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

[tstorm823]

Nowhere in the article on "progressivism" is anything that could remotely indicate what you said.

First, a reminder of what I said that you found contentious: "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."

And your response was "That's not what they mean in a political sense, and it never was"

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

Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of social reform.

Brief aside, social reform hyperlinks to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement

A reform movement is a type of social movement that aims to bring a social or political system closer to the community's ideal... the ideas are often grounded in liberalism, although they may be rooted in socialist (specifically, social democratic) or religious concepts.

That article about reform movements mentions labor movements and universal suffrage, but also mentions prohibition and anti-prostitution measures.

Back to Progressivism, right after that list you thought contradicted me, the article conveniently describes the unifying theme of progressivism.

The unifying theme is to call attention to the negative impacts of current institutions or ways of doing things, and to advocate for progress, that is, for positive change as defined by any of several standards, such expansion of democracy, increased social or economic equality, improved well being of a population, etc.

That's pretty broad. Pretty much exactly as broad a definition as I was using. Someone advocating for reform to create what they feel is a positively improved society, that's it.

But wouldn't it be nice if the wikipedia article we're talking about addressed specifically what I was referring to as progressive?

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.

Well, I guess I wasn't quite talking about prohibition and eugenics when this started. I was talking about gay conversion therapy. I may need an outside source to tie it all together.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/08/05/why-we-still-havent-banished-conversion-therapy-in-2018/

Conversion therapy?s origins date to the Progressive Era.

Yeah, that should do it.

So basically, I'm right about the definition of progressivism as a broad concept, I'm right about the specific topic that was being discussed, and the only way in which my description is inaccurate is in the sense that people often use words without knowing what they mean.

 

[Silvanus]

First, a reminder of what I said that you found contentious: "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."

And your response was "That's not what they mean in a political sense, and it never was"

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

Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of social reform.

Yep, there we have the sentence so meaninglessly vague it could apply to almost any political position.

Back to Progressivism, right after that list you thought contradicted me, the article conveniently describes the unifying theme of progressivism.

The unifying theme is to call attention to the negative impacts of current institutions or ways of doing things, and to advocate for progress, that is, for positive change as defined by any of several standards, such expansion of democracy, increased social or economic equality, improved well being of a population, etc.

That's pretty broad. Pretty much exactly as broad a definition as I was using. Someone advocating for reform to create what they feel is a positively improved society, that's it.

Broad indeed-- or still meaninglessly vague. I'm starting to think maybe Wikipedia isn't the greatest resource for defining political philosophies.

But wouldn't it be nice if the wikipedia article we're talking about addressed specifically what I was referring to as progressive?

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.

Well, I guess I wasn't quite talking about prohibition and eugenics when this started. I was talking about gay conversion therapy. I may need an outside source to tie it all together.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/08/05/why-we-still-havent-banished-conversion-therapy-in-2018/

Conversion therapy?s origins date to the Progressive Era.

Yeah, that should do it.

So basically, I'm right about the definition of progressivism as a broad concept, I'm right about the specific topic that was being discussed, and the only way in which my description is inaccurate is in the sense that people often use words without knowing what they mean.

Your smoking gun is... sources which specifically contextualize those concepts of progressivism as being in the past?

 

[tstorm823]

Your smoking gun is... sources which specifically contextualize those concepts of progressivism as being in the past?

I'd tear apart this defense, but I don't really have to. It doesn't matter the time period when you lead on "That's not what they mean in a political sense, and it never was."

I get it, I'm using a word in a way you're not used to. I understand that the paradigm of free market, Christian conservatives vs social welfare, secular progressives is really well established in American political dialogue of the last 30-40 years. But that only works if you only care about America right now. You think the definitions being vague and broad makes them useless, but really the opposite is true. If conservative and progressive can only mean the sense in which people self identify here and now, then you can't use those terms in any other place or time. Advocating free markets and Christian morals is a radical position in North Korea, would you call that conservative there? Would you say that advocating for women's suffrage is still progressive 100 years after it was already passed? If you consider these positions as absolutes rather than relatives to the status quo, they're essentially already useless and outdated.

 

[Trunkage]

Your smoking gun is... sources which specifically contextualize those concepts of progressivism as being in the past?

I'd tear apart this defense, but I don't really have to. It doesn't matter the time period when you lead on "That's not what they mean in a political sense, and it never was."

