What does it mean to be "socially liberal"?

[King of Kensington]

Surely it's more than "not a social conservative" and anything from "I'm fine with gay marriage and abortion" and everything to the left of that.

[Del Tachi]

Social liberalism is the philosophy that favors the expansion of civil or political rights.

[Alcibiades]

In Europe, social liberalism is a whole political ideology including stances on both economic, social and other issues. It favours a social market economy, with a free market existing besides substantial government intervention in the form of social welfare programmes, and a permissive attitude on social issues, and pro-civil and political liberties. It is all about the freedom to, believing that liberty and equality are inseparable.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The way Americans and Canadians use it simply means "culturally permissive", if that's what you mean.

[Sirius_]

In Europe, social liberalism is a whole political ideology including stances on both economic, social and other issues. It favours a social market economy, with a free market existing besides substantial government intervention in the form of social welfare programmes, and a permissive attitude on social issues, and pro-civil and political liberties. It is all about the freedom to, believing that liberty and equality are inseparable.

Which is basically mainstream democrats in the US, but we never adopted that term. Perhaps because other forms of liberalism you see in Europe like Classical Liberalism and Conservative Liberalism are pretty much irrelevant here, so "Liberalism" refers to Social Liberalism by default.

[darklordoftech]

For reproductive, LGBT, and civil rights, against capital punishment, ok with sex between unmarried individuals and drug use, etc.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

It means being in favour of the atomization of society, or putting the emphasis on individual liberty, basically.

Describing it in terms of specific policy positions is not very helpful, I think.

[Del Tachi]

For reproductive, LGBT, and civil rights, against capital punishment, ok with sex between unmarried individuals and drug use, etc.

So no (or very few) socially liberal people existed prior to the 1950s?

lol ok......

[Red Velvet]

It means you’re a progressive.

Honestly, I’m tired of these “I’m economically X and socially Y”. There’s a much simpler way of describing these economic/social divisions.

Socially Conservative = Conservative

Socially Liberal = Progressive

Fiscally Conservative = Classic Liberal/Right-winger

Fiscally Liberal = Neoliberal/Centrist

Fiscally Left = Socialist/Leftist

For reproductive, LGBT, and civil rights, against capital punishment, ok with sex between unmarried individuals and drug use, etc.

So no (or very few) socially liberal people existed prior to the 1950s?

lol ok......

It is something that naturally varies in each time and changes as progress is accomplished. Progressives are always pushing for more changes while conservatives want to keep things as they are or even go back to a recent past.

Progressives are needed for evolution to happen and conservatives are needed to put a break and block changes that are more negative or unreasonable. At least in theory.

[Goldwater]

It means you’re a progressive.

Honestly, I’m tired of these “I’m economically X and socially Y”. There’s a much simpler way of describing these economic/social divisions.

Socially Conservative = Conservative

Socially Liberal = Progressive

Fiscally Conservative = Classic Liberal/Right-winger

Fiscally Liberal = Neoliberal/Centrist

Fiscally Left = Socialist/Leftist

I'm not sure I really see how this is simpler? How is calling yourself a "Progressive Right-winger" any more or less simple than calling yourself "Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative"?

[Red Velvet]

It means you’re a progressive.

Honestly, I’m tired of these “I’m economically X and socially Y”. There’s a much simpler way of describing these economic/social divisions.

Socially Conservative = Conservative

Socially Liberal = Progressive

Fiscally Conservative = Classic Liberal/Right-winger

Fiscally Liberal = Neoliberal/Centrist

Fiscally Left = Socialist/Leftist

I'm not sure I really see how this is simpler? How is calling yourself a "Progressive Right-winger" any more or less simple than calling yourself "Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative"?

That’s just if you want to refer to one thing in particular, either economics of social standings.

But if you want to refer to the combination:

“Economically right, socially progressive” = Liberal or Libertarian

“Economically right, socially conservative” = Broad Conservative

“Economically left, socially conservative” = Full Populist

“Economically left, socially progressive” = Broad Progressive

[RI]

Social liberalism is the philosophy that favors the expansion of civil or political rights.

I think this is the definition that modern social liberals would very much like to believe about themselves, but which doesn't hold to much scrutiny in reality. There are many counterexamples including opposing gun rights, supporting restrictions on speech and religion, supporting racial mandates, and opposing fetal rights.

My sense is that modern social liberalism is founded first and foremost on internalizing and flattening morality. Morality can only be emotionally deduced and felt, rather than logically inferred or known, and as emotions are without an objective basis, no individual's morality is superior to another. That which is good is that which produces positive feelings, and things which inhibit, delay, reduce, or preclude positive feelings or which produce negative feelings are 'not good.' Individuals and institutions which either argue for an external morality or which are 'not good' must be diminished, silenced, or made inconsequential in order to maximize positive feelings. Those who had negative feelings inflicted upon them by said institutions are 'victims' who must have their victimhood redressed through government action in order to both maintain the good feelings (i.e. assuage the guilt) of those who are not 'victims' and increase what they perceive as the sources of good feelings for the 'victimized' groups.

[Devout Centrist]

Not a meaningful term outside Wikipedia

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Social liberalism is the philosophy that favors the expansion of civil or political rights.

I think this is the definition that modern social liberals would very much like to believe about themselves, but which doesn't hold to much scrutiny in reality. There are many counterexamples including opposing gun rights

Only if you think guns are divine liberty machines instead of fairly dangerous consumer products that should be regulated accordingly--like cars or prescription drugs.

supporting restrictions on speech and religion,

We don't. Ever. Anyone who does isn't a liberal.

supporting racial mandates,

Fair enough. But that gets into progressive/liberal hybrid territory.

and opposing fetal rights.

Not a thing. Only people can have rights.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

and opposing fetal rights.

