[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

tstorm823:

Pick a lane. Are you tired of conservatives always on offense? Or are you tired of conservatives always defending themselves? Do you want to stop talking about the policies conservatives want, or do you want conservatives to stop talking about the policies you want? I'd hazard a guess you just want conservatives to stop talking and agree with you.

Saelune:

tstorm823:

Saelune:
When people lie, they are trying to make you believe something other than the truth. That is a problem, period. We currently live in a world where people argue that torturing children to death is totally acceptable. It is not.

You, personally, spend an outrageous amount of your time on this website trying to get people to think things that aren't true. I don't know if you recognize the amount you say that isn't true, but you say an absurd amount of untrue things all the time constantly. The sentence "we currently live in a world where people argue that torturing children to death is totally acceptable" is undeniably false. I don't think that makes you dishonest. For the most part, I admire your forwardness and honesty. But your honest opinions aren't truth. Far from it.

Citation needed.

Defend yourself? I explicitly asked you to defend yourself with proof, and you haven't responded to me at all yet.

tstorm823:

It stars a whole bunch of psychologists starting in the early 1900s, and the Christian right gets 2 sentences at the bottom. My problem with your comment here isn't that you're misidentifying the problem or the people associated with it, it's that you're misidentifying the practice as conservative. Someone trying to change people to engineer the society they want isn't being conservative. Someone advocating social reforms through the government to create that society is progressive. That's progressivism.

Do you just use the term "conservative" to refer to positions in which things stay the same, and "progressive" to refer to positions in which things change?

That's not what they mean in a political sense, and it never was. The whole passage you've written is intensely simplistic, and represents a reading entirely out of sync with how those terms are widely understood.

Look, if you want to change or reform things, that doesn't automatically make you a progressive. That's absurd and utterly untenable. No conservative government in history has simply wanted to keep things exactly as they were.

What matters is the direction of that change. Conservatives often see the policies they want to enact as reactions, or reversions to a past (and better) situation. They're still changes. Those on the left would term them "regressive", and neither the left nor the right would call them "progressive" solely because they involve change or reform. That really would be ludicrous.

Silvanus:

Do you just use the term "conservative" to refer to positions in which things stay the same, and "progressive" to refer to positions in which things change?

No, no I didn't. i used different words than those because I meant different words than those. I did not define progressivism as just changing things, I referred to it as changing things deliberately through government enacted social reform. Which is what that word means. The word "reform" is intensely precise.

entirely out of sync with how those terms are widely understood.

Perhaps, but you may have noticed, I have a whole spiel about reclaiming the word progressive because it's lost its meaning.

Look, if you want to change or reform things, that doesn't automatically make you a progressive. That's absurd and utterly untenable. No conservative government in history has simply wanted to keep things exactly as they were.

I don't think there ever has been or likely ever will be such a thing as a "conservative government." Conservatism and progressivism are two halves of a utilitarian view. Conservatives aren't traditionalists, it's not just about preserving the past as a doctrine. A conservative wants to preserve past and current practices all and only because we see the good things we have in the present as a result of the actions of the past, and want to preserve those good results into the future. If something is obviously not producing those good results, you change it. Slowly and carefully, in a process of reform until you get something good. That's progress. In the words of Republican icon and Progressive figure Teddy Roosevelt, "I've always believed that wise progressivism and wise conservatism go hand in hand." Progressivism didn't come out of liberal ideology, it came out of the conservative movement. America in the 20th century was defined by this: while the rest of the world broke apart on ideological lines, liberalism/socialism/fascism, the United States developed non-ideological politics. There is no utopia for a conservative or progressive. While the ideologues tried to figure out what recipe of governance would make the perfect country, we just trimmed around the edges, small changes at a time, to help the garden grow.

Saelune:

Defend yourself? I explicitly asked you to defend yourself with proof, and you haven't responded to me at all yet.

You've made a claim that people defend torturing children to death. You're talking about me. I do not defend torturing children to death. I am the primary source. There is no link I can give you.

tstorm823:

Saelune:

Defend yourself? I explicitly asked you to defend yourself with proof, and you haven't responded to me at all yet.

You've made a claim that people defend torturing children to death. You're talking about me. I do not defend torturing children to death. I am the primary source. There is no link I can give you.

No, you need to prove I am wrong about Trump, despite all the proof and evidence. You claim those concentration camps where Trump is letting children be tortured and murdered are not exactly what they are.

You claim I am wrong and you are right, but you have no evidence to prove that where as I provide proof in every topic I make.

Really though, you need to just stop defending Trump and concentration camps.

If you are against child torture, then you are against these concentration camps. Children are in terrible conditions and are dying from it, this is objective fact. So either you are ok with that, or you are not ok with that.

All you have to do by the way, is oppose them. You're allowed to do that.

tstorm823:

Why do you think you always find conservatives to be defensive?

Can anyone play this game?

Generally a Conservative thinks that the current system is the best system. They cite the evidence that it exists through thousands of years of trail and error (and removal of bad ideas.) It has been proven true and effective and generally, they are right.

Thus, in their eyes, any changes could bring the whole house of cards down. Progressive, with their 'changes' threaten humanity. Any change is a threat, thus Conservatives are generally defensive when it comes to any change.

The biggest mistake people make is that Progressives are actually Conservatives on 90% of issues. They, generally, want to do small changes to the system. Most progressives arent against democracy but are wanting to do small changes like banning gerrymandering or 'fixing' who gets to vote.

But when they are continually blocked, they find more extreme examples acceptable. Eg. Ecoterrorism lead from dealing with Climate Change continually being blocked in Congress. Which might be a weird example, as it's actually two different Conservative ideologies bumping heads. So, maybe the Hong Kong riots at the moment.

Conservatives also don't take into account bad actors (posers, pretending to be Conservative.) These poser say things like, "why do we have to make room/ put uo with minorities?" This makes Conservatives conflicted. They know that Rights are equal for all, that's a huge part of the system they like. But this comment is pointing to what must be a lack of equality. 'Americans should get jobs first' definitely seems reasonable but it breaks all forms of equality. They justify it and this allows posers to lead the narrative. University taking into account socioeconomic issues means that whites and Asians are being treated poorly. Anyone getting a job over a white guy must be 'Affirmative Action' gone wrong. Because, you know, there is no chance that a non-white might be better at the job.

