That’s fine, but I did not share that context. This can easily happen when people switch between referring to what is discussed in-topic and numerous linked sites and articles.
No, not really. I find it obvious that most terms have multiple meanings, and have no problem with that. A first step in discussing anything is to agree upon what meanings are being used, but I see that as a matter of personal responsibility, not a popularity contest. I never tell anyone that their meaning “doesn’t exist” simply because theirs doesn’t support the views or opinions I might prefer to convey.
A deeper consideration is that adapting all online discussion to accommodate “US political discourse” can be seen as an exercise in normalizing imperialism, even if it was not intended as such.
ETA: yes, they sort of do. But you always have a soft spot for your first. First concert, in my case, and I may see what is left of them at Red Rocks this year.
“Libertarian socialist” seems oxymoronic to me. How can an individual maximize their freedom within a network of nonmonetary inter-dependencies? In that context you yourself would not be free to be an unemployed artist in a squat, you’d be required to contribute to the general welfare, right? If you say art is your contribution, if everyone chose that no one would eat, so someone’s freedom to be an artist will be constrained. I guess this is why I wasn’t attracted to poli-sci, these thing don’t make sense to me.
