Neoliberalism is not the DNC. Neoliberalism is not an HRC or Obama circlejerk. Neoliberalism is not not exclusively left-wing.
If you came to /r/neoliberal because of us making fun of Trump and you unironically loved HRC, be warned: this subreddit is not going to be for you.
Full disclosure: I voted for Hillary in 2016. I did so not because I liked her - on the contrary I think she was a bad candidate. I did so because Trump is literally awful and is a threat to American social and political norms as well as our institutions in general.
Spewing lefty garbage (like Media Matters) is not going to be tolerated. Do not mistake shitposts for unironic support of left-wing politicians or political beliefs.
The mods are currently in discussion about our vision for /r/neoliberal but be forewarned that while leftism is tolerated on this subreddit in a discussion format, it cannot and will not be construed as neoliberalism as political thought.
Edit: I was asked by the other mods to make edits to my comments, in bold.
To allay some concerns:
There will be no Wumbowall
There will be no ideological purge
This is an open forum to discuss politics in a civil manner
Lastly, theres no such thing as a perfect neoliberal. Macron, while a win for France, Europe and the world, is not above criticism (though remember reformism is necessarily relative to the status quo). Similarly, all politicians and public intellectuals will be scrutinized insofar as they push illiberal policies or are flat out wrong when making empirical claims. For example, when Friedman makes claims about the effects of minimum wages being bad always.
I agree with the mod. I'm not a neoliberal, and most western democracies are social liberalist or social democracies. But the Dems are closer to neoliberalism in deed* than the Republicans are, so it is hard for an outsider to figure out where their allegiances lie.
* the Democratic platform was closer to social liberalism prior to Bill Clinton. Clinton moved the party to the center in order to woo swing voters. He felt they would be completely unable to do any of their social reforms if they couldn't even get election, which was a big problem after the Republicans caught the zeitgeist of the "Me Generation" boomers.
I think healthcare would be a big deliminator. It's not clear what that sub thinks of single payer, but they are definitely against a national health system like the UK has.
Edit: it doesn't help that last week they idolized Krugman, and this week they are idolizing Bernanke. Two different sets of people under the same banner.
It's not clear what that sub thinks of single payer, but they are definitely against a national health system like the UK has.
Why is that a "big deliminator"? Most countries with universal healthcare aren't single-payer systems. Neoliberal supports universal healthcare, but probably prefers the German or Singaporean systems.
how the fuck is a sub for the ideology that's been running most of the world since the 90s already having purity tests and crises of vision? jesus christ guys, you do realize you're winning right now, right?
Right, a totally unjustified and idiotic one. That's one of the main points of the whole sub, and why it's pretty highly strung. We could be continuing decades worth of improvement for the world and the global poor, and instead we're doing unnecessary damage to ourselves and them by being hoodwinked by idiotic populism.
Regardless of credentials (and you've incorrectly assumed mine, as my degrees are in business and economics), the fact you've forcefully defended populism (and acted as though the populous disagreeing with me makes me wrong, which is extra funny since we're talking about populism) demonstrates that you're uneducated.
You could have a PhD, but the fact that you've made the statement above proves to me that you're an idiot.
So, when the sub was created, the idea is it was 'reclaiming' the term neoliberal, and really just meant a center left agenda but marginally more 'pro market' - i.e., democrats but pro-free trade.
Apparently to a lot of people, this means unironic Pinochet memes.
When people told me they hated Hillary Clinton or (far worse) that they were "not fans," I wish I had said in no uncertain terms: "I love Hillary Clinton. I am in awe of her. I am set free by her. She will be the finest world leader our galaxy has ever seen."
I wish, in those exchanges, I had not asked gentle, tolerant questions about a hater's ridiculous allergy to her, or Clinton's fictional misdeeds and imagined character flaws. More deeply still, I wish I had not reasoned with anyone, patiently countered their ludicrous emotionalism and psychologically disturbed theories. I wish I had said, flatly, "I love her." As if I had been asked about my mother or daughter. No defensiveness or polemics; not dignifying the crazy allegations with so much as a Snopes link.
Maybe "I love her" seemed too womany, too sentimental, too un-pragmatic. Not coalition-building, kind of culty. But people say with impunity they love Obama, the state of Israel, their churches, Kurt Cobain. In the end, I wish I'd said it because it's true.
