3 ms·

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention North Korea more. The DPRK is probably the most collectivist (least individualistic) large society on the planet, so m

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention North Korea more. The DPRK is probably the most collectivist (least individualistic) large society on the planet, so much so that it terrifies bona fide liberals. I'm sure the intense political polarization of the divided Peninsula has contributed to hyper-charging individualism in the South. You don't want to be like the enemy. FWIW, DPRK birth rate is about 1.9, still below replacement but more than double the ROK, and much higher than PRC or Japan.

ericmay 4y ago
Just for future readers being "liberal" does not necessarily mean that one is "collectivist". The OP, like many others, confuses governmental, economic, and philosophical ideals so that they can make a political point - one that does not contain much in the way of substance. In the way of examples, neoliberalism [1] comes to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
- pphysch 4y ago
  I mean philosophically liberal in the original meaning of the term. In that sense, it is tightly linked with individualism. This has nothing to do with current American politics.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Then this comment doesn't make any sense > > The DPRK is probably the most collectivist (least individualistic) large society on the planet, so much so that it terrifies bleeding heart liberals.
    - pphysch 4y ago
      I'll break it down for you. Liberals are individualists. It's at the foundation of their worldview and philosophy. This is basic stuff. DPRK is highly illiberal, un-individualistic. Engaging with DPRK culture in good faith means questioning the universality of the Western, liberal worldview. For most people, this is a non-starter (just look at this thread).
      - ericmay 4y ago
        > so much so that it terrifies bleeding heart liberals Can you break this term down for me then?
        pphysch 4y ago
        "bleeding heart" wasn't the best choice of adjective there, I meant "passionate".
        ericmay 4y ago
        Sure, but you have to be careful with the terms you use! :) AnimalMuppet gave a good explanation there IMO.
        AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Yeah, not the best choice, then. "Bleeding heart" has been used as a slur by (US political) conservatives[1] to attack (US political) liberals. It implied that the liberals suffer from an excess of empathy to the point that it clouds their judgment, or something. Nowadays it's just a slur. You're using "liberal" in a way that differs from standard US political usage, which is all right, especially since you clearly defined what you meant by the term. But "bleeding heart" sounds very US-politics, and seems really weird with your not using liberal in the US politics sense. [1] These "conservatives" would count as liberals by your definition - they still believe in individual rights.
        pphysch 4y ago
        Frankly, I have only heard liberals self-identify as "bleeding heart", and misunderstood its definition. Then again, I don't consume US conservative media. > These "conservatives" would count as liberals by your definition - they still believe in individual rights. Of course. Virtually every faction of US politics is philosophically liberal.
        shrimp_emoji 4y ago
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  To add to this, liberalism and neo liberalism aren't on the left of the political spectrum. These political ideologies are fairly solidly right or centre-right
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    I gave up when I saw people on this site using “neoliberal” as a slur for current US progressives. Yeah.. I know the term has been basically meaningless for a while, but still.
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      It just shows how powerful propaganda is, it's redefining terms
    - pphysch 4y ago
      The Progressive Caucus is clearly a wing of the Democratic Party, which is neoliberal. They occasionally challenge the party line, but never successfully. That's what primaries are for. That said, there are many American progressive movements that are not neoliberal. Just not in power.
tptacek 4y ago
Bleeding heart liberals, all the other kinds of liberals, people who don't want to be executed by anti-aircraft cannon for having the wrong last name, people bothered by concentration camps, people concerned about nuclear prolifertion, all those kinds of people.
- pphysch 4y ago
  [flagged]
Zetice 4y ago
I think the part that terrifies "bleeding heart liberals" is the abject poverty, brutally oppressive quasi-militaristic (I say quasi given its profound ineptitude) regime, and mass starvation. I would imaging birth rates don't really make it to the top 10 list of problems in N. Korea.

ericmay 4y ago

Just for future readers being "liberal" does not necessarily mean that one is "collectivist". The OP, like many others, confuses governmental, economic, and philosophical ideals so that they can make a political point - one that does not contain much in the way of substance. In the way of examples, neoliberalism [1] comes to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

pphysch 4y ago
I mean philosophically liberal in the original meaning of the term. In that sense, it is tightly linked with individualism. This has nothing to do with current American politics.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Then this comment doesn't make any sense > > The DPRK is probably the most collectivist (least individualistic) large society on the planet, so much so that it terrifies bleeding heart liberals.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    I'll break it down for you. Liberals are individualists. It's at the foundation of their worldview and philosophy. This is basic stuff. DPRK is highly illiberal, un-individualistic. Engaging with DPRK culture in good faith means questioning the universality of the Western, liberal worldview. For most people, this is a non-starter (just look at this thread).
    - ericmay 4y ago
      > so much so that it terrifies bleeding heart liberals Can you break this term down for me then?
      - pphysch 4y ago
        "bleeding heart" wasn't the best choice of adjective there, I meant "passionate".
        ericmay 4y ago
        Sure, but you have to be careful with the terms you use! :) AnimalMuppet gave a good explanation there IMO.
        AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Yeah, not the best choice, then. "Bleeding heart" has been used as a slur by (US political) conservatives[1] to attack (US political) liberals. It implied that the liberals suffer from an excess of empathy to the point that it clouds their judgment, or something. Nowadays it's just a slur. You're using "liberal" in a way that differs from standard US political usage, which is all right, especially since you clearly defined what you meant by the term. But "bleeding heart" sounds very US-politics, and seems really weird with your not using liberal in the US politics sense. [1] These "conservatives" would count as liberals by your definition - they still believe in individual rights.
        pphysch 4y ago
        Frankly, I have only heard liberals self-identify as "bleeding heart", and misunderstood its definition. Then again, I don't consume US conservative media. > These "conservatives" would count as liberals by your definition - they still believe in individual rights. Of course. Virtually every faction of US politics is philosophically liberal.
        shrimp_emoji 4y ago
kevviiinn 4y ago
To add to this, liberalism and neo liberalism aren't on the left of the political spectrum. These political ideologies are fairly solidly right or centre-right
- the_only_law 4y ago
  I gave up when I saw people on this site using “neoliberal” as a slur for current US progressives. Yeah.. I know the term has been basically meaningless for a while, but still.
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    It just shows how powerful propaganda is, it's redefining terms
  - pphysch 4y ago
    The Progressive Caucus is clearly a wing of the Democratic Party, which is neoliberal. They occasionally challenge the party line, but never successfully. That's what primaries are for. That said, there are many American progressive movements that are not neoliberal. Just not in power.

tptacek 4y ago

Bleeding heart liberals, all the other kinds of liberals, people who don't want to be executed by anti-aircraft cannon for having the wrong last name, people bothered by concentration camps, people concerned about nuclear prolifertion, all those kinds of people.

pphysch 4y ago
[flagged]

Zetice 4y ago

I think the part that terrifies "bleeding heart liberals" is the abject poverty, brutally oppressive quasi-militaristic (I say quasi given its profound ineptitude) regime, and mass starvation. I would imaging birth rates don't really make it to the top 10 list of problems in N. Korea.