Now you have given a definition for liberalism. You could have done this in the previous reply, or could have just told the person no. Instead you gave a vague non-answer.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I actually have no given a definition of liberalism outside of the core I did originally. I have only listed a few self-claimed qualities and their inconsistency.

I also gave a rationale for why I went in this direction. Notice the complete lack of engagement with it.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Oh no, you did, you laid out the basic tenets of it's individualism, and how that has served capitalism. The last post you just said it served capitalism without elaborating on aspects of its individualistic ideas. You didn't get into depth, but you mentioned the very surface level concepts.