this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
351 points (99.2% liked)
Political Weirdos
1339 readers
5 users here now
A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.
- Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
- Follow Iemmy.world TOS
- Don’t be a jerk
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not so confusing when you define liberal in its original political terms. Technically there's nothing more liberal than engaging in ethically ruthless free market trading while also engaging in cultural virtue signaling.
I would go so far as to call the NFL reactionary, rather than just liberal.
I don't think belting out "Lo Que Le Paso a Hawaii" is an expression of support for ruthless free market trading, though.
I don't know, I mean there really is no previous state of political system that would really benefit the NFL moreso than the modern day liberal government. You can have all the benefits of having a simulacrum of a slave market without all the hassle of needing to run a slave state.
No, the liberal aspect is paying someone to belt out "Lo Que Le Paso a Hawaii" while vicariously partaking in the economic colonization of a state like Hawaii.
The benefit of engaging in political liberalism is that you can do both. Coca-Cola can make advertisements that sell the virtues of Latin culture, gleefully gobbling up the market shares in Mexico. While also paying mercenaries to kill union leaders in Colombia.
Economically, sure. But you could say the same thing about golf. Hasn't stopped the Saudis from gobbling up the PGA.
The ownership model for the NFL is borderline aristocratic. The management of the franchises is a barely-regulated monopoly. The players themselves are well compensated serfs. I would not call the operation of the league "liberal" in the economic sense.
We're getting dangerously close to
The benefits of political liberalism accrue to the capital class, not the labor class. This performance was an expression of, by, and for the labor class. Specifically, the colonized people of Puerto Rico.
I guess you can argue everything on broadcast TV is just liberalism, because broadcast TV is a privatized commodity. But then you're arguing propaganda doesn't influence the public. At which point, you have to wonder why anyone is paying so much for the Superbowl ad space.
Economically was what I was specifying. Liberalism as a political ideology is inseparable from free market capitalism.
Again, that's pretty much in line with virtually all liberal governments. There's a reason the founding fathers created a bicameral Congress with the Senate serving as an aristocratic guiding hand.
I think we are still conflating the political definition of Liberal (the political idea first put forth by John Locke), with the word liberal (open minded).
The performance was allowed because the capital class who own and operates the NFL benefit from "woke washing" their business. If this didn't ultimately benefit the NFL, they wouldn't have hired him to play the show. Ultimately it serves to protect their image and helps taps into a vastly growing demographic.
Yes.
I never argued that propaganda doesn't influence the public, quite the opposite. My argument was that corporations don't really care how moral the system they promote is so long as it doesn't negatively impact their bottom line. They are more than willing to mouth that they care about imperialism, or throw support imperialism depending on how they think it will moderate their profits.