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

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

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.

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

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

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.

That'd liven up Congressional sittings no end.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

 

[tstorm823]

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.

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 [https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Nazi-Flag-Skull-Spotted-at-San-Francisco-House-400600901.html] 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]

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.

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.

 

[Silvanus]

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.

 

[tstorm823]

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism] 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.

 

[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.)

 

[CaitSeith]

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

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

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.

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.

 

[tstorm823]

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.

 

[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

 

[Erttheking]

@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.

 

[Kwak]

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?

 

[Agema]

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.

 

[Baffle]

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.

Yes, a joke. You can buy books full of them. Not one of those jokes where someone says something edgy then tries to back out of it, because those aren't jokes; there's nothing to back out of here. It's deliberate, on-the-nose farce. Like, suggesting farmers deliberately grow crops that would kill you is incredibly obviously farcical. I mean, not as farcical as letting civvies run around with guns (let's keep this on topic), but still extremely obviously farcical.

I don't know what else to tell you. Maybe other people also thought it was a serious suggestion (show of hands?). Maybe it was me who misread the room. If so, the room needs to have a serious talk with itself.

 

[tstorm823]

@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.

Donald Trump is a Democrat, of course he's talking about regulating free speech.
The right discusses many way to lower health care costs or keep them from rising.
I don't even know what economies you think are magically sustainable because of minimum wage.

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

What I mean is that a theocracy is the government ruling on moral terms set by religious doctrine. For most of human history, people were ruled over by either monarchy, the law is whatever one person says it is, or theocracy, the law is just imposed morality. I'm being a little simplistic, but thats the gist. Then came the "-isms" that actually tried to theorize how to create a good society through government. When you laundry list a bunch of specific issues and consider that a political position, you're ignoring theories of governance and regressing to "the government should do moral things" as the exclusive standard. Theocracy.

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.

I think you've got somethings jumbled here. Laissex-faire capitalism came out of the Enlightenment. To say progressivism came out of the enlightenment and was also a reaction to laissez faire capitalism a century later is a bit contradictory.

 

[Erttheking]

Donald Trump is a Democrat.

Fucking what?

You do know what party he ran for right? You say you want an honest debate and you pull that horseshit on me?

 

[Agema]

I think you've got somethings jumbled here. Laissex-faire capitalism came out of the Enlightenment. To say progressivism came out of the enlightenment and was also a reaction to laissez faire capitalism a century later is a bit contradictory.

The Enlightenment was a huge advance in intellectual (principally philosophical) thought in the 18-early 19th centuries, but it was extremely wide-ranging. It was perhaps in many ways more about throwing off the old yoke of religiously-based thought in favour of science and reason. Some of it is inconsistent, because philosophers had different ideas in this brave new world of thought freed from religious orthodoxies.

Capitalism is a direct product of the Enlightenment, via Adam Smith. However, the concept of progress - that history tells the improvement of humans, human development and society - is also embedded in the Enlightenment (it's recognisable from Hume, for instance). Although progressivism as a distinct political doctrine emerges in the late 19th century, it's the development of an older, ongoing theme.

 

[Saelune]

@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.

Donald Trump is a Democrat

That is literally objectively, factually, completely untrue. You're not even trying at this point.

 

[Agema]

Donald Trump is a Democrat, of course he's talking about regulating free speech.

No he isn't. Donald Trump has pretty much no meaningful political ideology.

He is really just a totally self-interested narcissist, whose interest is self-aggrandisement and saying stuff to make people like him. Consequently he said Democrat-type things back in the day, because he was a New Yorker and mixed with the metropolitan liberals of New York and said the sort of things that kept him in good standing with his social circle.

However, he clearly resented Obama (I cannot help but suspect some element of racism in Donald Trump, even if mostly concealed) and found his route to power easier by appealing to Republicans and populism. And thus he did, because that's what he does: he wants things and for people to idolise him, and he says what he needs to in order to get it.

And let's face it, Republicans don't actually have a good history on free speech. We do not have to look far to see a great deal of Republican voters have been very hostile to elements of free speech. A surprisingly large number of Americans (perhaps 20-30%) are not okay with certain groups having equal access to public expression. Given that such disliked groups include homosexuals and atheists, I'm pretty sure plenty of that ambivalence towards free and equal speech is coming from Republicans.

However you want to pretend that moral abcess is a Democrat, he's representing the Republican Party, voted for by Republicans, held in better esteem by Republicans than virtually any other major Republican politician. He is, since he won the presidential candidacy, the primary voice of the Republican Party and his opinions the primary representation of it and its voters beliefs. DEAL WITH IT.