Hello, comrades. I was wondering why we allowed “liberal” to become a dirty word? A “liberal” is someone favorable to progress or reform, and also someone in favor of individual rights and liberties.
I understand American fake liberals largely discredited the word, but in Lemmygrad forums, I see true liberalism every day: people discuss progressive ideas all the time, and are very tolerant of each other. Why do we allow American fake liberals to ruin the experience for us all? The word “liberal” should once again ring positive, while fake liberals should be called “faux liberals” which they are, don’t you agree?
The definition is crucial to the exchange of ideas. Inadequate definition leads to issues later on. There is a very good reason why mathematics insists on formal language. Every theorem proof starts with a careful set of definitions.
Only if others don’t agree to updated definitions. That’s why I don’t insist on that.
There is no communication (exchange of information) without exchanging matter/energy. The two are connected.
…and probably the most unpleasant, unfortunately. It caused far more suffering than the Yugoslav approach. People also liked the Yugoslav approach better.
It is, and that is part of the reason I believe we need broader definitions of terms.
What is “ideal” about an object not moving? Why is it impossible for a thing not to move?
I believe the electricity in my home is not a mathematical abstraction, and the chemical energy in my laptop and electrical screwdriver battery is also not an abstraction. How does that make me less materialist?
Mathematicians insist on very formal and precise definition because they shouldn’t cause confusion and dissonance between them, it’s not like i or this community here is the only one with this definition of liberals, liberal in a lot of third world countries (south american countries for example) are very much considered reactionary.
this is the weirdest thing you said, not gonna comment on that.
sigh, you might a liberal, you’re just forgetting the Soviet Union was the major target for basically every single capitalist country in the world because it was the country exporting the revolution around the world and leading global communism, not to mention the soviet union did to massivaly improve the conditions of the avarage worker and peasant living in the Soviet Union who were constantly brutalized by the monarchist state and had to constantly face massive periodic crisis of hunger until the bolcheviks industrialized, build all the infrastructure and create a system where everyone has access to literacy, jobs, equal oportunity and decent social wealth, you’re judging their struggles and discounting their material conditions and historical development, you’re being stupid and showing slight anticommunist bias if i interpret you in the most good faith, not to mention, WHAT PEOPLE think yugoslavia was better? the people in the balkans? the people in your country? in ex-yugoslav countries? no shit, stupid ass, historians and marxist intelectuals on the other hand? that’s a whole other story, not to mention how much critic yugoslavia is also deserving for, like how you kept tooking IMF loans, Tito never had a successor, never managed to resolve the major national problems and the country broke down in war later, but i don’t want to shit on yugoslavia and i hold it’s historical existence and experience very dear to my heart too, however i would advise thinking twice and seeking to educate yourself more before proclaiming to have had a superior experience to the Soviet Union.
i’m not sure i’m confusing the terms here, the thing is how you use einstein’s equation, for example to calculate relativistic mass of objects in extreme high speed or to smash particles in a nuclear reactor, the E=MC² is not a pratical equation.
The electricity on your laptop is a result of electrons moving and their eletric forces interacting with objects in the system, chemical energy is also the mathematical abstraction for a complex physical development of a chemical system oxidating an reducting substances in the battery, energy is not this magical “thing” that is present in matter, it’s a mathematical construct to describe and predict the development of physical systems that would be incredibly complex and hard to describe without it.
Will you please stop debating me? we’re already finished with your semantics and the liberal question.
I like a civilized debate. That’s why I posted, and you replied.
Physics (thermodynamics) says you can’t transfer information without simultaneously transferring matter or energy. What’s so weird about that? Can you describe a single experiment that proves otherwise?
So is everything else in physics. The model, however, describes something that is really there. I could say the same thing about “force”.
The people in Yugoslavia liked their system better than what they could see when they traveled to the USSR. It’s true Tito took loans from the IMF, but in the end, the external debt was relatively small compared to the capitalist countries. If you ask the Polish or the Bulgarians if they liked their socialism, that the Soviets introduced, the majority will answer no. Most of the fmr. Yugoslavs, who lived back then, will say theirs was good.
it’s convenient how you ignore most of what i said about the soviet union, and i’m not even going to talk about what’s the deal with the polish lol. and look at the reply you gave me when you talked about how the terms you use don’t change reality and it’s only a matter of communication. done with your pathetic pedantry, sophistic efort and insane magical idealism, i’ll stop with this otherwise it will keep going on forever.