Now you have given a definition for liberalism. You could have done this in the previous reply, or could have just told the person no. Instead you gave a vague non-answer.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I actually have no given a definition of liberalism outside of the core I did originally. I have only listed a few self-claimed qualities and their inconsistency.

I also gave a rationale for why I went in this direction. Notice the complete lack of engagement with it.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh no, you did, you laid out the basic tenets of it's individualism, and how that has served capitalism. The last post you just said it served capitalism without elaborating on aspects of its individualistic ideas. You didn't get into depth, but you mentioned the very surface level concepts.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I didn't speak about individualism at all, actually.

It's not clear to me what your point is. Did you read my longer response to you? Do you have anything to say about it?

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For example, liberalism self-defined with maximizing individual liberty while it also advocated for the “freedom” of corporations

I didn’t speak about individualism at all, actually.

Uh.. what? I said you brought up how it held individualism as important, but the pitfalls of that in how it serves capitalism. This is a copy/paste of a line in your reply. How do you now deny this, when you said that?

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Yes, I know what I said. I don't conflate a mention of individual liberty tp be the same as discussing individualism itself.

So do you have any point to make? Any response to the bulk of what I said?