And I'm not alone in my commitment. Millions of Clinton's supporters — we were thanked by Clinton as the "secret, private Facebook sites" — expressed it among themselves, all the time, in raptures or happy tears with each new display of our heroine's ferocious intelligence, depth, and courage. We were frankly bewildered by the idea that anyone would hedge their commitment to her ("You don't have to be her friend"; "Yes, she's made mistakes"; "lesser of two evils"). We didn't remember anyone turning to this stock ambivalence when discussing Obama, Babe Ruth, FDR. If only one reporter — they knew about us — could have published a headline like "Clinton Inspires Historic Levels of Adoration From Her Supporters" about the people who have had their lives transformed by the power of her brilliant campaign, unrivaled effectiveness, and extraordinary career. Just one headline like that, like the ones Bill Clinton got.
Usually a legend is made by men and media — the legend of Kennedy, say, or Jim Morrison — and then, much later, a biopic, pretending to evenhandedness, reveals the legend's shortcomings, his "human" side. The shortcomings are almost always something exactly no one actually believes compromises his heroism. His problem drinking. His mistreatment of women. Well, takedowns of Hillary were always already written. She has somehow made the time to hear out each dead-end line of reasoning about her fake mortal sins, and often she has also thanked everyone for sparing her further moral lashings, as if that were a kindness. Under cover of "humanizing" the intimidating valedictorian, reports and investigations and media clichés vilified her. But the feminist hero never got to be a legend first. And yet she is one, easily surpassing Ben Franklin, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs.
I want to reverse the usual schedule of things, then. We don't have to wait until she dies to act. Hillary Clinton's name belongs on ships, and airports, and tattoos. She deserves straight-up hagiographies and a sold-out Broadway show called RODHAM. Yes, this cultural canonization is going to come after the chronic, constant, nonstop "On the other hand" sexist hedging around her legacy. But such is the courage of Hillary Clinton and her supporters; we reverse patriarchal orders. Maybe she is more than a president. Maybe she is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself. The presidency is too small for her. She belongs to a much more elite class of Americans, the more-than-presidents. Neil Armstrong, Martin Luther King Jr., Alexander Fucking Hamilton.
Hillary Clinton did everything right in this campaign, and she won more votes than her opponent did. She won. She cannot be faulted, criticized, or analyzed for even one more second. Instead, she will be decorated as an epochal heroine far too extraordinary to be contained by the mere White House. Let that revolting president-elect be Millard Fillmore or Herbert Hoover or whatever. Hillary is Athena.
It was published in Lena Dunham's online magazine, which in combination with this video is proof enough that Dunham is a Trump employed psyop trying to make Democrats look crazy.
no, the proper takeaway is that white women were a mistake. i've said it before and i'll say it again: grind them up and turn them into dog food because it's all they're fucking worth
Because users were making not real neoliberalism posts. The fact is that Reagan and Pinochet both pursued neoliberal reforms and we need to take responsibility for mistakes rather than pretending they're not ours. I'm deleting comments for the exact opposite reason as why communists do.
i know what you're doing, and tbh i think you're right, but the fact you can't get most of your userbase and some of your mods on side is pretty fuggin hilarious. it's almost like neoliberals are useless at dealing with people! hmmmmmm..... really makea mea thinking.
anyway. i eagerly await your locked sticky telling everyone what real neoliberalism is.
The ideology doesn't have a clear definition and we attracted far too many users who are only tenuously engaged with it.
If the subscriber counts falls to 100 tomorrow, I wouldn't care except about the lack of memes. Neoliberalism already is widespread and is like a zombie that keeps coming back. What happens on this sub is really inconsequential for the real world.
if if has no clear definition how can you determine if it keeps coming back 🤔
btw
What happens on this sub is really inconsequential for the real world.
this sounds exactly like what one of your retardo friends on /r/anarchism would say. are you sure you aren't actually woke af and ready to light cops on fire?
It's pretty fucking sad when a capitalist piggie neoliberal subreddit is moderating people for not taking responsibility for their failures, and a socialist one is banning people for saying "hey guys, Stalin was a jerk"
Wumbo once went on a huge rant about Marx while admitting he'd never read anything of Marx and didn't even understand any Marxist concepts. I've never seen someone get so schooled in their own sub as that.
