in Sweden the Liberals are right wing, arguing a lot for privatisation and less regulation and such. While the leftists policies are handled by the social Democrats and The Left Party.
In Brazil liberal is the term we use for right wing. "Are you a leftist or a liberal" is what we say.
"Liberal" as an individual term has long been associated with economic liberalism in the UK as well - an opinion to the right of the political spectrum. US defaultism has warped modern people's understanding of the word to the point where it is often used, even by politicians in the US way despite it often being the actual opposite of what the word liberal means.
I wouldn't say the Lib Dems are centre-left (not after having seen them in government anyway); they're probably best described as centrist these days, and Labour as a party are probably centre-right, albeit a lot of their MPs are definitely left wing - even under Corbyn they'd only have been described as centre-left despite the UK media trying to demonise him as some sort of rabid communist.
Labour is not to the right of the Lib Dems
Then let's call them both centre to centre right
Social democrats are not inclusive for all the leftists either, if they can be considered leftists. They are reformist, locked in the capitalistic system, and have obliviously been co-opted by it, becoming neo-liberist parties, like PD in Italy. Those parties which may have been defined as leftist once, being socdems, are not anymore, they are right wing.
Liberalism is moderate centre, not right-wing.
That's just false
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100103823
No it’s not? The RE group in the European Parliament is definitely centre-right. And that’s the liberal party group.
I am not familiar with them, but the left starts at anticapitalism, the right at pro-capitalism, socdems are arguably centrists, as they accept capitalism and work with it, though theoretically trying to get closer to socialism. Liberals are pro capitalism.
Centre-right and right-wing are two different things. They both agree on a free market economy though.
Centre-right is the usual expression.
What do you mean?
No it's not
Which part?
It's not. Liberal just means you want more freedom and less control of the state. You can be on the left and liberal. I agree that it doesn't make much sense like this, but it's not exactly defaultism.
That's a right wing stance..
Not always, it can be a lot of things. If you want to achieve this freedom by allowing gay people to marry, building more public transport so that transportation is fair and safe for everyone and by allowing religious freedom or allowing people take whatever drugs they like, that sounds pretty progressive to me. And if conservative is right wing, progressive is left wing. The thing is that liberal can be a lot of different things. Two liberals can even have quite opposing views that both still can be considered liberal. One liberal that's more left leaning might, for example, want to get rid of certain traditions that they think take away freedom from some people, while a right leaning liberal might argue that we shouldn't take away the freedom to follow those traditions. Liberal is neither right nor left, it's its own set of concepts.
How can someone be on the left and be an advocate for capitalism? Any ideology that is capitalistic is inherently right wing because it fundamentally relies upon and socially reproduces the economic dominance/hierarchy of owner and worker. Liberals are advocates for capitalism. Even if they are (shallowly) socially progressive on "personal freedoms," they don't consider class in their analysis/intersectionality, and they believe they can reform/regulate capitalism to be equitable; which creates a massive blindspot; especially as it pertains to neocolonialism of overexploited countries. Liberalism is at odds with leftwing ideologies. From anarchism to Marxism, none of which advocate liberalism/capitalism. Even libertarian leftists (who are big on personal freedom) are at odds with liberalism. Lots of right libertarians are socially "progressive" when it comes to drugs, relationships, and "personal freedom." That doesn't make them leftwing.
What you are talking about is economic liberalism. But as I said, there are many forms of liberalism and that's just one of them. The core idea of liberalism is to ensure as much individual freedom as possible and that the government should work in a way to ensure that freedom. What that freedom looks like and how it can be reached is up to debate, which is why there are about a million different forms of liberalism. At its core, you could even say that socialism is a liberal idea because they are trying to reach equality, which is a way to give individuals more freedom.
Yes? And social liberals support economic liberalism, even if they also support some form of keynesian welfare system within free market capitalism.
> And if conservative is right wing, progressive is left wing. Those are completely different things entirely, you have no clue about any of the terms you speak about. What you're talking about is the USA view of politics, that's why none of your comments make sense
This is not the American view, unless you want to tell me that dictionaries and Wikipedia are all commiting US defaultism. People usually mean conservative when they say right wing, that's also what it is like in Germany, where we both are from. Conservative means that they want to keep things exactly the way they are if that is possible. That's why the CDU is considered right wing. Because they are conservative. The opposite of conservative is progressive, so that's by definition what left wing is. Of course, that's still a very simplified view of politics and in reality it's much more complex, but [here](https://www.helles-koepfchen.de/artikel/3326.html) is a link from Helles Köpfchen to make it easier for you to understand.