I get it, I'm using a word in a way you're not used to. I understand that the paradigm of free market, Christian conservatives vs social welfare, secular progressives is really well established in American political dialogue of the last 30-40 years. But that only works if you only care about America right now. You think the definitions being vague and broad makes them useless, but really the opposite is true. If conservative and progressive can only mean the sense in which people self identify here and now, then you can't use those terms in any other place or time. Advocating free markets and Christian morals is a radical position in North Korea, would you call that conservative there? Would you say that advocating for women's suffrage is still progressive 100 years after it was already passed? If you consider these positions as absolutes rather than relatives to the status quo, they're essentially already useless and outdated.

Since gay marriage is legal is most areas, if someone tries to gets rid of it, anyone defending it would be a Conservstive.

That does not mean that the person getting rid of gay marriage is Progressive. The opposition to Conservstive is NOT always Progressive. For example, ISIS is a Conservativee movement. So is the Evangelcoal Christians. Your demonstration of North Korea and America is another. So many times its one Conservative movement that dislikes another Conservstive movement. You could call this Nationalism, the toxic very of patriotism, is what's the issue (absolutely fine by me.) My biggest issue with all forms of patriotism is that it's any external source forcing what it means to be 'American', 'Chinese', 'Korean', 'English' or 'French.' Any deviation is seen as a threat and is taken out.

Eg. Prohibition. The issue was the general culture around drinking at the Founding was kept even though Germanic people's (as there was no Germany yet, they couldn't be called German) can to America during the time leading up to the civil war. Generally, everyone drunk ale three times a day at least. Even children, who had maybe a half percent alcohol. Even for breakfast. Safe drinking water was hard to come by and even tea and coffee were not easy to get, leading to wars being fought over them. Three times a day is fine for ale but stronger beers came from Germanic immigrants. Then things like Whiskey became popular. All of a sudden, drunkenness and domestic violence skyrocketed.

A large band of people gathered together to create Prohibition. Feminists, usually part of the Temperance League, was one. I'm going to point out the word there - Temperamce - for later. The Anti-Salon League was another major one, which was a whole bunch of Chistrian Conservatives, businessmen sick and tired of property destruction, others worried about substance abuse and people worried about the 'sanctity of family unit.' Prohibition was Progressives and Conservstives working together.

The Temperance League immediately went against Prohibiton as soon as it was enacted. Temperamce is another word for moderation. They did want to limit alcohol, but not ban it. This is the platform they sold it on and many were disappointed with the resulting legislation. (See Brexit as another example of this. Many people may want to leave the EU. But a hard Brexit is not what they meant.) It's one of the reasons why it's the only amendment that's been repealed. What was sold is not what the people got. But also, DV and alcoholism is WAY down compared to before Prohibiton. Even if the Anti-Saloon League didn't get its way, it has changed the literal way everyone in Ameica drinks. Unless, you still beer for breakfast.

As I already stated in this thread, Progressives and Conservstives agree on 90% of things. Gun laws, for example for one they disagree on, is the two side fighting about the best way to do the same thing. Protect the citizenry. Things like Eugenics definitely had Progressivess. And it definitely had Conservatives. Both too worried about protecting the citizenry their way to think about actually protecting the citizenry. Once either side forgets about rights of individuals, they've lost their way

 

[tstorm823]

Since gay marriage is legal is most areas, if someone tries to gets rid of it, anyone defending it would be a Conservative.

Well, that's half-true. You certainly can defend gay marriage from a conservative stance, and if you were labeling the defense of gay marriage as conservative or progressive in America at this point, it would be conservative, but someone isn't a Conservative themselves unless they're defending gay marriage for the reason that it's what we do now and it seems to be working alright. There are lots of ideological reasons someone could hold a position that is conservative that don't make them a conservative.

For example, the current partnership between conservatives and libertarians. I (conservative) think that the US was founded with limited government, the economy thrived with limited government, and its against our best interests to mess around with that. A libertarian would advocate for minimizing the power of government because they believe authority is a violation of individual freedom. We agree on limited government, both these views are present in the Republican party at present, but for totally different reasons.