Eh, that's not too discrediting. While I agree that literary criticism should be left to those familiar to the text being discussed, a quick perusal of that sub appears to suggest that it is geared more towards nonfiction.
Wumbo could save himself a few hours, write down a post, and then get literally anyone else to write: 'REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE' in response.
Those people get that 'neoliberalism' is an actual ideology, and not just a word invented by their enemies to make fun of it, right? Like, they made the word up to describe themselves.
They are widely hated, to the point where they like to pretend that they (as an ideology) simply don't exist. Probably because a union of corporate and private ends is most typically called 'fascism' and not 'neoliberalism'.
108 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-05-10
You're not shit next to me. My genes are just light years superior to yours and I don't even need to look at you.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a Atimo3 2017-05-10
The Mod comment
n/a monkeybreath 2017-05-10
I agree with the mod. I'm not a neoliberal, and most western democracies are social liberalist or social democracies. But the Dems are closer to neoliberalism in deed* than the Republicans are, so it is hard for an outsider to figure out where their allegiances lie.
* the Democratic platform was closer to social liberalism prior to Bill Clinton. Clinton moved the party to the center in order to woo swing voters. He felt they would be completely unable to do any of their social reforms if they couldn't even get election, which was a big problem after the Republicans caught the zeitgeist of the "Me Generation" boomers.
I think healthcare would be a big deliminator. It's not clear what that sub thinks of single payer, but they are definitely against a national health system like the UK has.
n/a thankmrmacaroon 2017-05-10
Nonsense.
n/a monkeybreath 2017-05-10
I'm not sure what you're saying, but it amuses me nonetheless.
n/a MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-05-10
I'm not sure what you're saying, but it amuses me nonetheless.
r/drama
n/a thankmrmacaroon 2017-05-10
90s Krugman was a widely respected, world-leading, Nobel Prize-winning scholar of international trade. 00s Krugman is a leftist political hack.
70s Krugman is the best though.
n/a monkeybreath 2017-05-10
That was an interesting essay on international trade. Thanks.
n/a thankmrmacaroon 2017-05-10
Dude you read the wrong one.
n/a monkeybreath 2017-05-10
Haha! I saw the other one, but it wasn't quite as germane to my interests.
n/a qlube 2017-05-10
Why is that a "big deliminator"? Most countries with universal healthcare aren't single-payer systems. Neoliberal supports universal healthcare, but probably prefers the German or Singaporean systems.
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-05-10
Lolllll
n/a ChateauJack 2017-05-10
TRUE CAPITALISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED
n/a ShootingAnElephant 2017-05-10
It's all just privatised socialism.
n/a jorio 2017-05-10
WUMBO! WUMBO! WUMBO!
n/a wumbotarian 2017-05-10
Thanks fam
n/a glmox 2017-05-10
how the fuck is a sub for the ideology that's been running most of the world since the 90s already having purity tests and crises of vision? jesus christ guys, you do realize you're winning right now, right?
n/a DracoX872 2017-05-10
*running most of the world since the 70s
n/a glmox 2017-05-10
i wanted to give the reds at least a little respect
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-05-10
Sounds like you might be interested in a free helicopter ride
n/a hexane360 2017-05-10
No, neoliberal means new liberals, not liberals that were new 20 years ago!
n/a freet0 2017-05-10
Boy wait til I tell you when modernism was
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-10
Ezra Pound knew what's up. All modernists become fashy boyz.
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-10
The whole sub is filled with people tushytangled that people have different opinions.
They're a highly strung bunch.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-10
https://www.blubrry.com/thedig/22226639/corey-robin-on-the-reactionaries-minds-under-trump/
This is more about hardcore conservatives but you should give it a listen. Similar dynamics at play. The relevant part is in the middle/end.
n/a Horace_Barrett 2017-05-10
Podcasts are stupid, write a fucking text instead of wasting my time.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-10
I doubt you read either, to be honest.
n/a BANNED_FIVE_TIMES 2017-05-10
legendary cumback
n/a Horace_Barrett 2017-05-10
Well, not anymore.
n/a glmox 2017-05-10
pk you're embarrassing yourself again
n/a LuigiVargasLlosa 2017-05-10
I can't believe I didn't know admit the dig yet. Listen to any other good podcasts? Hmu
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-10
Intercepted
Chapo Trap House
Richard Wolff's Economic Update
Against the Grain
Those are the ones I most often catch.