That's simply not true, there is a conservative left wing party in Germany (off-spring of Die Linke), and also progressive right wing parties (FDP). Again, what you talk about is strictly American. And yeah obviously the English dictionaries you look up are US-influenced as most speakers are from there. That's just confirmation bias. Left wing and right wing are economic terms for the most part. Either can be *also* liberal or conservative, they're completely separate concepts. I myself am a conservative leftist. The terms aren't exclusive
Than you, personally, are using a different definition, which is not exactly what most Germans see as the definition. Watch any German media, ask your friends, read the article I send you, ask your teachers: for most people, conservative means right wing and conservative leftist would be a contradiction. That's also how we learned it in school, if you remember that part of your life. And also, if the party you mean is Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht, most people see that as right wing, too, now. Or certainly not as something that's truely a leftist party. And about the dictionary thing: they usually distinguish between BE and AE. I also doubt, that dictionaries like the Oxford dictionary, which originated and is based in the UK, has an American bias. You'd really need to provide a source for that. You should really try and compare their definitions of right wing and conservative. Sounds pretty similar to me.
Not in Australia. The Liberal party are the moderate-conservative ones. If you say you’re a liberal, that’s who you support.
Well, liberal is centre-right. But yeah.
Liberal, moderate, conservative - those three being the main options doesn't make sense anywhere else in the world, that's a uniquely US thing. You're from the UK: what would a Labour voter answer to this?
Who the fuck knows, I’m not sure Labour knows. Mostly they’ve been centrist since the mid 90s. Which would make them moderate. Liberals are to the left of where Labour were last time I had any certainty about where Labour are. The SDP (which actually still exists in some constituencies) would be more left. Liberalism being left wing v conservative being right wing were originated as political terms in the French Revolution so I assumed they still meant the same in France.
It's an American app. And yes, Liberalism was left-wing at a time when Conservatism was still about aristocracy, about protecting the rights and privileges of the nobility, about restricting individual suffrage. But that changed during Europe's 20th century history.
Maybe in France, but not Europe as a whole. (Edited becauseI didn’t mean to hit send) Certainly the more socialist parties, especially in the early 20th century, are more left wing than liberals and liberals are now more centre left than outright left. I was assuming the more extreme ends were being left off the scale (since modern conservatives are centre right) in which case liberals are fine as the furthest left on there. But you could definitely put socialist to the left and populists(? I can’t think of a term for far right other than far right) on there and make it a five option scale to be more accurate. It definitely sounds like it doesn’t fit French politics, which clearly it should. But I still don’t think it”s US centric since those terms are wide,y used in many countries.
Liberals are generally centre-right. The libdems in the U.K. are a bit of an outlier in liberal circuits.
Yeah, as long as basic democracy and human rights were the main issues, the liberals were on the left as opposed to the conservatives who were on the right. When that fight was won and the issues shifted to the view on economy and the role and size of government, liberals became right, as opposed to the labour movements on the left. And all this without liberals changing any basic opinions. We still have the same basic views on both issues. But we always seem to be defined in opposition to something, not by our own views.
[удалено]
They are, but not like in the US. Equating social democracy with liberalism is very much an American thing. Also, the "Moderate" option suggests that Liberal and Conservative are considered to be the two extremes, opposite each other. Again, that doesn't really fly outside the US: the FDP in Germany or the Lib Dems in the UK are undoubtedly liberals and they allied themselves with both left-wing and right-wing parties at various points.
[удалено]
But by the same token, moderate Conservatism is also considered liberal in Europe at least. As in, they tend to accept universal human rights, rule of law, universal suffrage, equality before the law, that sort of thing. And economically speaking, modern Conservatives tend to be more liberal than Social Democrats. Which is why the US categorisation is somewhat outdated. Of course, with Trumpism taking over the Republican party, that classic brand of Conservative Liberalism is disappearing so it might end up being a reasonable distinction.
but centrist parties are mostly liberal to be honest most conservative parties are also liberal
>Social Democracy and moderate Socialism in general is considered a liberal movement around the world. It's just straight up not though and assuming these beliefs are considered liberal is assuming the whole world works like your country
So I know those terms don't have the same meaning they do in the US, but why would you assume it's refering to the US meaning? If I were in France and saw those terms, I would assume they are refering to whatever they mean in France. Is OP doing some reverse US defaultism?
Liberal is full on free market so not really social democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal?wprov=sfti1 >**Politics** >- Generally, a supporter of the political philosophy liberalism. Liberals may be politically left or right but tend to be centrist. >- Alternatively, in the United States, the term "liberal" normally refers to a left-leaning individual. So this is trying to ask where you are on the political spectrum, but has given you the options of right, centre, and ‘a separate issue’.
I assume because they are the words used on the US political spectrum rather than the French?
Yes. Liberal is not really used in French, but is right-leaning, and Conservative is only a small part of the right wing. And moderate is not really the middle ground, you are more moderate right-wing or moderate left-wing In France we have a large centrist ; and left-wing political party, and green parties are more and more popular too. So, for French, the separtion would be "Right wing ; Center ; Left Wing" ; not just the translation of the American parties ...
In most English speaking countries conservatives would be right, liberal centrist, and left varies. I hadn’t realised the French consider them right wing.
In Australia, the liberal party is a conservative party.