That does not mean that the person getting rid of gay marriage is Progressive. The opposition to Conservative is NOT always Progressive. For example, ISIS is a Conservative movement. So is the Evangelical Christians. Your demonstration of North Korea and America is another. So many times its one Conservative movement that dislikes another Conservative movement. You could call this Nationalism, the toxic very of patriotism, is what's the issue (absolutely fine by me.) My biggest issue with all forms of patriotism is that it's any external source forcing what it means to be 'American', 'Chinese', 'Korean', 'English' or 'French.' Any deviation is seen as a threat and is taken out.

You are correct that conservatives can oppose each other. Progressives can also oppose each other as well, happens all the time. I think the bit about "deviations" being "taken out" is a bit of an extreme view of nationalism, not every nationalist is a nazi. Certainly there have been nationalists that are nazis, and it can be particularly dangerous in places that aren't America where nations were largely founded by distinct racial groups that can tie racism and nationalism together, but in most cases, competing nationalistic viewpoints are less like WWII and more like team sports. There's joy to be had in rivalry and self-improvement to be found in competing with other teams. Opposing groups of people can both think their the best and respect the other for believing that as well.

The Anti-Salon League was another major one, which was a whole bunch of Chistrian Conservatives,

Nope. The anti-saloon league was a progressive Christian organization. Them being strongly protestant in nature doesn't make them conservative.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Would you say that advocating for women's suffrage is still progressive 100 years after it was already passed?

In the sense that it is necessary but not sufficient, yes, certainly.

 

[Trunkage]

The Anti-Salon League was another major one, which was a whole bunch of Chistrian Conservatives,

Nope. The anti-saloon league was a progressive Christian organization. Them being strongly protestant in nature doesn't make them conservative.

The Anti-Saloon league was partly pro KKK while the other half looked the other away so the KKK could enforce the dry ban. It was Anti-Communist and generally worked far more effectively in rural areas. They had to rely on more Progressive groups like the Temperance movement to gather support in cities, who didn't talk about family values as much as rights of the women. Sure, they weren't as Conservative as the Prohibition Party, another group who help drive to Prohibition. But way more Conservative than Temperance.

Even Conservapedia thinks it: Conservative https://www.conservapedia.com/Anti-Saloon_League

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Fuck's sake, the Progressive movement endorsed key left-wing positions such as anti-monopolism, labor rights, universal suffrage, and education as a right and public good. The movement was also brazenly WASP supremacist, and necessarily cleaved to conservative, Protestant, policy positions. The main reason Prohibition weighs so heavily in the conversation, is because in no other policy debate were Progressives' inherent white supremacy on such flagrant display [http://scalar.usc.edu/works/willard-and-wells/the-voice-interview]; no, not even conversation about eugenics was as heavily tainted by racial politics as prohibition.

Stop conflating "big-P" Progressivism (the movement) with "little-P" progressivism (the philosophy). The former was an unholy syncretism of Protestant ethics and white supremacy which found convenient justification within 19th Century pseudoscience, comprised of people who believed they and only they were the arbiters of moral and social good, and that the role of the state was paternal.

 

[tstorm823]

In the sense that it is necessary but not sufficient, yes, certainly.

Then you don't know what the word means. You can't reform society to what it already is.

The Anti-Saloon league was partly pro KKK while the other half looked the other away so the KKK could enforce the dry ban. It was Anti-Communist and generally worked far more effectively in rural areas. They had to rely on more Progressive groups like the Temperance movement to gather support in cities, who didn't talk about family values as much as rights of the women. Sure, they weren't as Conservative as the Prohibition Party, another group who help drive to Prohibition. But way more Conservative than Temperance.

Even Conservapedia thinks it: Conservative https://www.conservapedia.com/Anti-Saloon_League

Are we really trusting conservapedia now? Is that how far we've fallen? Also, the insinuation that the KKK is conservative is a bit off as well. The KKK is white supremacist. That's not "let's keep things how they are." That's a distinct ideology with specific aims.

You and conservapedia are both under the assumption that ultra-pious Christian morality is conservative, but that isn't a universal truth. The religious right in the 1980s was conservative because they were trying to preserve the culture of the 1950s. That culture didn't exist during the Progressive Era. It hadn't materialized yet. It's a misunderstanding of history to think that what we think of as the religious right now was a normal thing 100 years ago. Governance by Protestant morality wasn't conservative in the Progressive Era, it quite literally came out of the Progressive Era. The Roaring 20s was not like the 50s. Progressives, people who wanted to use government policy to make a better society, spent the early 20th century pushing us toward the culture of the 50s, not away from it. That was progressive at that time. Whether or not you like the society they made is your own opinion, but they were reforming society into something that had never before existed in this country.