n/a LuigiVargasLlosa 2017-05-10
Nice, cheers
n/a AllahisDJT 2017-05-10
The Tom Woods show
Freedomain Radio
Contrakrugman
/u/Prince_Kropotkin
n/a incendiaryblizzard 2017-05-10
There's been a huge populist backlash to neoliberalism starting with Trump, then on to Brexit, Le Pen, Duterte, etc
n/a Mort_DeRire 2017-05-10
Right, a totally unjustified and idiotic one. That's one of the main points of the whole sub, and why it's pretty highly strung. We could be continuing decades worth of improvement for the world and the global poor, and instead we're doing unnecessary damage to ourselves and them by being hoodwinked by idiotic populism.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-10
The populi disagree with you, fuckface.
n/a BrotherToaster 2017-05-10
Only in America.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-10
Let freedom ring!
n/a BrotherToaster 2017-05-10
k
n/a raps_caucasionally 2017-05-10
Where America walks, the world follows famalam
n/a BrotherToaster 2017-05-10
the world stops following America here then
n/a raps_caucasionally 2017-05-10
Jus bcuz ur dirt nigger country is getting cucked by the US doesn't mean you heff 2 b mad
n/a BrotherToaster 2017-05-10
I'm sorry I don't speak autist
n/a Mort_DeRire 2017-05-10
And they, like you, are uneducated.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-10
That's where you are wrong, kiddo!
n/a Mort_DeRire 2017-05-10
Regardless of credentials (and you've incorrectly assumed mine, as my degrees are in business and economics), the fact you've forcefully defended populism (and acted as though the populous disagreeing with me makes me wrong, which is extra funny since we're talking about populism) demonstrates that you're uneducated.
You could have a PhD, but the fact that you've made the statement above proves to me that you're an idiot.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-10
Cry more, loser.
n/a HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-05-10
It's because people are already bringing identity politics to the sub and the mods want to make sure they don't get taken over by lefties.
n/a Kai_Daigoji 2017-05-10
So, when the sub was created, the idea is it was 'reclaiming' the term neoliberal, and really just meant a center left agenda but marginally more 'pro market' - i.e., democrats but pro-free trade.
Apparently to a lot of people, this means unironic Pinochet memes.
n/a glmox 2017-05-10
fucking kill yourself
n/a wwyzzerdd 2017-05-10
Lowering the voting age and removing the requirement to own land was a YUGE mistake.
n/a Chicup 2017-05-10
This and totally unironically.
n/a zahlman 2017-05-10
wew
n/a KT-47 2017-05-10
Democracy is a meme
n/a PresidentCruz2024 2017-05-10
The 19th amendment was the main mistake.
n/a wwyzzerdd 2017-05-10
If a woman owns land, I have no problem with her vote. She has a vested interest in participating in politics.
Unlike the shitlicker generation who own nothing, contribute nothing, and reeeee at the first suggestion they should maybe, ya know, work.
n/a caffienatedjedi 2017-05-10
Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
n/a Prometherion13 2017-05-10
Heinlein was unironically correct.
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-10
I would like to know more. Citizenship is a responsibility that should be earned.
n/a AlohaWarrior34 2017-05-10
NOBODY INSULTS BASED HILDAWG!! NOBODY!!
