RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Liberal wingnuttery

Category:Liberal wingnuttery | Result: Deleted

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) goofy overly specific political labeling Hastur! (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) There isn't a worldwide version of "Liberal" at all. North American liberals are more conservative than the liberals from Europe, but way more progressive than the "liberals" from East Asia,, and Australia. If anything, the people from Liberal Wingnuttery would be more at home here. — Jeh2ow  Damn son!  11:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you regard right-wing liberals unconditionally as centrists, you can understand politics in a distorted way. For example, conservative liberalism, liberal conservatism, national liberalism and classical liberalism are right-wing ideologies, not center-left ideologies. Israel's Likud is also a national liberal party. But they use rather anti-Islamic and populist rhetoric, and are they centrists, too? In the North American "liberal" means social liberalism(=Center-left ~ Left-wing), but in Australia "liberal" means conservative liberalism(=Center-right ~ Rignt-wing). The two have very different philosophies in mind.--BluePink (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even Geert Wilders, a Dutch "national liberal", is a far-right anti-Islam politician.--BluePink (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling Wilders a "liberal" is like calling Hitler a socialist. Just because he calls himself that doesn't mean he is a liberal. What, are you actually going to believe this prick? It's fair enough that those end up in Conservative wingnuttery or Nationalist wingnuttery, not really liberal. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  16:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nazism is not recognized in academia as socialism in the orthodox sense. But right-wing liberalism, on the other hand, is a branch of liberalism.--BluePink (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Academically, Nazism is not socialism, but national liberalism and conservative liberalism are a branch of liberalism.--BluePink (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, outside of his anti-islam crap, he is a fairly liberal politician (doesn't justify the anti-islam crap of course). This runs him contrary to the other Dutch far right politican, Thierry Baudet who is just a proto-fascist in the style of Le Pen and similar contemporaries across Europe. 15:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete. 17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It's getting really tiring to see all these subjective moonbat/wingnuttery categories proliferate here. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are indeed some distinctions between the definitions of “liberalism” and “conservatism” as used in, say, US and European contexts (with the European one tending to be more like classical liberalism and the US being more like social liberalism, while US “conservatism” is more in the vein of radical right wing reform/revolution, than Burkean “change to conserve”). However, I have a hard time conceiving of the current examples in this category as being meaningfully liberal (without the “neo” prefix), as they instead tend to be either more about “conservative” (especially in the US sense) wingnuttery, similar to the wingnut appropriation of the human rights concept of “free speech” as a shield for their xenophobic/racist/bigoted/etc. shitting on other people, or about extreme neoliberalism than about any form of broader (classical/social) liberalism per se. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Overly specific, not obvious to the layperson what it means, I'd also take issue with several of the people in the category who are definitely not centrists or centre-left or Free Democrats - Wilders, Sarkozy, Liberal Party of Australia, Elon Musk, etc are variously Eurofascist, mainstream right, mainstream very right, full of shit, etc (individual members of any category are disputable but when there's a lot of disagreement it suggests the category is too vaguely defined). In fact it's hard to think of a centrist who doesn't have occasional wingnut ideas. If you really want to diss a centrist/US liberal/centre-leftist, Category:Centrist stupidity is much clearer. --Annanoon (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Politicians who tend to be right-wing liberal are common in Europe and Canada. It must be different and distinct from "Liberarian wingnuttery".--BluePink (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are right-wing liberals in the United States as well as in Europe. (Is Michael Bloomberg a leftist politician? But he is certainly a liberal. not liberarian.) This category must not be Vaporize.--BluePink (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) How else is anyone going to bitch about neoliberalism? 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Category:Centrist stupidity? If you want to create a useful list for those that subscribe to neoliberals, then just make Category:Neoliberals rather than a vague "liberal wingnuttery"? 17:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So how should we classify right-wing liberal wingnuttery in Western Europe, Northern Europe, and Australia?--BluePink (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) We have Category:Liberal moonbattery, this can easily work as it's opposite. 18:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Judge Dredd (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Goat

 * Unless there are other examples that clearly encompass both wingnuttery and (classical/social) liberalism and which can’t better be designated as outright neoliberalism (for examples of harsh, socioeconomic measures in the name of free market fundamentalism and the like), I think that this category makes little sense. Instead, it would probably make more sense to have some form of “neoliberalism” category for the likes of Bloomberg, Musk, Yeltsin and of course neoliberalism itself and chuck the rest into other forms of wingnuttery (as already mentioned, I think they’ll fit better into conservative wingnuttery). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think Bloomberg, Musk, and Yeltsin are conservative. They are obviously right-wing liberals.--BluePink (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, that’s why I suggest placing them in some form of neoliberalism category, though I may not have been clear in communicating this. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg we can call a centrist-Hastur! (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Conservative liberalism and neo-liberalism are not synonymous. Therefore, this category must be maintained.--BluePink (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In theory, I’d might agree with the non synonymous argument, but in practice, we don’t currently seem to have any entries in the conservative liberalism category that isn’t either clearly conservative or neoliberal. And yes, I do include Bloomberg in the latter category, because US neoliberals calling themselves “centrists” is similar to US radical corporate rightists calling themselves “conservatives” (demanding radical changes, rather than Burkean “changes to conserve”). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, if we keep the category, I think there might be something to be said for reversing the order to liberal conservatism, since most of the liberalism in these cases seem to be about the classical liberal aspect of free market (something that has morphed into outright free market fundamentalism in the case of US “conservatives”), more than about, say, civil rights (something that neither Bloomberg, Musk or Yeltsin seem to have been too concerned about). I guess my question is, what exactly is the reason to label Bloomberg, Musk and Yeltsin as being fundamentally liberal? And which definition of liberal (or conservative) are we using? ScepticWombat (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism are different. There are the following 'conservative liberal' center-right political parties around the world.(ex., , , , , etc.) Even in the Republican Party of the United States, former Presidents of Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller are not liberal conservatives, but rather conservative liberals.--BluePink (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism are different Yeah I definitely see us as cutting down political categories even further.  Left/right/centrist, moonbat/wingnut, categories for more specific movements (libertarianism or anarchism, for example).  But further than that is just tedious, subjective, and honestly a little embarrassing for us.  We're not taxonomists of politics and acting as such will bring us more headaches than anything else-Hastur! (talk)  07:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)