Stop conflating "big-P" Progressivism (the movement) with "little-P" progressivism (the philosophy). The former was an unholy syncretism of Protestant ethics and white supremacy which found convenient justification within 19th Century pseudoscience, comprised of people who believed they and only they were the arbiters of moral and social good, and that the role of the state was paternal.

To be clear, "big-P" Progressivism was "little-p" progressive in it's time, and something being "little-p" progressive doesn't tie it to "big-P" Progressive. One is a subset of the other, just like people identifying as progressive now are a subset of progressive ideas. There is no one way to be progressive.

 

[Trunkage]

So, just to recap. Your definition of Conservative is a desire to go back to a certain point in the past.

The Anti-Saloon league was partly pro KKK while the other half looked the other away so the KKK could enforce the dry ban. It was Anti-Communist and generally worked far more effectively in rural areas. They had to rely on more Progressive groups like the Temperance movement to gather support in cities, who didn't talk about family values as much as rights of the women. Sure, they weren't as Conservative as the Prohibition Party, another group who help drive to Prohibition. But way more Conservative than Temperance.

Even Conservapedia thinks it: Conservative https://www.conservapedia.com/Anti-Saloon_League

Are we really trusting conservapedia now? Is that how far we've fallen? Also, the insinuation that the KKK is conservative is a bit off as well. The KKK is white supremacist. That's not "let's keep things how they are." That's a distinct ideology with specific aims.

You and conservapedia are both under the assumption that ultra-pious Christian morality is conservative, but that isn't a universal truth. The religious right in the 1980s was conservative because they were trying to preserve the culture of the 1950s. That culture didn't exist during the Progressive Era. It hadn't materialized yet. It's a misunderstanding of history to think that what we think of as the religious right now was a normal thing 100 years ago. Governance by Protestant morality wasn't conservative in the Progressive Era, it quite literally came out of the Progressive Era. The Roaring 20s was not like the 50s. Progressives, people who wanted to use government policy to make a better society, spent the early 20th century pushing us toward the culture of the 50s, not away from it. That was progressive at that time. Whether or not you like the society they made is your own opinion, but they were reforming society into something that had never before existed in this country.

I deliberately picked Conservapedia because it is a very biased site. If there was a narrative that the Anti-Saloon League was Progressive it would be there. I go check multiple sources to see what each sides say about a certain topic. If they are saying the same thing, then it holds water way more than if only one side proclaimed it.

The KKK was an institution that wanted to go back to a time before the civil war when Whites were in control. Which fits with your definition of Conservative. (i.e. the KKK was nostalgic for the 1850s) Now comes my biggest problem with Conservatives. When they have this nostalgia, it is not based on reality. The 1950s weren't how anyone say the 1950s. By either side.

But I did want to ask you, what do you specifically mean when you say, 'that culture didn't exist during the Progressive Ear." The desire to keep the Nuclear family? Pining for the past? Culture of the 1950s?

Because, things like the Jim Crowe laws are looking back at the past. To before the Civil War. Do you think Jim Crowe was Progressive?

Because here's how I read it. Jim Crowe was a Conservative movement that pushed back (and won) against the Progressives.

Also, do you think that McCarthyism is Progressive? Using public institution to drive towards the 60s culture?

Lastly, because it's called the 'Progressive Era", do you think everything that happened was Progressive?

 

[Agema]

...if you were labeling the defense of gay marriage as conservative or progressive in America at this point, it would be conservative, but someone isn't a Conservative themselves unless they're defending gay marriage for the reason that it's what we do now and it seems to be working alright.

Conservatism is not just defence of the here and now, it can also represent restoration of past policy (irrespective of whether the current status is working). Sometimes, that past can be considerably out of date, even outside the average person's lifespan.

Conservatives, for instance, might support aspects of small government with a rationale that explicitly appeals to (say) pre-1960s. And yes, they may ally with the libertarians, but with the difference that libertarians aren't really motivated by the history.

 

[Trunkage]

I got distracted and forgot to add that Progressives have a massive problem with nostalgia too. If you hadn't noticed, heaps of people on the Left are pining for Obama. Hell, a bunch of them are pining for a 'reasonable' Republican like Bush. Which is such rose colour glasses? Just becuase these two were better than Trump, does not mean they are worth going back to.