It's also problematic because there definitely has been improvements in treatment of minorities. But that gets mixed up with everything is fixed, which is isn't true.

As to your claiming that you were giving an opportunity to defend a Democratic Socialist. You did this by attacking said ideology. Then you wonder why Progressives are defensive. You personally, are always attacking someone. You might not be aware that you are doing this, hence me stating it here. Becuase I don't find Conseratives always combative. But, usually, I find particular ones really combatative. I assume they don't realise what they are doing. I usually don't point it out, but I'll give it a shot once here. If you are being attacked regularly, there might be a reason.

Baffle2:
An alternative for those farmers plagued by animals raiders: just grow poisonous crops.

Ladies and gents, here we have a take so hot it took me a day to respond without violating ToS.

Yes, there are quite a few garden and non-industrial commercial crops that are toxic. Peppers, potatoes, tomatoes, and eggplants are all members of the nightshade family, for example. You know what nuisance animals do with them, right?

They avoid them, unless there are no other sources of food available, the plant and animal have adapted a symbiotic relationship, and/or the animal has evolved a resistance to the plants' toxins. Birds love peppers because they're a safe, reliable food supply that mammals avoid due to the evolved capsaicin content. Nuisance animals avoid green tomatoes and tomato plants' foliage, but are more than happy to chow down on ripe ones, because ripe tomatoes are nearly devoid of solanine and tomatine, and the color change is essentially an evolved signal the fruit's seeds have developed and they are safe to eat.

So, let's set all those notions of "reality" aside, and actually consider an alternate reality in which this could actually happen and be effective. You do not poison nuisance animals, ever. Toxins don't vanish from existence when/if animals chow down and die. Nuisance animals aren't the only ones likely to chow down on toxic food, either. Best case scenario is toxins working their way up the food chain when scavengers or predators eat poisoned animals or carcasses; worst case scenario is pets go after toxic plants, poison, or poisoned animals, or in some cases, kids.

tstorm823:

Kwak:

Because it takes a lot of work to defend the indefensible and they need to stay in practice.

I'm sorry, the correct answer was "because I'm always attacking".

Attacking indefensible ideology that either increases or ignores the suffering in the world is what a decent human should do. (though I'm not that, but I have a continued interest in trying to be)

Eacaraxe:

Ladies and gents, here we have a take so hot it took me a day to respond without violating ToS.

Yes, there are quite a few garden and non-industrial commercial crops that are toxic. Peppers, potatoes, tomatoes, and eggplants are all members of the nightshade family, for example. You know what nuisance animals do with them, right?

They avoid them, unless there are no other sources of food available, the plant and animal have adapted a symbiotic relationship, and/or the animal has evolved a resistance to the plants' toxins. Birds love peppers because they're a safe, reliable food supply that mammals avoid due to the evolved capsaicin content. Nuisance animals avoid green tomatoes and tomato plants' foliage, but are more than happy to chow down on ripe ones, because ripe tomatoes are nearly devoid of solanine and tomatine, and the color change is essentially an evolved signal the fruit's seeds have developed and they are safe to eat.

So, let's set all those notions of "reality" aside, and actually consider an alternate reality in which this could actually happen and be effective. You do not poison nuisance animals, ever. Toxins don't vanish from existence when/if animals chow down and die. Nuisance animals aren't the only ones likely to chow down on toxic food, either. Best case scenario is toxins working their way up the food chain when scavengers or predators eat poisoned animals or carcasses; worst case scenario is pets go after toxic plants, poison, or poisoned animals, or in some cases, kids.

You are the only person in the room who didn't realise it was a joke. But I appreciate the effort you made. But it was, obviously, a joke.

Edit: I made this edit just in case you didn't realise why it was a joke: No one is going to buy your poisonous corn from you, it's poisonous! That's the joke!

Baffle2:
I made this edit just in case you didn't realise why it was a joke: No one is going to buy your poisonous corn from you, it's poisonous!

would it be useful against feral hogs? Say 30-50 of them?

trunkage:

Can anyone play this game?

Generally a Conservative thinks that the current system is the best system. They cite the evidence that it exists through thousands of years of trail and error (and removal of bad ideas.) It has been proven true and effective and generally, they are right.

Thus, in their eyes, any changes could bring the whole house of cards down. Progressive, with their 'changes' threaten humanity. Any change is a threat, thus Conservatives are generally defensive when it comes to any change.

The biggest mistake people make is that Progressives are actually Conservatives on 90% of issues. They, generally, want to do small changes to the system. Most progressives arent against democracy but are wanting to do small changes like banning gerrymandering or 'fixing' who gets to vote.

But when they are continually blocked, they find more extreme examples acceptable. Eg. Ecoterrorism lead from dealing with Climate Change continually being blocked in Congress. Which might be a weird example, as it's actually two different Conservative ideologies bumping heads. So, maybe the Hong Kong riots at the moment.

I think all this is pretty well said. I'd say those thousands of years were a lot less trial than error until the last few centuries, but that's just drilling down specifics. The only other thing I'd be picky about is describing the current system as the best system, rather than the best system that we have for this moment. I absolutely believe that things will get better moving into the future, advancing technology guarantees that things will change whether the government does it or not, it'd be silly to think we have the best answers.

Conservatives also don't take into account bad actors (posers, pretending to be Conservative.) These poser say things like, "why do we have to make room/ put uo with minorities?" This makes Conservatives conflicted. They know that Rights are equal for all, that's a huge part of the system they like. But this comment is pointing to what must be a lack of equality. 'Americans should get jobs first' definitely seems reasonable but it breaks all forms of equality. They justify it and this allows posers to lead the narrative. University taking into account socioeconomic issues means that whites and Asians are being treated poorly. Anyone getting a job over a white guy must be 'Affirmative Action' gone wrong. Because, you know, there is no chance that a non-white might be better at the job.

It's also problematic because there definitely has been improvements in treatment of minorities. But that gets mixed up with everything is fixed, which is isn't true.

Well, bad actors are bad. There are bad actors in all things. If American conservatives are uniquely weak to the persuasion of bad actors at the moment, I would suggest it's because there aren't many "good actors" to be persuaded by. The cultural zeitgeist of the 21st century has been almost entirely dominated by liberals. Celebrities championed liberal causes, professors taught liberal viewpoints, and until very recently, if you were looking for a right-wing role model, you had a handful of options found only on AM radio and half were bad actors. But hey, other Republicans have finally found the internet, hopefully we can reclaim some lost sheep. I fear my generation is lost for good, I don't necessarily blame them, it's hard to give conservatism a second chance when the first chance you gave it led to Alex Jones. But I think Gen Z has a better chance of getting their act together.

