I mean, it has. The history of liberalism is the history of the 1% violencing the bottom 50% into submission.

You don’t need more than that.

Counterpoint: Homes in many places cost more than that. Retirement too. There’s a good cutoff for a wealth maximum, but 1 million ain’t it.

Aren’t women’s pants (other than leggings) with pockets very rare? How do you even have enough of a sample size to draw conclusions about this? Besides, women who decide (or never got to decide) against getting pants aith pockets wouldn’t complain about the pockets, would they?

ICE don’t care about the law, as evidenced by everything they’ve done ever.

That’s a fair point, I could’ve said that in a less condescending way, but “customers don’t know what they want” is an important piece of the puzzle here.

I mean, customers not knowing what they want is a thing. When someone says “I’d like it if this thing had that functionality,” they’re not necessarily considering all the externalities that might make their preference less desirable. What women have now sucks, but according to a large majority the alternative sucks even more, so the status quo persists.

I mean sure, that’s why I said “most women” and not “all women.” There is real demand for women’s pants with pockets, but (especially after the more committed folks buy unisex or men’s pants) the scale isn’t enough to sustain a large business. That aside, do cargo pants not work if you want pockets?

This generally includes anything referencing whatever bullshit Trump is up to, but also includes the megacorps. Essentially if the comic is about how the world today sucks, it doesn’t belong here.

From their sidebar. Doesn’t sound rightwing to me.

My source here is basically Reddit so I’m not sure how true this is, but I’ve heard multiple times that businessmen occasionally try to invest in women’s pants with pockets but they don’t get enough demand to make a profit. There are still some who have managed to make money this way so there are places that sell pants with pockets, but it’s a small market. And no, I have no idea what those places are.

At least for the pockets thing it’s a difference between what women think they want and what they actually want. When most women say they want pants with pockets, what they mean is pants that look the same as the ones they already have, but also with pockets. That’s impossible to make, so women are forced to choose between tight pants that highlight their figure and pockets and they choose the former. As for bras, after a quick google my less than educated guess is that because bigger bras have rapidly increased in demand in the past two decades (and even then many wear bras that are too small), at the turn of the century business execs were right to consider bigger bras to be a marginal market with no point in worrying too much about it. Now, however, they’re just out of touch. If I’m right hopefully this will correct itself once someone wakes up to the business opportunity.

The country of Tiananmen Square?

True but irrelevant.

The country whose people practically develop an ever-changing coded language to avoid big brother coming down hard on any sort of criticism?

Yes. I never said that China tolerates criticism, but that doesn’t mean Chinese people live in fear of their government. An incompetent government will have criticism coming from every which way, necessitating draconian measures and exaggerated crackdowns, which does lead to fear (ask me how I know). This isn’t the case for China because, despite their faults and the evil shit they get up to, Chinese people are generally satisfied with their governance. Fear isn’t an automatic result of authoritarianism; it appears when there’s too little carrot and too much stick.

The country that runs “reeducation” camps for many who do get caught?

True but irrelevant.

The country that has Uyghurs and Tibetans to blame “within,” and Japan without? Or the US?

Source? Not for their oppression of Uighurs and Tibetans, or rivalry with the US and Japan, I know about these, but that they’re using any of these as scapegoats for their own troubles. Oppression can be motivated by things other than scapegoating, and it’s not like China is lacking in real reasons to oppose the US and Japan. Without something that corroborates your claim this is just a non-sequitur.

Where senior cadres of the party magically grow richer?

This is just a non sequitur. Senior CCP officials are rich, but the other half of your claim “everyone else pretty much won’t” goes against everything we know about Chinese economic growth.

Think of the list of political rights you take for granted. The right to voting, free speech, association, peaceful assembly, etc. Those don’t exist or are severely curtailed, meaning that political activity and discourse that anger the ruling class can and will be punished. How much is tolerated and what kind of punishments are doled out varies depending on the strength and heavy handedness of the ruling regime.

People live in fear and try to adapt, self-censor. Authoritarian leaders need a bogie man, somebody they can blame for all their failures. So an ethnic group, minority, or another country will constantly be blamed for everything from the economy to ingrown toe nails. The elite will get richer, everybody else pretty much won’t.

Not necessarily. Authoritarians are usually corrupt/incompetent, which tends to lead to these things, but competent dictators with legitimate public support exist, China being the best-known example.

*Basic political rights. You can have a perfectly liberal democracy where the average person is one missed paycheck away from starving to death. Education for example has nothing to do with authoritarianism, except that authoritarians tend to benefit from lack of education.

I’d like to point out that can actually play your system by building voting blocs to defend your interests.

But then they might have to say mean things to liberal proto-fascists and that might lead to the creation of the fourth Reich (ignore the Nazis in government those don’t count).

Wow, that was fast.

You’d be basically revolting against the capitalist ruling class, so organize and go on strike is a tried and true tactic.

Not your goddamn business. It’s literally that simple.

The problem here is twofold: First, the American political spectrum lies to the right of that of most of the first world (though many are playing catch up now), so Americans feel the need to distinguish between liberals and conservatives far more than between liberals and anti-capitalist leftists, therefore the latter two get tossed together. Second, “liberal” in America includes social liberals, which in the rest of the world would be called some variety of social democrat, but it can also refers to classical liberals (with the right marketing, i.e Harris and the Clintons), again making distinguishing between these groups difficult. So the distinction you want is the one between social liberals and classical liberals, which is as follows:

Social liberalism[a] or progressive liberalism[9] is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical liberalism which favors limited government and an overall more laissez-faire style of governance. While both are committed to personal freedoms, social liberalism places greater emphasis on the role of government in addressing social inequalities and ensuring public welfare.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

Classical liberalism (sometimes called English liberalism[1][2][3]) is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech.[4] Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

They’re both liberals in that they both believe in capitalism and a free market economy, but they differ on the details of what the government ought to do or not to do within said free market economy. So to directly answer your question: In North America “liberal” usually refers to social liberals, while in the rest of the world it refers to classical liberals.

Not even a mammal.