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-10
When people told me they hated Hillary Clinton or (far worse) that they were "not fans," I wish I had said in no uncertain terms: "I love Hillary Clinton. I am in awe of her. I am set free by her. She will be the finest world leader our galaxy has ever seen." I wish, in those exchanges, I had not asked gentle, tolerant questions about a hater's ridiculous allergy to her, or Clinton's fictional misdeeds and imagined character flaws. More deeply still, I wish I had not reasoned with anyone, patiently countered their ludicrous emotionalism and psychologically disturbed theories. I wish I had said, flatly, "I love her." As if I had been asked about my mother or daughter. No defensiveness or polemics; not dignifying the crazy allegations with so much as a Snopes link. Maybe "I love her" seemed too womany, too sentimental, too un-pragmatic. Not coalition-building, kind of culty. But people say with impunity they love Obama, the state of Israel, their churches, Kurt Cobain. In the end, I wish I'd said it because it's true. And I'm not alone in my commitment. Millions of Clinton's supporters — we were thanked by Clinton as the "secret, private Facebook sites" — expressed it among themselves, all the time, in raptures or happy tears with each new display of our heroine's ferocious intelligence, depth, and courage. We were frankly bewildered by the idea that anyone would hedge their commitment to her ("You don't have to be her friend"; "Yes, she's made mistakes"; "lesser of two evils"). We didn't remember anyone turning to this stock ambivalence when discussing Obama, Babe Ruth, FDR. If only one reporter — they knew about us — could have published a headline like "Clinton Inspires Historic Levels of Adoration From Her Supporters" about the people who have had their lives transformed by the power of her brilliant campaign, unrivaled effectiveness, and extraordinary career. Just one headline like that, like the ones Bill Clinton got. Usually a legend is made by men and media — the legend of Kennedy, say, or Jim Morrison — and then, much later, a biopic, pretending to evenhandedness, reveals the legend's shortcomings, his "human" side. The shortcomings are almost always something exactly no one actually believes compromises his heroism. His problem drinking. His mistreatment of women. Well, takedowns of Hillary were always already written. She has somehow made the time to hear out each dead-end line of reasoning about her fake mortal sins, and often she has also thanked everyone for sparing her further moral lashings, as if that were a kindness. Under cover of "humanizing" the intimidating valedictorian, reports and investigations and media clichés vilified her. But the feminist hero never got to be a legend first. And yet she is one, easily surpassing Ben Franklin, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs. I want to reverse the usual schedule of things, then. We don't have to wait until she dies to act. Hillary Clinton's name belongs on ships, and airports, and tattoos. She deserves straight-up hagiographies and a sold-out Broadway show called RODHAM. Yes, this cultural canonization is going to come after the chronic, constant, nonstop "On the other hand" sexist hedging around her legacy. But such is the courage of Hillary Clinton and her supporters; we reverse patriarchal orders. Maybe she is more than a president. Maybe she is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself. The presidency is too small for her. She belongs to a much more elite class of Americans, the more-than-presidents. Neil Armstrong, Martin Luther King Jr., Alexander Fucking Hamilton. Hillary Clinton did everything right in this campaign, and she won more votes than her opponent did. She won. She cannot be faulted, criticized, or analyzed for even one more second. Instead, she will be decorated as an epochal heroine far too extraordinary to be contained by the mere White House. Let that revolting president-elect be Millard Fillmore or Herbert Hoover or whatever. Hillary is Athena.
n/a ThatGaymer 2017-05-10
Who fucking wrote this shit im going to vomit
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-10
I assumed it came from 4chan and it was ironic, but apparently it was someone called Virginia Heffernan?
n/a BlackPeopleEmoji 2017-05-10
He-he-hehe-hehehe-heffer HEFFER
n/a Ylajali_2002 2017-05-10
It was published in Lena Dunham's online magazine, which in combination with this video is proof enough that Dunham is a Trump employed psyop trying to make Democrats look crazy.
n/a 420CO 2017-05-10
Jesus fucking christ that video.
n/a wabbit_1444 2017-05-10
Who told Lena Dunham she's funny?
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-10
This heffer.
n/a nimoid 2017-05-10
Here you go.
Also, this.
Feminism was a mistake.
n/a glmox 2017-05-10
no, the proper takeaway is that white women were a mistake. i've said it before and i'll say it again: grind them up and turn them into dog food because it's all they're fucking worth
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-10
worst part is this was all dead serious
n/a Ace4929 2017-05-10
Hillary is love, Hillary is life
n/a SpectroSpecter 2017-05-10
Look everyone, it's every political subreddit ever
n/a JohnTheOrc 2017-05-10
rip
n/a captainpriapism 2017-05-10
beats reading it
n/a DracoX872 2017-05-10
sure does, took me like 5 whole minutes to remove all of those
n/a Sarge_Ward 2017-05-10
mods who actually do work make me sick
n/a TipTupKek 2017-05-10
kek you're already having to delete the comments of a mod
you guys are honestly as bad as fuckin trotskyists
n/a DracoX872 2017-05-10
Because users were making not real neoliberalism posts. The fact is that Reagan and Pinochet both pursued neoliberal reforms and we need to take responsibility for mistakes rather than pretending they're not ours. I'm deleting comments for the exact opposite reason as why communists do.
n/a TipTupKek 2017-05-10
i know what you're doing, and tbh i think you're right, but the fact you can't get most of your userbase and some of your mods on side is pretty fuggin hilarious. it's almost like neoliberals are useless at dealing with people! hmmmmmm..... really makea mea thinking.
anyway. i eagerly await your locked sticky telling everyone what real neoliberalism is.
n/a DracoX872 2017-05-10
The ideology doesn't have a clear definition and we attracted far too many users who are only tenuously engaged with it.