As to your claiming that you were giving an opportunity to defend a Democratic Socialist. You did this by attacking said ideology. Then you wonder why Progressives are defensive. You personally, are always attacking someone. You might not be aware that you are doing this, hence me stating it here. Because I don't find Conseratives always combative. But, usually, I find particular ones really combatative. I assume they don't realise what they are doing. I usually don't point it out, but I'll give it a shot once here. If you are being attacked regularly, there might be a reason.

I mean, I'm here because I like that this place offers me a fountain of opposition. I'm not shy about that. My experiences in other places with other people are very different than here, much less combative unless you count the time I told my sister that Brett Kavanaugh isn't a rapist.

But like, me being combative wasn't the issue of this thread. I got involved here for questioning the suggestion that the NRA loves government with Republicans are president. It became a kerfuffle because I suggested that Ted Nugent is terrible but probably doesn't actually want people to carry guns around to shoot any Democrats they happen to run into. This turned into the declaration that Republicans are always defending everything Republicans say no matter what and wont compromise or consider the other perspective (nevermind that I literally called that Nugent statement "vile", it's apparently gaslighting to think a public figure isn't advocating hunting opponents for sport). So when a long list of complaints about conservatives and Republicans was thrown at me, I thought it prudent not to systematically defend every point and be accused of doing exactly what they were complaining about conservatives doing. And in response, I got "well that's not really what I wanted to talk about." What am I supposed to say to "I hate that Republicans defend their vile... here's a list of things I think are vile... please defend them now." I don't think it was meant to be a trap, but it's like the old "when did you stop cheating on your wife?" There is no right answer. It's like, of course you experience a lot of conservatives defending things you don't like, you're demanding it of me.

Kwak:

Attacking indefensible ideology that either increases or ignores the suffering in the world is what a decent human should do. (though I'm not that, but I have a continued interest in trying to be)

It's not ignoring suffering to continue the same policies. Sometimes continuing to do exactly what you're doing over a course of time is what you need to solve a problem. You don't have water your plants once and then they flower, it takes time and repeated care to make progress. You don't diet for one day and see results, it takes time and patience. No policy is going to fix an issue like gender income gaps overnight. You can't just write a law that says women must be paid the same and instantly solve the problem, because that law has existed since 1963. But there is far more than nothing being done in America to close that gap and improve working conditions for women, and they're showing results, and that gap is nearly gone for people in their mid twenties, the overall gap being dragged apart by like 50 year olds, who aren't about to start their career over in something more lucrative. All indicators suggest to me that if we keep doing what we're doing, the next generation of working people won't have a gender pay gap to speak of. It's not ignoring suffering to hold the course.

Saelune:

Children are in terrible conditions and are dying from it, this is objective fact. So either you are ok with that, or you are not ok with that.

I know they're in horrible conditions and dying, I'm not disputing that. That's not CBPs fault. Some children have died trying to reach the border. Some have gotten sick on the way and died after reaching the border. If they make it to border patrol safely, they essentially turn themselves into the police, and then wait at the border patrol facility for as short a time as possible until being handed over to HHS who are qualified to care for the children, and unfortunately some of them caught the flu while with CBP and died of the flu. CBP didn't torture these children. They didn't kill them. They're not supposed to be childcare facilities. Children dying is a tragedy, and we should of course try to prevent tragedies, but you are so far out of line to suggest that the people who asylum seekers go to for refuge are torturing and killing children because they caught the flu at CBP.

tstorm823:
Gay conversion therapy is not now nor has it ever been a conservative practice. That's an artifact left over from the early progressive movement, when eugenics and aggressive psychotherapy were in vogue.

Jesus..

What's next. Slavery was a progressive institution because it enriched the bourgeois class over the aristocracy..

Eugenics arises from a broader preoccupation with the idea of hereditary degeneracy in nineteenth century medicine (fuelled in large part by a conservative backlash against Darwinism). Thus, although eugenics found broad appeal across all sides of the political spectrum, it has always been overwhelmingly supported by conservatives, which shouldn't really be a surprise because in practice the political implications of eugenics are that your merit and position in society is fixed by virtue of your heredity.

There are some early conservative psychologists (like Richard von Krafft-Ebing) who, because of their belief in eugenics, opposed trying to cure gay people on an individual level, but rather advocated social solutions (preventing "degenerates" from breeding) as the means to eliminate homosexuality. This does not signify any particular concern with the well being of gay people, especially when compared with radical psychologists like Havelock Ellis or Sigmund Freud, who both opposed any attempt at gay conversion not just because they believed it was impossible, but because they saw it as unethical to even try.

Today, most people oppose gay conversion not because they agree with Krafft-Ebing that gay people are just lost causes who need to be bred out of existence, but because they see the diversity of human sexuality as a harmless and natural variation. That has never been a conservative idea. It is a radical idea which has taken over a century to become mainstream.

tstorm823:
Our medical saves lives constantly, you have to appreciate a hesitation to completely overhaul that thing that's keeping us alive or a skepticism that handing over our medical freedom wholesale will somehow shrink the cost of goods and services overnight.

The irony is that the US healthcare system is the most expensive, per capita, on the planet. The government subsidies supporting the US healthcare system alone cost as much per person as the British NHS, and that's excluding the amount users actually pay for services that other countries provide for free at the same cost to the taxpayer.

US conservative healthcare policy is purely ideological and has no basis in a desire for fiscal austerity. It is based on an abstract points of dogma: That a competitive free market of private interests is always better for the consumer than a government provided service. The problem is, that isn't true, and healthcare is one of the cases in which it obviously isn't true.

I live a thousand miles from the US, and yet I personally know people whose relatives have died in the US because they couldn't afford basic medical care. Not some kind of experimental drug that isn't approved yet, but any kind of basic medical care. That should never be a thing that a person experiences in ordinary circumstances. It should certainly not be a thing that is commonplace.

Again, if you want to understand why conservatives are always "under attack", you need to stop defending the indefensible.

evilthecat:

Jesus..

What's next. Slavery was a progressive institution because it enriched the bourgeois class over the aristocracy..

