599
Fun Facts (lemmy.world)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] RougeEric@lemmy.zip 83 points 6 days ago

Arguably, it's at least in large part the efforts of socialists, communists, and radical feminists that made some of these possible. But decades of vilification in the USA have made them virtually invisible to the general population.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

Vilification that is alive and well here on Lemmy!

Hands up, who hates liberals?!

. . . see? Everyone.

[-] prole 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You seem confused. They said socialists, communists and radical feminists. Not liberals.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] orbitz@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 days ago

Nothing like propaganda to make people to go against their best interests. I keep having to remember even decades is well after I was born, I can't imagine having the ideals of conservatives. As long as it's functional but there's no cost to not suppressing others, well there may be at some point when we're all on a scorching planet and have to make real sacrifices. Of course the old billionaires will be dead for the rest to deal with the fallout.... hopefully figuratively and not actually like the game.

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 34 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Isn’t that because of progressivism? Liberalism is free markets and small government and all that shit. Stop letting the lib shits claim these wins.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

Liberal is progressive in America. Lemmy mostly doesn’t want to know that.

[-] prole 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

No it doesn't. Just because they might end up voting for the same party (because there are only two fucking choices) does not make them the same at all.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

I mean in the semantic sense. The AM radio waves aren't filled with vitriol for people that support a capital-based economy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Unless you are saying the U.S. had a socialist majority in government when each of these rights/principles became allowed... It was the liberals you speak of that voted them in. Are we going to say Woodrow Wilson had a socialist administration that voted for Women's Suffrage?

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

The meme says “liberalism is the reason”, it doesn’t say “liberals voted these in”. You can be a liberal and lean towards progressivism, but that stil doesn’t make these things part of liberalism, it’s still progressivism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tree_frog_and_rain@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

A man gave women the right to fight rather than folks fighting for social progress is the liberal narrative we all grew up with. I mean you can hear the same thing on NPR when they talk about the history of Labor Day.

Progressive movements caused social change. Through political pressure. It wasn't given to us by liberals.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago

Yeah but their pastor said liberals eat babies. So deal's off.

[-] Houseman@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

They are trained from a very young age to obey and never question authority. It's pretty much part of the religion.

[-] Packet@lemmy.ml 29 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Vote

New Zealand, Finland and the USSR were the first to make that a reality. Spearheaded by trade union movements and communists.

Work

The Soviet Union was the first country to establish legal equality in pay and employment for women, and then followed by the PRC and the wide amount of time of socdem movement in the nordic countries.

File for divorce

France was the first, with the french revolution. Then came the Soviet Union and after it the PRC.

Buy a credit card

To be honest this is absurd, but indeed the US was the first as far as I can remember. Having the right to drown in debt is good i guess.

Buy a home or a car

US and UK did indeed pioneer that, but it was with more focus on married women. Actual acts focused just on women were implemented by the Soviet Union with collective property and gender equality laws.

Driver's license

There were little to no formal bans for that, social stigma was and is real though. Still an issue.

Pregnant and not get fired

USSR pioneered that in 1918, with labor codes protecting working mothers. Followed by the nordic socdem movement and the US only in the 1978

Husband can go to jail for beating you

USSR again, was the first to criminalize domestic battery in 1918. Although enforced unevenly it was legally punishable. Western Europe and the Northern America started it in 1970s with implementation continued to 1990s.

Many of the achievements listed are not of liberalism or neoliberalism, they were achievements of activists and unions working in a group to protect their collective interests. In many of the cases it was the Soviet Union with the revolution spearheading these rights, because the revolution itself was started by working class women. The nordics followed with their own social democrat feminist movement. In many things the PRC came before the neoliberal states in achievements of women's rights, and that is a state that was ravaged by war and imperialism for years. Liberalism gave little to nothing, it maintained the hierarchies, and silenced the movement. Both democrats and republicans both do not care about women's rights. They are both parties of the same right wing on the fascist eagle.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 16 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

So this is almost definitely referring to social liberalism, not economic/classical liberalism which is an entirely different thing. Some ideas of social liberalism overlap with progressivism and even socialism.

The US happens to have two parties that are liberals - but it's two different varieties of liberalism. Republicans are classical liberals whereas democrats for the most part are social liberals

[-] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Liberalism means so many things around the world, it's a shit show.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 6 days ago

Liberalism is not the reason for almost any of these but radicals working against not within the system.

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 21 points 6 days ago

Liberals taking credit for others’ praxis is their praxis.

[-] plyth@feddit.org 5 points 6 days ago

Or for the system. If the end result is that an election can be won by buying ads then all the work was for the benefit of the rich.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 40 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

MAGA women do not want all women to express to those rights.

MAGA women want to control who represses those rights.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 33 points 6 days ago

... You don't buy a credit card.

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 16 points 6 days ago

A better historical note would be to say .... to have a bank account

I think up until the 50s women couldn't have a bank account in their name, without their husband signing for them or something. Up until then, women couldn't have any money in their name in a recognized bank.

For common women that is ... if you were the ultra wealthy, you could afford to skirt around banking rules ... but as a common woman with a bit of money, you couldn't have a regular bank account of your own.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FunctionallyLiterate@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 days ago

Some do have an annual fee...

[-] blitzen@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 days ago

Between annual fees or interest, most people do directly pay for using a credit cards.

And even if there’s no AF, and you don’t carry a balance so there’s no interest, we all indirectly pay by way of processing fees.

[-] Steve@communick.news 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Paying isn't buying though.
Buying is paying for ownership of a thing.

You don't "own" a credit card. Credit cards own you. (Unless you're careful)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago

LOL liberalism.
American dumb

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Optional@fash.world misspelling “radicalism” for “liberalism” is peak liberal Illusory Truth Effect.

Get more radical, law-boot licker.

[-] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

They don't care and take everything for granted, that's what stupid people do. Also they think 5 min in advance.

See the people who voted for Trump and then were shocked that they or their relatives get deported. Likewise here: "the bad stuff is for other people and not me“ or some version of that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

No, that’s all due to leftism. Liberals just took credit for them, and have prevented leftists from protecting them.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Okay but “leftism” is just a made-up word like “cromulent” and “hypothetical”.

[-] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 days ago

I mean...if you want to be pedantic, and I always do, every word is made-up. That's how words work. Don't have a word for something? Make it up from nothing, or by smashing two or more words together (lookin at you my German fam 😘👉) or just borrow a word from a different language. That's literally just how words work. It's all made up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

yeah but "leftism" really embiggens the wordostrophe

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] zoloftt@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

Count on the Internet to bring out the pedantic comments. "Liberal" is the word used to describe pretty much anything on the "Left" in the USA.

Keep making your divisive posts about the "Liberals" vs the "Left" though. Trying to make sure you aren't boxed in with any other "Left" pointing groups will definitely help bring people together to change the current state of things...

[-] superniceperson@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Getting people to not be conservative is how you change the state of things. Liberalism is a conservative viewpoint by definition in the us. It is not left wing,' as its not revolutionary nor progressive in any way.

Liberals dont want the state of things to change in a positive way. By definition.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 days ago

The problem is that a significant portion of MAGA don't actually want most of those things.

They feel that freedoms are responsibilities. They don't want to think about who they should vote for, or have to have a job or think about credit cards and budgets and bank accounts. And they're not worried about needing a divorce or their husband beating them because they figure "Well I married a good Christian man, that will never be a problem for me."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Noise7@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Okay, but can I renounce them all to own the libs?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
599 points (100.0% liked)

Political Weirdos

1157 readers
60 users here now

A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS