You know who else accepts historical sources, sovereign citizens and freemen-on-the-land. Historical texts are not exactly an authoritative source. It's a classification but isn't a concrete source.

If you cannot point to an authoritative source then I don't believe you to be a serious person. You can continue to express your opinion. But without evidence and sources there's nothing to do here and I think asking you to put forward a source has exposed this.

This is the same problem that radicalized trump supporters. It's the same argument I've seen with them early 2016. Society is broken therefore they used all kinds of niche sources to justify their opinion.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

I don't mean "historical source" as an old source, but one that acknowledges the history of the terms. Your beloved Wikipedia explains the origins of liberalism in the same way I did. If I point you to Chinese economics institutions that agree with me, you'll dismiss them. Again, liberalism is not a science, it's an ideology centered around the dominant mode of production.

Even Time Magazine, itself an intensely liberal publication, recognizes the role of property relations in what determines left and right, ultimately chalking up the modern US viewpoint implicitly to the Overton Window, a political outlook that centers the median of any given society, rather than property relations.

This is not the "same argument" that Trump voters made. Again, you rely on equating me to the far-right to emotionally attack me, rather than the logic of my arguments or the overwhelming fact that you only accept western, liberal publications, and precisely the ones that focus on the Overton Window when describing concepts as left and right instead of their origin as property relations. You're making an appeal to authority as your only argument, yet you don't accept non-western sources.