Not everything has to be one or the other. The purpose of slavery was the personal enrichment of slave-owners. That's not a perspective on government policy.

There are some early conservative psychologists (like Richard von Krafft-Ebing) who, because of their belief in eugenics, opposed trying to cure gay people on an individual level, but rather advocated social solutions (preventing "degenerates" from breeding) as the means to eliminate homosexuality. This does not signify any particular concern with the well being of gay people, especially when compared with radical psychologists like Havelock Ellis or Sigmund Freud, who both opposed any attempt at gay conversion not just because they believed it was impossible, but because they saw it as unethical to even try.

Do you have any justification whatsoever that Richard von Krafft-Ebing is in any way politically conservative? What makes this person a "conservative psychologist" other than an anachronistic belief that homophobia is inherently conservative?

tstorm823:

Gay conversion therapy is not now nor has it ever been a conservative practice.

So what political affiliation do you think the people who still run such camps and programs have?

There is no conservative going "yeah, drugs should be super expensive here, that's great!"

Martin Sckreli (sp?) ring a bell?

And of the ways you can try and keep people from being destitute, minimum wage laws are arguably some of the more regressive, as the burden of the law would be passed on to those who lose jobs that can no longer be supported (the poor) and those consumers who spend the most money proportionally at establishments with minimum wage earners (also the poor).

So how does paying workers pennies on the dollar help them?

tstorm823:

erttheking:

Oh please tell me more about how conservatives are so pro-LGBT, anti-racism, pro-raising minimum wage, and anti-bullshit medicine.

I assume you're referring to this:

Like...Conservatives are the ones who:

- Wanted to keep homosexuality illegal and beat/shock the gayness out of people.
- Were in favor of continuing segregation.
- Think it's acceptable that Insulin that costs 30 bucks in Canada costs 300 dollars in the US despite it costing 6 bucks to make in both countries.
- Think it's wrong to give people a wage they can live on, no matter what full time job they have.

That's just not an accurate block of text.

Gay conversion therapy is not now nor has it ever been a conservative practice. That's an artifact left over from the early progressive movement, when eugenics and aggressive psychotherapy were in vogue.

You can accurately say southern conservatives wanted to continue segregation. You can also say Northern conservatives were against it. That's just pointing out what the status quo of laws is at a given place and time. It's not honest to point to bad laws of the past and call supporting them conservatism while ignoring things like supporting freedom of speech also being conservative.

That bit about insulin isn't true. There is no conservative going "yeah, drugs should be super expensive here, that's great!" That's just not a thing. We have honest disagreement about the effect of a single-payer system on the cost of medicine. Our medical saves lives constantly, you have to appreciate a hesitation to completely overhaul that thing that's keeping us alive or a skepticism that handing over our medical freedom wholesale will somehow shrink the cost of goods and services overnight.

It's true, conservatives don't like minimum wage laws. Minimum wage is a stupid talking point. There is no right number to set it at. Indexed scales are basically ignored at the federal level because then you can't bring it again in 5 years for more political points. And of the ways you can try and keep people from being destitute, minimum wage laws are arguably some of the more regressive, as the burden of the law would be passed on to those who lose jobs that can no longer be supported (the poor) and those consumers who spend the most money proportionally at establishments with minimum wage earners (also the poor).

You say you want an honest debate and then all you do is blow smoke up my ass. Gay conversion therapy has never been a conservative practice? You are saying that when Mike fucking Pence is vice-president? And before you go running for the "he said that a long time ago" defense, you said gay conversion therapy has never been a conservative practice. Even though it tends to be tied heavily to religion.

Except white supremacy is very much alive and well among the modern right, to the point where they're not even doing a very good job of hiding it.

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/congressional-candidates-controversial-billboard-has-polk-county-abuzz

Also conservatives are pro-free speech. When Trump is talking about regulating non-conservative media. Oh right, I forgot. When a conservative says they're pro-free speech, they mean "I'm pro people being allowed to say things I agree with." I mean that tends to be the way they act. After all, they voted for a man who wishes he could outlaw protesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-suggests-protesting-should-be-illegal/2018/09/04/11cfd9be-b0a0-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html

You do not get to elect a president like that and then tell me conservatives are free speech. You are offically pissing on my leg and telling me its raining.

Oh sure, no one is saying "drugs should be super expensive." It's just that whenever people say "we should do things to make it so that drugs AREN'T super expensive" the right says fuck no. So you're technically right. Right in a way that utterly misses the point.

So apparently other nations with better minimum wage laws than America, despite America having more wealth than them, are just using magic to have sustainable economies?

tstorm823:

No, no I didn't. i used different words than those because I meant different words than those. I did not define progressivism as just changing things, I referred to it as changing things deliberately through government enacted social reform. Which is what that word means. The word "reform" is intensely precise.

The point being that "reform" says nothing about what the changes are supposed to bring about. So, two parties advocating "reform" in diametrically opposed directions would both be "progressive", supposedly.

Perhaps, but you may have noticed, I have a whole spiel about reclaiming the word progressive because it's lost its meaning.

I don't believe its meaning has ever been broadly understood in the way you're describing.

I don't think there ever has been or likely ever will be such a thing as a "conservative government." Conservatism and progressivism are two halves of a utilitarian view.

...right, so you're not using it in the sense that everybody else does, nor in the sense that all political parties understand it.

If you're using a personal definition entirely outside of the general lexicon, then perhaps it would be better to... come up with a new term (or at least specify that you're not using it in the same way as everyone else)

tstorm823:
The cultural zeitgeist of the 21st century has been almost entirely dominated by liberals. Celebrities championed liberal causes, professors taught liberal viewpoints, and until very recently, if you were looking for a right-wing role model, you had a handful of options found only on AM radio and half were bad actors.

What were those liberal causes, and why are they opposed to conservative ones? I'm assuming those causes are something like gay rights, addressing class equality and access to political power, gender and racial equality, wage slavery, sexual freedom, animal and environmental issues, etc. If conservatives oppose those, how does that not make them agents acting against the development of humanity? I can't imagine any scenario where being opposed to those things makes you a good and well-meaning person.
What are conservative causes that aren't simply reactions railing against the evolution of our consciousness and awareness of the world around us?