Not a thing. Only people can have rights.

You do realize that that in itself is an ideological statement right?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

and opposing fetal rights.

Not a thing. Only people can have rights.

You do realize that that in itself is an ideological statement right?

Yes. But I'm explaining how straightforward and noncontradictory it is to be pro-choice and favor the expansion of civil and political rights. The inverse would require a much weirder combination of views. There aren't very many people who simultaneously believe in fetal personhood and think the primary goal of government is to expand and protect individual rights & freedoms.

[DC Al Fine]

supporting restrictions on speech and religion,

We don't. Ever. Anyone who does isn't a liberal.

I realize it's unfair to make you wear a lone politician's actions, but collectively the sort of politicians/voters who fit the definition of "social liberalism" seem to have gotten much more comfortable with restricting religion and/or speech in the past several years. Some examples:

1) Justin Trudeau's government tried to require non-profits to sign an attestation that the organization is pro-choice in order to receive government funding.

2) A few provincial Liberal parties have passed near restricting peaceful protest near abortion clinics, hospitals etc, which has resulted in the arrest of little old ladies praying the rosary.

3) Certain states' COVID gathering restrictions which pretty blatantly discriminate against religious gatherings as opposed to restaurants, casinos etc.

4) Atlas itself, seems way more comfortable about infringing on religious liberties than when I first started posting here, and not just the edgelords that want to make it illegal to take kids to church.

[Alcibiades]

supporting restrictions on speech and religion,

We don't. Ever. Anyone who does isn't a liberal.

I realize it's unfair to make you wear a lone politician's actions, but collectively the sort of politicians/voters who fit the definition of "social liberalism" seem to have gotten much more comfortable with restricting religion and/or speech in the past several years. Some examples:

1) Justin Trudeau's government tried to require non-profits to sign an attestation that the organization is pro-choice in order to receive government funding.

2) A few provincial Liberal parties have passed near restricting peaceful protest near abortion clinics, hospitals etc, which has resulted in the arrest of little old ladies praying the rosary.

3) Certain states' COVID gathering restrictions which pretty blatantly discriminate against religious gatherings as opposed to restaurants, casinos etc.

4) Atlas itself, seems way more comfortable about infringing on religious liberties than when I first started posting here, and not just the edgelords that want to make it illegal to take kids to church.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding by many conservatives about what ‘religious liberty’ means. It does not mean you can do whatever you want and use your religion as a justification. Conservatives claiming that gay people getting married violates their freedom of religion is a prime example of this. In a secular country, religion cannot be used as a justification for breaking laws of the land, whether they be Covid lockdowns or anti-discrimination legislation. Religious liberty, as viewed by social liberals, is the same as all liberty: it follows Mill’s harm principle, i.e. the right to religious liberty ends when others’ liberties are infringed upon.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes. But I'm explaining how straightforward and noncontradictory it is to be pro-choice and favor the expansion of civil and political rights. The inverse would require a much weirder combination of views. There aren't very many people who simultaneously believe in fetal personhood and think the primary goal of government is to expand and protect individual rights & freedoms.

Hi, I’d like you to meet the gay rights movement throughout Latin America. Or, you know, me.

The Hippocratic Oath, the Buddhist medical tradition, the Seventeen Rules of Enjuin(a Japanese medical code), the Oath of Asaph, and all three Roman schools of medicine prohibited the practice of abortion - not a single major medical code allowed it until very recently.

I consider myself a social liberal, and I do not take kindly to arguments which suggest someone is not a full human being. The precautionary principle, if nothing else, demands that we err on the side of caution. Since a fetus is both alive and genetically human, exceptional circumstances must be present to terminate its life.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

supporting restrictions on speech and religion,

We don't. Ever. Anyone who does isn't a liberal.

I realize it's unfair to make you wear a lone politician's actions, but collectively the sort of politicians/voters who fit the definition of "social liberalism" seem to have gotten much more comfortable with restricting religion and/or speech in the past several years. Some examples:

1) Justin Trudeau's government tried to require non-profits to sign an attestation that the organization is pro-choice in order to receive government funding.

2) A few provincial Liberal parties have passed near restricting peaceful protest near abortion clinics, hospitals etc, which has resulted in the arrest of little old ladies praying the rosary.

3) Certain states' COVID gathering restrictions which pretty blatantly discriminate against religious gatherings as opposed to restaurants, casinos etc.

4) Atlas itself, seems way more comfortable about infringing on religious liberties than when I first started posting here, and not just the edgelords that want to make it illegal to take kids to church.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding by many conservatives about what ‘religious liberty’ means. It does not mean you can do whatever you want and use your religion as a justification. Conservatives claiming that gay people getting married violates their freedom of religion is a prime example of this. In a secular country, religion cannot be used as a justification for breaking laws of the land, whether they be Covid lockdowns or anti-discrimination legislation. Religious liberty, as viewed by social liberals, is the same as all liberty: it follows Mill’s harm principle, i.e. the right to religious liberty ends when others’ liberties are infringed upon.

That's a sound (although not, imo, dispositive--but I would say that, wouldn't I?) rejoinder to the idea that 1. and 2. are discriminatory, but it doesn't fully account for 3. I think Justice Gorsuch is in a basic sense right that a lot of "blue tribe" COVID policies have been predicated on the assumption that religious services are "less essential" than other public spaces that cater to the trappings of bougie secularism, although unlike the SCOTUS majority my policy solution to this would be to restrict bicycle shops and craft breweries more rather than restricting religious gatherings less.

To answer the thread question, social liberalism in the American context used to basically mean support for the Popperian "open society" combined with support for the welfare policies of FDR and his inheritors, but in the age of pomo politics it's come to also include a substantial degree of self-definition by opposition to the mean scary hicks .