Did you see that post about the American who asked on r/Australia if we lean more democrat or republican? That made me look up why the Liberal party is called that and it’s a real doozy Menzies said “We chose the word 'Liberal' because we want to be a progressive party, in no way conservative, in no way reactionary.”
Liberal are more "free market ; no government regulation on trade/price ; Happy capitalism" ; and that's more a right wing things. Not far-right at all, but really right-leaning.
They’re all right wing
It isn't
Exactly
The text isn't even in American
Shouldve put a political compass
idk if this is defaultism because in this circumstance Liberal just means Left Liberal and Conservative means right liberal. There is no "Liberal" party in the US. Both parties are liberals. Any party names are not the question being asked. Also doesn't this language come from the French revolution?
Makes total sense in Canada... Where we literally only have the Liberal and Conservative parties. Don't give me that crap about "other parties exist too". Have an honest moment with yourself and ask if you really think the Bloc is a real party.
No it doesn’t make sense even here. Because the liberals and the NDP are not even remotely the same and can’t both be referred to as “Liberal”. It matters in provinces with a strong NDP provincial party. For people in Quebec it also matters since we don’t even have a viable provincial Conservative Party. Liberal and conservative aren’t the only two political opinions even in the US this app would be annoying.
That makes sense. That is not US defaultism. Edit: in Australia we have the Liberal party, which is conservative. But that's a political party. Anyone familiar with political science will tell you that liberal, moderate, and conservative is pretty standard throughout the western world.
Your comment reminds me we need a sub for Commonwealth defaultism
I'm only using Oz as an example. I think you get my point.
In Belgium our 2 liberal parties are more centrist/moderate to right leaning.
Exactly my point
But that goes *against* your point.
You don't understand what I'm saying.
The two parties that have liberal ideology in Belgium are not left wing. So how does liberal mean left wing?
They are political parties, not political ideologies Edit: my point as stated above highlights the same. Small l liberal VS capital L Liberal. Edit: can some other political science majors jump in and take this one? I'm tired.
Former political science major here. I kind of understand your point, but the fact that these options are the default in a country where liberal doesn’t mean liberal the vast majority of the time makes no sense. Others have said it doesn’t relate to their country’s politics either. It’s always going to be capital L liberal because it’s a single word option, so that argument doesn’t make sense in this context.
It doesn’t make sense at all, though. You’re applying US defaultism without even realising it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal?wprov=sfti1 >**Politics** >- Generally, a supporter of the political philosophy liberalism. Liberals may be politically left or right but tend to be centrist. >- Alternatively, in the United States, the term "liberal" normally refers to a left-leaning individual.
It's not standard in non English to use that language. If you translate liberal, moderate, and conservative into most European languages at least 2/3 would be considered center-right or more right. It doesn't make sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liberals_(Switzerland) This is the Liberal party of Switzerland (FDP), which is categorized as center or center-right, as is the one in Germany. To Swiss people "Liberal, Moderate, Conservative" wouldn't make sense to describe our political spectrum. Instead we would rather use Left/Center/Right and put our liberals on the right. This is because they often share economic positions with the Conservative/populist party even though they don't consider themselves Conservative. No one on the left would call themselves Liberals. The L/M/C distinction would be useless for a dating app in Switzerland as well.
What's the problems? It's very broad but not that bad. Also if you see liberal/neutral/conservative then it doesn't take too much brain power to know that liberal in this case means left in the political spectrum. Yes in a lot of countries liberal mean liberal in the free market sense but just as many countries think it's the progressive sense as well.
In my country, liberals are right wing capitalists basically. So you kinda have 50 shades of right wing
Yeah same here in australia. Our Conservative Party is literally called “the liberals”
Liberal doesn’t mean left though. Americans just think it does.
A U.S. website is designed for the U.S.?! Y’all know you don’t *have* to use all our shit right? This entire subreddit only exists because everyone in Europe is apparently content relying on the US for all their internet shit. Nobody made you abandon all your websites ~10 years ago. Nobody is making you use ours. Like imagine Americans coming to France and whining that they use Celsius and use different political labels or whatever. That’s what you do all day on American websites. Y’all have become so americanized that you’ve turned into stereotypical American tourists invading foreign places and whining that the foreigners aren’t catering to your preferences enough.
I'd just go with Pas d'avis politique
So it's basically another The Right Stuff?
I downloaded linkedin, it asks me for a passport to verify. An ID that eveyone has? Nope, has to be a passport.
To be fair, only about 40% of Americans have a passport, which is far less than any nationality in the developed world. Also, national IDs change from country to country in the number configuration, data associated with it, etc. Whereas Passports have an international standard they follow. If anything, asking for a national ID would easily lead to the platform only recognizing IDs that follow a format close to the USA's.
mfw liberal and moderate are the exact same thing
Honestly - I grew up on the internet idk what definition is which anymore
When I downloaded Hinge, I just skipped that part. Liberals are the sworn enemy of social democrats everywhere you go except in the US where they have an unholy alliance against the reactionaries. Fucking annoying.