If the subscriber counts falls to 100 tomorrow, I wouldn't care except about the lack of memes. Neoliberalism already is widespread and is like a zombie that keeps coming back. What happens on this sub is really inconsequential for the real world.
n/a TipTupKek 2017-05-10
if if has no clear definition how can you determine if it keeps coming back 🤔
btw
this sounds exactly like what one of your retardo friends on /r/anarchism would say. are you sure you aren't actually woke af and ready to light cops on fire?
n/a DracoX872 2017-05-10
Soros not paying me enough for this shit
n/a TipTupKek 2017-05-10
you should form a union
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-10
are you sure that's the metaphor you want to use for your ideology
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-05-10
It's spectres vs zombies, dude! I would totally watch it!
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-10
That is because neoliberalism is an ideology without a constituency.
n/a Evil-Corgi 2017-05-10
It's pretty fucking sad when a
capitalist piggieneoliberal subreddit is moderating people for not taking responsibility for their failures, and a socialist one is banning people for saying "hey guys, Stalin was a jerk"n/a old_grumpy_grandpa 2017-05-10
Why not leave comments up to be mocked?
n/a glmox 2017-05-10
when ur right ur right
n/a Horace_Barrett 2017-05-10
I still want /u/Prince_Kropotkin to write an R1 for /r/badeconomics and argue with dense people like /u/wumbotarian.
n/a Jufft 2017-05-10
Yes please.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-10
Wumbo once went on a huge rant about Marx while admitting he'd never read anything of Marx and didn't even understand any Marxist concepts. I've never seen someone get so schooled in their own sub as that.
n/a EtCustodIpsosCustod 2017-05-10
Eh, that's not too discrediting. While I agree that literary criticism should be left to those familiar to the text being discussed, a quick perusal of that sub appears to suggest that it is geared more towards nonfiction.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-10
You're not nearly as clever as you think you are, to be honest. Once you get past second year you'll probably think of better econ related burns.
n/a justcool393 2017-05-10
n/a darkaceAUS 2017-05-10
Wumbo could save himself a few hours, write down a post, and then get literally anyone else to write: 'REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE' in response.
n/a captainpriapism 2017-05-10
hey guys lets poison our own community by buying into politics maybe 5% of people care about and treating it as the most important thing in the world
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-10
What do you expect of people who have spent months REEing in ESS.
n/a candiedwhiskey 2017-05-10
ITT: people who can't be arsed to read the r/neoliberal sidebar.
n/a Imgur_Lurker 2017-05-10
I can't either is /u/80BAIT08 right about it being ESS 2.0
SanderSpam took back /r/Politics and all the Hilary smug posters moved to this sub?
n/a 0per 2017-05-10
There a decent amount of ESS users on neolib but at least 90% aren't. ESS is a lot smaller than everyone thinks
n/a ferongr 2017-05-10
It's not apparent from looking at the sub's submissions though.
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-10
Can you point out the bit of their sidebar that makes this less hilarious?
n/a Nechaev 2017-05-10
Says the person who can't be arsed to read r/drama sidebar.
n/a kijib 2017-05-10
that poor mod didn't realize the salty Hillary shills who think Bernie is the devil have co opted his sub
n/a Cloacalla_Festival 2017-05-10
Nations are real.
n/a some-other 2017-05-10
Nice try hillbots.
n/a ThatDamnedImp 2017-05-10
Those people get that 'neoliberalism' is an actual ideology, and not just a word invented by their enemies to make fun of it, right? Like, they made the word up to describe themselves.
They are widely hated, to the point where they like to pretend that they (as an ideology) simply don't exist. Probably because a union of corporate and private ends is most typically called 'fascism' and not 'neoliberalism'.