Kwak:

tstorm823:
The cultural zeitgeist of the 21st century has been almost entirely dominated by liberals. Celebrities championed liberal causes, professors taught liberal viewpoints, and until very recently, if you were looking for a right-wing role model, you had a handful of options found only on AM radio and half were bad actors.

What were those liberal causes, and why are they opposed to conservative ones? I'm assuming those causes are something like gay rights, addressing class equality and access to political power, gender and racial equality, wage slavery, sexual freedom, animal and environmental issues, etc. If conservatives oppose those, how does that not make them agents acting against the development of humanity? I can't imagine any scenario where being opposed to those things makes you a good and well-meaning person.
What are conservative causes that aren't simply reactions railing against the evolution of our consciousness and awareness of the world around us?

Republicans: Damn liberal celebrities!

Also Republicans: Reagan (movie actor), Trump (reality TV star), Schwarzenegger (actor), Jessie Ventura (actor).

Avnger:

Baffle2:
I made this edit just in case you didn't realise why it was a joke: No one is going to buy your poisonous corn from you, it's poisonous!

would it be useful against feral hogs? Say 30-50 of them?

Only if you could grow them quickly, say in the 3-5 minutes your kids are in the yard.

Saelune:

Kwak:

tstorm823:
The cultural zeitgeist of the 21st century has been almost entirely dominated by liberals. Celebrities championed liberal causes, professors taught liberal viewpoints, and until very recently, if you were looking for a right-wing role model, you had a handful of options found only on AM radio and half were bad actors.

What were those liberal causes, and why are they opposed to conservative ones? I'm assuming those causes are something like gay rights, addressing class equality and access to political power, gender and racial equality, wage slavery, sexual freedom, animal and environmental issues, etc. If conservatives oppose those, how does that not make them agents acting against the development of humanity? I can't imagine any scenario where being opposed to those things makes you a good and well-meaning person.
What are conservative causes that aren't simply reactions railing against the evolution of our consciousness and awareness of the world around us?

Republicans: Damn liberal celebrities!

Also Republicans: Reagan (movie actor), Trump (reality TV star), Schwarzenegger (actor), Jessie Ventura (actor).

Also 3 of those people are WWE Hall of Famers. Doesn't really add anything to the discussion but really shows how fucking weird America is. As far as I'm aware nobody in my government or most others has ever hit someone with a steel chair.

CheetoDust:
Also 3 of those people are WWE Hall of Famers. Doesn't really add anything to the discussion but really shows how fucking weird America is. As far as I'm aware nobody in my government or most others has ever hit someone with a steel chair.

At least not for entertainment purposes, a number of ex-military or ex-paramilitary types that might have hit people with odd things end up in government.

CheetoDust:
As far as I'm aware nobody in my government or most others has ever hit someone with a steel chair.

I bet Khrushchev did.

Thaluikhain:

CheetoDust:
Also 3 of those people are WWE Hall of Famers. Doesn't really add anything to the discussion but really shows how fucking weird America is. As far as I'm aware nobody in my government or most others has ever hit someone with a steel chair.

At least not for entertainment purposes, a number of ex-military or ex-paramilitary types that might have hit people with odd things end up in government.

Silvanus:

CheetoDust:
As far as I'm aware nobody in my government or most others has ever hit someone with a steel chair.

I bet Khrushchev did.

Double touch?.

CheetoDust:

Saelune:

Kwak:

What were those liberal causes, and why are they opposed to conservative ones? I'm assuming those causes are something like gay rights, addressing class equality and access to political power, gender and racial equality, wage slavery, sexual freedom, animal and environmental issues, etc. If conservatives oppose those, how does that not make them agents acting against the development of humanity? I can't imagine any scenario where being opposed to those things makes you a good and well-meaning person.
What are conservative causes that aren't simply reactions railing against the evolution of our consciousness and awareness of the world around us?

Republicans: Damn liberal celebrities!

Also Republicans: Reagan (movie actor), Trump (reality TV star), Schwarzenegger (actor), Jessie Ventura (actor).

Also 3 of those people are WWE Hall of Famers. Doesn't really add anything to the discussion but really shows how fucking weird America is. As far as I'm aware nobody in my government or most others has ever hit someone with a steel chair.

That'd liven up Congressional sittings no end.

tstorm823:
Do you have any justification whatsoever that Richard von Krafft-Ebing is in any way politically conservative? What makes this person a "conservative psychologist" other than an anachronistic belief that homophobia is inherently conservative?

Krafft-Ebing was a conservative because his work did not challenge or critically reflect on the societal or religious conventions of the society in which he lived. His overarching preoccupation was with providing scientific justification for those conventions existing. He fully endorsed the prevailing moral consensus of his society, that humans were designed by God to reproduce, and thus that any form of sexual function which deviated from the purpose of reproduction must therefore be unnatural.

It's important to remember that Freud and Krafft Ebing were actually contemporaries, although Krafft Ebing was older. They both lived in staunchly Catholic Austria in a very similar environment, and yet their views on society and sexuality were worlds apart. Krafft Ebing was a conservative. He looked at the society around him, decided it was correct, and set out to prove that it was correct. Freud was a radical. He looked at the same society and saw the gaps. He saw the things it could not or would not talk about. That's not to say that Freud necessarily disagreed with his society, but he understood that it and its conventions were neither natural nor the only possible arrangement under which a society could function.

The driving intellectual force in transforming societies in to modern societies, going back to the original anciens and moderns, has been the development of an intellectual practice which we call critique. Critique is the ability to look at the world you live in and to see the contingencies that make it possible, and thus to imagine the possibility of a world that is better than the one you already live in, which has a superior knowledge, understanding or reason. The divide between "progressives" and "conservatives" has never been about novelty, it's always been about attitude. The conservative looks at the world and sees only deviation from the idea of what is "good", their overarching concern is always to restore normalcy and crush difference. The recurring evil of conservatism is that crushing difference always (eventually) means crushing people who are different.

Smithnikov:

So what political affiliation do you think the people who still run such camps and programs have?

I'm quite certain they're Republicans. There are terrible people in the same political party as me, that is true. But there are multiple positions held within the Republican Party. Just like in the Democratic Primary there are people you could classify as liberal, neoliberal, socialist, progressive, and even conservative, the Republican Party is not a monolith. Theocratic Evangelicals picking the red team doesn't change my opinions or make me respect theirs more. And it definitely doesn't make them conservative.

