I believe there’s a language issue here. This article (and Lemmy in general) uses a more global definition of “Liberal” which is completely different from the meaning the word has in the US. After arriving here (Lemmy) I’ve learned that the meaning it has in the article is a specific political position which is distinct from “leftist” or “progressive” - it’s based more on economic policy than social policy, and basically means something like “maybe slightly left of conservative capitalist” - which I now understand US Democrats pretty much are economically.

Before learning that, this article would have made zero sense, and sounded like it was written by an ally of

Good point. I guess I still have not gotten used to the meaning of that word here, and keep thinking people are somehow hating on liberal ideals like equality, etc.

Also seeing Trump et al. hating on “libs” (meaning people who want equality and accept people of color/lgbt, etc) makes this a really nice mess.

Liberals == moderates, not followers of human rights

Same people as King described 50 years ago

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice