Dictionaries do not exhaustively discuss topics and the scope of meanings of terms, they give you a colloquially-oriented summary of what they mean to help you, for example, parse a conversation that uses the word in passing.
John Locke being a liberal isn’t an “alternative fact”, you’re just a troglodyte.
Take it up with oxford
My point is that you are misusing the dictionary as a replacement for actually knowing about a subject. People still call John Locke a liberal, and they do it because fields have definitions that aren’t colloquial.
This discussion is about the current meaning of Liberalism in today’s political context.
Look anywhere outside of America and it readily refers to sniveling market-fetishists. In America it only implicitly does because everyone is a market fetishist.
If one is trying to define liberalism against feudalism, that definition is fine, but it’s just redditor sophomorism to act like a dictionary is a replacement for an actual historical or academic definition of a political tendency.
It’s basically just “classical liberalism and neoliberalism”, and whether politically illiterate Americans use that word that way doesn’t matter very much from an analytical standpoint, because in political science, history, philosophy, and even just popular discourse in most other countries, the term “liberal” mainly has that meaning.
Most countries are assisting Ukraine where they can.
Always the same map
Comparing yourself to Yezhov is worse than anything we’ve said to you
Yeah, looking busy is way more important than being productive a lot of the time. You always need to be doing something, so you just go through the motions of doing things because otherwise you’ll get shit from your employers. Waiting in good faith for more real tasks to emerge isn’t enough, so you must invent chores.
At least, that was very consistently my experience in retail.
Ten Chinese air force aircraft entered Taiwan’s air defence zone . . . Of those aircraft, the ministry said 10 had either crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait, which previously served as an unofficial barrier between the two sides, or entered the southwestern part of Taiwan’s air defence identification zone, or ADIZ.
For those unfamiliar with the Air Defense Identification Zone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Identification_Zone_(Taiwan)
Not only does it include a lot of water that isn’t part of the Strait, right off of China’s coast, it also includes a portion of Mainland China a few times larger than Taiwan itself.
People like to talk like China is flying jets over Taipei City, but you can fly a plane from one city in Mainland China to another, only passing over land, and be in this zone. Mind you, I don’t think Taiwan having this zone is bad – countries generally should be aware of air traffic nearby – but this is part of a long history of alarmist headlines by western media regarding what is often very uninteresting air traffic in the PRC.
Presumably “decadent” here means “glorifying capitalism” or wasteful excess more generally, which (not unlike what happened with Germany) is one of the main ways that South Korean media exports try to pander to people’s more base desires and these are used to try to exert soft power. It’s probably not the best way to go about things, but I’m not in or managing a country under siege.