Martin Sckreli (sp?) ring a bell?

Ah, that criminal who sucked money from honest people out of sheer greed must have done so for the preservation of civil society. That's definitely what he was thinking.

So how does paying workers pennies on the dollar help them?

It doesn't, but that's not the point. Imagine a pool that you're trying to fill with water, but it's got a big gaping hole at the bottom. You're right if you say running water in slow enough that it runs right out the other side isn't going to fill that pool. You might fill a little if you turn the tap on faster, but it's not a good solution, it involves dumping out huge amounts of into the ground and probably just tears the whole open wider over time.

Trying to solve poverty by upping the minimum wage is like turning that faucet up. Trying to solve poverty using social support systems is like trying to patch the big gaping hole. We do both to an extent, but you can probably tell by my analogy which option I think makes more sense.

erttheking:

You say you want an honest debate and then all you do is blow smoke up my ass. Gay conversion therapy has never been a conservative practice? You are saying that when Mike fucking Pence is vice-president? And before you go running for the "he said that a long time ago" defense, you said gay conversion therapy has never been a conservative practice. Even though it tends to be tied heavily to religion.

Mike Pence has never supported gay conversion therapy. The singular evidence that he does or ever has is a statement in regard to the Ryan White Care Act, which provides support to people and communities struggling with HIV and AIDs. An Act that he supported, but made the comment "Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior." Absolutely, that phrase can be read as gay conversion therapy. But consider for a moment the context. Do you actually believe that someone was suggesting that money designated for treating AIDs victims should be taken away and redirected to gay conversion therapy? It's not like you can choose to have your AIDs treatment at either a hospital or gay conversion therapy. Back up and take a more reasonable look at that statement. "Ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that encourage behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus." This sentence suggests that funding was previously going to organizations that encouraged such behaviors, or "no longer" doesn't make sense. Those organizations had likely already lost their access to the funds, or else "ensure" doesn't make sense. The call to action was an audit to remove unqualified organizations, so unless you think the funding was already being spent on gay conversion therapy, this suggestion wasn't going to add it to the Act.

Now, what types of behaviors facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus? Pence opponents read that exclusively as "homosexuality." Now pretend it wasn't Mike Pence saying it. Imagine it was a comment by Elizabeth Warren. What types of behaviors facilitate the spread of HIV? Promiscusous sex? Unsafe sex? Nondisclosure of HIV status? Go back to Mike Pence, what sort of sexual behaviors would he encourage beyond heterosexuality: celibacy, monogomy, perhaps safe sex practices... aaaand there's the catch. Mike Pence can't publicly call for "safe sex practices" especially in the year 2000. So imagine that a care provider was found to be encouraging unsafe sexual behavior among people with HIV and was disqualified from receiving funding. And then a politician called for an audit of providers receiving the funds to weed out anyone else doing the same thing. But had to do so euphemistically because an christian right politician running for Congress in Indiana can't endorse condoms.

I know you're going to say this is a contrived excuse I'm making, but the alternative you're taking is to believe that a Congressional candidate decided to spontaneously call for a redirection of AIDs relief funds that his constituents had likely never heard of to gay conversion therapy instead, somehow doing so with an audit, and making this call exclusively on a campaign website using only euphemism to dog-whistle to homophobes. That's conspiracy theory.

Except white supremacy is very much alive and well among the modern right, to the point where they're not even doing a very good job of hiding it.

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/congressional-candidates-controversial-billboard-has-polk-county-abuzz

Honestly, that reads like parody. It feels like this time where someone flew a Nazi flag in San Francisco to call Trump a Nazi and people reasonably assumed it was serious.

But like, read the article:

As a trump (sic) supporter that is a poor excuse of a human to put a sign up like that. But that's the wonderful thing about freedom of speech at least you know what's really in their heart."

Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Ryan Haynes released the following statement regarding Independent Congressional Candidate Rick Tyler's offensive billboards in Polk County, Tennessee: "There's no room for this type of hateful display in our political discourse. Racism should be rejected in all its heinous forms in the Third Congressional District and around the country."

A not Republican put up racist billboards and the Republicans condemned it and all racism. Like, come on.
[/quote]

Silvanus:

The point being that "reform" says nothing about what the changes are supposed to bring about. So, two parties advocating "reform" in diametrically opposed directions would both be "progressive", supposedly.

Yes, correct. Prohibition was a progressive idea, social reform to try and better society. If you, however, were inclined to think that drinking age limitations were causing social problems rather than limiting them and advocated for removing the age restriction, that would also be progressive. These are diametrically opposed directions that would both be progressive. Correct.

I don't believe its meaning has ever been broadly understood in the way you're describing.

I literally quoted Teddy Roosevelt. Taft described himself as a progressive conservative. Eisenhower described himself as a progressive conservative. How many US presidents do I need as evidence? Do you think these people were describing your understanding of the word "progressive"? Absolutely not.

Wikipedia: "a movement that identifies as progressive is a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions."

Webster: "one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action"

OED: "(of a person or idea) favouring social reform"

Do any of these things indicate to you that progressivism is defined exclusively by the positions of 21st century Democrats?

If you're using a personal definition entirely outside of the general lexicon, then perhaps it would be better to... come up with a new term (or at least specify that you're not using it in the same way as everyone else)

No, I don't intend to let a good word die to the times. Progressivism is a great concept because the word progress is very unique. Think,. in common dialogue, what progress actually means. "How's the project going?" "Oh, we're making progress." Progress is the word you use to optimistically describe not being finished. The unique beauty of progressivism is that it's never finished. There is no end goal. There is no utopia. Lots of conservatives hate this. The see progressive thought as a hammer in search of a nail. Personally, I don't think we're lacking nails to aim our hammers at. And I think there's a wonderful humility in saying "we don't have the perfect solutions, we're not expecting to solve every problem, we're just always trying to make things better." I want that word. And right now it's being wasted on mindset that is effectively secular theocracy, and that sucks.

Kwak:

What were those liberal causes, and why are they opposed to conservative ones? I'm assuming those causes are something like gay rights, addressing class equality and access to political power, gender and racial equality, wage slavery, sexual freedom, animal and environmental issues, etc. If conservatives oppose those, how does that not make them agents acting against the development of humanity? I can't imagine any scenario where being opposed to those things makes you a good and well-meaning person.
What are conservative causes that aren't simply reactions railing against the evolution of our consciousness and awareness of the world around us?

