(07-05-2018, 02:44 PM)pirkster Wrote:

(07-05-2018, 01:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: Nah, the swines ate my pearls.  It'll be a little while before more are revealed.

---

Right, if you define liberalism that way, as a unified thing with those qualities, everything else you say logically follows.
Problem: people who actually identify as liberal wouldn't define liberalism that way. In fact, they would offer many very different definitions, including some that conflict with each other, if you asked.

I hear progress.

You're admitting liberalism relies on self-created "reality" and is not reality based at all.

It's like clothing.  It's worn for appeal/signal to others.  Appearance.  Its fluidity changes according to whatever is "in" and acceptable to the collective.  It's a foundation of shifting sand, not based on solid principles.  Changing targets.  Changing definitions.  Arguments over the definitions of things that are self evident (such as the word "is.")

You have badly misunderstood me.
I am admitting that there are different, conflicting things that different people call "liberalism." For this reason, neither of us really get to say anything definitive about it.  We have to be more specific.  But if there was going to be a definitive definition of liberalism, I'd expect it to come from people who identify as liberals, not people who don't. 
Affirm what you believe.  Ask what others believe.  Don't define your own beliefs as opposition to what you think others believe.

---