Like this right here. Secular theocracy. This isn't a political argument about how to best serve society, this is someone coming from doctrinal moral positions who separates everyone into either good or evil. A real argument between conservative and progressive positions is an argument whether current practices are better for people or if changing would improve things. Wanting to help the poor isn't a liberal cause, wanting to help them through expansive government redistribution of wealth is. You're picturing a conservative role model as someone who would be saying "screw the poor, the minorities, and the environment!"But that's not it. The conservative role model is the person pointing to the good of what we do already. You want a conservative role model, it's not Alex Jones, it's Mr. Rodgers.

tstorm823:

Yes, correct. Prohibition was a progressive idea, social reform to try and better society. If you, however, were inclined to think that drinking age limitations were causing social problems rather than limiting them and advocated for removing the age restriction, that would also be progressive. These are diametrically opposed directions that would both be progressive. Correct.

In that case, you're using the term in a way which;

A) Is not generally or widely accepted or understood;

B) Is not in line with how the term was historically defined;

C) Renders the term largely worthless as a descriptor.

I literally quoted Teddy Roosevelt. Taft described himself as a progressive conservative. Eisenhower described himself as a progressive conservative. How many US presidents do I need as evidence? Do you think these people were describing your understanding of the word "progressive"? Absolutely not.

Wikipedia: "a movement that identifies as progressive is a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions."

Webster: "one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action"

OED: "(of a person or idea) favouring social reform"

Do any of these things indicate to you that progressivism is defined exclusively by the positions of 21st century Democrats?

Roosevelt, Taft and Eisenhower are not using the term in the sense in which you are, so that means very little.

Look just a little lower in the Wiki page, meanwhile, and you'll find a host of contradictory description.

The idea of "letting a good word die" is absurd, given that your definition would rob it of any and all descriptive value. Every politician on earth would be "progressive" unless their policy platform involved sitting on their ass and bugger all else.

Silvanus:

Roosevelt, Taft and Eisenhower are not using the term in the sense in which you are, so that means very little.

Look just a little lower in the Wiki page, meanwhile, and you'll find a host of contradictory description.

The idea of "letting a good word die" is absurd, given that your definition would rob it of any and all descriptive value. Every politician on earth would be "progressive" unless their policy platform involved sitting on their ass and bugger all else.

You won't find a host of contradictory positions. Just to be totally above board to anyone else reading along, that link is the wikipedia page on progressivism. It tells you almost exactly what I'm saying.

"Early-20th century progressivism was also tied to eugenics[5][6][7] and the temperance movement,[8][9] both of which were promoted in the name of public health, and were promoted as initiatives toward that goal. Contemporary progressives promote public policies that they believe will lead to positive social change."

It's comparing modern progressive social policy to the temperance movement that made prohibition happen. I'm doing exactly the same thing. I'm not making up my own definition. Progressivism is the meaning it's been for 100+ years. The only thing that's messed up is the people who call themselves "Progressive", which very well may be an accurate description, but not because they seek to advance specifically left-wing secular morality.

tstorm823:

trunkage:

Can anyone play this game?

Generally a Conservative thinks that the current system is the best system. They cite the evidence that it exists through thousands of years of trail and error (and removal of bad ideas.) It has been proven true and effective and generally, they are right.

Thus, in their eyes, any changes could bring the whole house of cards down. Progressive, with their 'changes' threaten humanity. Any change is a threat, thus Conservatives are generally defensive when it comes to any change.

The biggest mistake people make is that Progressives are actually Conservatives on 90% of issues. They, generally, want to do small changes to the system. Most progressives arent against democracy but are wanting to do small changes like banning gerrymandering or 'fixing' who gets to vote.

But when they are continually blocked, they find more extreme examples acceptable. Eg. Ecoterrorism lead from dealing with Climate Change continually being blocked in Congress. Which might be a weird example, as it's actually two different Conservative ideologies bumping heads. So, maybe the Hong Kong riots at the moment.

I think all this is pretty well said. I'd say those thousands of years were a lot less trial than error until the last few centuries, but that's just drilling down specifics. The only other thing I'd be picky about is describing the current system as the best system, rather than the best system that we have for this moment. I absolutely believe that things will get better moving into the future, advancing technology guarantees that things will change whether the government does it or not, it'd be silly to think we have the best answers.

Agreed. Many social reforms are just small changes. An example was (I think the number was) 14-B in Canada. It didn't make a new law, it amended a law. They added transpeople to the equal protection act. But a certain segment of Conservatives was totally against it because it was a 'fascist' impinging on their rights. Which was so weird for me, considering the law hadn't been changed, it was updated to include a minority that wasn't originally included. Wouldn't the old law be just as bad? Then I realised, they just didn't want to change because 'the old system already worked.' (Well, and a bunch of transphobes were leading the charge, but that's a different matter.)

Conservatives also don't take into account bad actors (posers, pretending to be Conservative.) These poser say things like, "why do we have to make room/ put uo with minorities?" This makes Conservatives conflicted. They know that Rights are equal for all, that's a huge part of the system they like. But this comment is pointing to what must be a lack of equality. 'Americans should get jobs first' definitely seems reasonable but it breaks all forms of equality. They justify it and this allows posers to lead the narrative. University taking into account socioeconomic issues means that whites and Asians are being treated poorly. Anyone getting a job over a white guy must be 'Affirmative Action' gone wrong. Because, you know, there is no chance that a non-white might be better at the job.

It's also problematic because there definitely has been improvements in treatment of minorities. But that gets mixed up with everything is fixed, which is isn't true.

Well, bad actors are bad. There are bad actors in all things. If American conservatives are uniquely weak to the persuasion of bad actors at the moment, I would suggest it's because there aren't many "good actors" to be persuaded by. The cultural zeitgeist of the 21st century has been almost entirely dominated by liberals. Celebrities championed liberal causes, professors taught liberal viewpoints, and until very recently, if you were looking for a right-wing role model, you had a handful of options found only on AM radio and half were bad actors. But hey, other Republicans have finally found the internet, hopefully we can reclaim some lost sheep. I fear my generation is lost for good, I don't necessarily blame them, it's hard to give conservatism a second chance when the first chance you gave it led to Alex Jones. But I think Gen Z has a better chance of getting their act together.

Yeah, I don't know how that happened. I mean, the left has a bunch of people like the Majority Report or TYT but they are more like Shapiro or Rubin - clearly biased but sort of reasonable, at least compared to Jones. A bit too punch down at your enemy, instead of promoting their side's ideals. But not a Trump, who spends most of his time denigrating people. He's still mad because Obama is still Deporter-in-Chief

But liberals dominating the Zeitgiest is just survivor bias. The next generation took on ideals from Conservatives and Progressives that served them. If it doesnt change, then it's not a story with the 'old timers.' It doesnt create drama and is not noticeable. Take 'dem Millenials' for example. They copied so much from their predecessors, but the news ONLY focusses on what they don't take on. A lot of Liberals fight for climate change (or changes to combat it, this was poor pharsing that I cant think my way out of), which is apparently an economic apocalypse by some Conservative pundits. Instead of a slow shift to cleaner sources, it has to jerk around. We're still stuck on focusing on solar and wind, instead of creating the next step that would be better than those two (as these, while cleaner, still have their problems.)

Once a discussion about mass shootings degrades into a debate of semantics, you know people has ran out of good arguments.

Baffle2:
You are the only person in the room who didn't realise it was a joke. But I appreciate the effort you made. But it was, obviously, a joke.

Oh yes, a "joke". Just like every one of your other posts in the past two pages, condescending towards posters who disagree with you, or via insinuation or more overt methods, insulting their intelligence. As you still are. Sorry, no sale.

Silvanus:
In that case, you're using the term in a way which...Every politician on earth would be "progressive" unless their policy platform involved sitting on their ass and bugger all else.

I don't often agree with tstorm823 on issues, but here is one with which I believe you ought take heed. Unless you really want to have a conversation with me about the rather unique fellowships of the temperance movement.

trunkage:

But liberals dominating the Zeitgiest is just survivor bias. The next generation took on ideals from Conservatives and Progressives that served them. If it doesnt change, then it's not a story with the 'old timers.' It doesnt create drama and is not noticeable. Take 'dem Millenials' for example. They copied so much from their predecessors, but the news ONLY focusses on what they don't take on. A lot of Liberals fight for climate change (or changes to combat it, this was poor pharsing that I cant think my way out of), which is apparently an economic apocalypse by some Conservative pundits. Instead of a slow shift to cleaner sources, it has to jerk around. We're still stuck on focusing on solar and wind, instead of creating the next step that would be better than those two (as these, while cleaner, still have their problems.)

I mean, you're right. Most things don't change, and recent history is not an overwhelming example of liberal political victory. But the way society values people's actions can manifest in different ways. When American culture tilts conservative, what gets valued is people's individual contributions to a society viewed as overall good: civil and military service, personal charity, volunteerism. When the culture tilts liberal, what gets valued is pushing broad societal advancements: activism, protests, social reform get the spotlight. Ideally these things should coexist, society is built by individual contributions but some changes require more than one person at a time. For quite some time, we lived in a world where people protesting the government were idolized and someone helping an old lady across the street was a punchline, and I think we're starting to regain our reasonable balance.

tstorm823:

trunkage:

But liberals dominating the Zeitgiest is just survivor bias. The next generation took on ideals from Conservatives and Progressives that served them. If it doesnt change, then it's not a story with the 'old timers.' It doesnt create drama and is not noticeable. Take 'dem Millenials' for example. They copied so much from their predecessors, but the news ONLY focusses on what they don't take on. A lot of Liberals fight for climate change (or changes to combat it, this was poor pharsing that I cant think my way out of), which is apparently an economic apocalypse by some Conservative pundits. Instead of a slow shift to cleaner sources, it has to jerk around. We're still stuck on focusing on solar and wind, instead of creating the next step that would be better than those two (as these, while cleaner, still have their problems.)

I mean, you're right. Most things don't change, and recent history is not an overwhelming example of liberal political victory. But the way society values people's actions can manifest in different ways. When American culture tilts conservative, what gets valued is people's individual contributions to a society viewed as overall good: civil and military service, personal charity, volunteerism. When the culture tilts liberal, what gets valued is pushing broad societal advancements: activism, protests, social reform get the spotlight. Ideally these things should coexist, society is built by individual contributions but some changes require more than one person at a time. For quite some time, we lived in a world where people protesting the government were idolized and someone helping an old lady across the street was a punchline, and I think we're starting to regain our reasonable balance.

Well, a Conservative win is Status Quo. That won't make big news usually.

Also, I find, tilting Conservative is not necessarily Conservatives winning but special interests gaining favour over others. And that's more newsworthy

Edit: I saw your definition about Progressivess earlier: social reform through government. It's what reflects here with some of your comments. What you are saying about contributing to indivuals is still progressive. That's changing a person's attitude and shifting beliefs that will impact the political process later. The issue is lag time, as many of these issues causes deaths by going slow at the grassroots level. Eg. Prohibition was a breaking point for Americans treatment of minorities. The latter was forced underground since the founding but Prohibition force the average person underground too. They were forced to intermingle thus the Blues and Jazz became popular. But actual changes or acceptance never actually arrived. And I'd be remiss to add that most of these activists group actually do a lot of grassroots work, it just might be targeted

@tstorm. You skipped out half my points. Kindly respond to all of them. You're the one who was talking about how much you wanted a good faith debate. Well show it.

tstorm823:

Like this right here. Secular theocracy.

Those seem to be words that mean a thing.
A bad thing I'm assuming.
seck yoo lar.... like, not religious.
thhee ock rasee.... religious rule. So not religious, religious rule. Cool.

Could you explain that thing you mean by the words that mean a bad thing that is the thing that I'm doing?

tstorm823:
Progressivism didn't come out of liberal ideology, it came out of the conservative movement.

Highly dubious to the point of wrong.

It might be right to say that in the USA the term was mostly taken and applied in the political sphere by elements of conservativism / Republicanism under Roosevelt, but it's older than that. Progressivism has its roots in enlightenment philosophy; when adopted into the political sphere it was a notion expressed across the spectrum in the mid-19th century in liberalism, conservatism and some elements of socialism.

In the UK/US at least, political "progressivism" was in large part a reaction to the industrialisation under laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century which was felt to be serving ordinary people relatively poorly (e.g. "The Gilded Age"), with huge wealth inequality and widespread perceived injustice. This was certainly not just a conservative preoccupation.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here