Also, Progressives push for inclusion of Native culture. I.e. They become nostalgic for cultures. They are also trying to Conserve the planet. You know, feel nostalgia for a time when 'humans treated the world nicely.' I,e. Conservative. They also pretend certain times were good. Like the 60s, becuase somehow Hippies seems like the only thing that came out of that culture, even though most Baby Boomers are Conservstive, which tends to portray that narrative as partially false

 

[Agema]

Like the 60s, becuase somehow Hippies seems like the only thing that came out of that culture, even though most Baby Boomers are Conservstive, which tends to portray that narrative as partially false

Yesterday's hippies can easily be today's conservatives. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono]

I got distracted and forgot to add that Progressives have a massive problem with nostalgia too. If you hadn't noticed, heaps of people on the Left are pining for Obama. Hell, a bunch of them are pining for a 'reasonable' Republican like Bush. Which is such rose colour glasses? Just becuase these two were better than Trump, does not mean they are worth going back to.

Obama and GWB are to all intents and purposes "current". Political wrangles don't just suddenly end - a major policy shift may take more than a decade to enact and often aren't settled in the public and political mind for years after (take the ACA, enacted in 2010 and still trying to be unravelled by its opponents nine years later).

 

[Seanchaidh]

In the sense that it is necessary but not sufficient, yes, certainly.

Then you don't know what the word means. You can't reform society to what it already is.

I'd call this postmodern moral relativist nonsense, but postmodernists typically wear it better than you are by a long way. It is not magically more reasonable or 'objective' to lack an idea about what constitutes progress vs. regress. Progress is generally regarded as liberation from oligarchy, traditional authoritarian hierarchies and other structures of oppression. Women's suffrage is part of any progressive politics because it is necessary not just to maintaining the current society, but to achieving real democratic rule.

 

[tstorm823]

So, just to recap. Your definition of Conservative is a desire to go back to a certain point in the past.

No. To be conservative is to maintain established practices and resist change. For the most part, that's preserving the present, not going back to the past. Sometimes, it's advocating for policies of the past, if it's recent enough past that one could reasonably believe they'd still work in today's context, but it's not as though someone advocating for feudalism would be a conservative.

I deliberately picked Conservapedia because it is a very biased site. If there was a narrative that the Anti-Saloon League was Progressive it would be there. I go check multiple sources to see what each sides say about a certain topic. If they are saying the same thing, then it holds water way more than if only one side proclaimed it.

I respect that. If you notice, I never use any source right of neutral as evidence. Because in the context of the escapist, I'm right wing, so a source from the right isn't persuasive. But some sources are just too dumb. Conservapedia (and its accidental counterpart RationalWiki) are wiki-styled and blatantly biased. Any random person can post in there, and only crazy partisans ever will, don't trust anything they say.

The KKK was an institution that wanted to go back to a time before the civil war when Whites were in control. Which fits with your definition of Conservative. (i.e. the KKK was nostalgic for the 1850s) Now comes my biggest problem with Conservatives. When they have this nostalgia, it is not based on reality. The 1950s weren't how anyone say the 1950s. By either side.

That's not my definition of Conservative, and it only applies to the KKK the first time. The KKK has formed 3 different times in different ways. The 1860s Klan you could call conservative, people who want to undo the changes from the Civil War that just ended, who fought against the Reconstruction. The other incarnations of the Klan weren't conservative, they're just white supremacists. They're not trying to preserve anything that ever really existed, they want to imagine an America where the Confederacy not only won the war of secession, but dominated the north the way in the way the south was forced to change, and created their psychotic version of America where anyone who isn't white enough and protestant enough is expelled or enslaved. That's demented historical fiction at best.

But I did want to ask you, what do you specifically mean when you say, 'that culture didn't exist during the Progressive Ear." The desire to keep the Nuclear family? Pining for the past? Culture of the 1950s?

The 50s were different from the eras before it. The nuclear family as we know it was basically invented in the 50s. Immediately before it was WWII where families were fractured by war, and before that the idea of a single nuclear family living by themselves wasn't normal. If you were poor, you almost certainly lived with extended family all under the same roof. If you were rich, you probably had hired help maintaining your house. The combination of soldiers returning home, post-war economic resurgence, and advancements in technology that allowed a growing middle class to live in a house like the wealthy without affording a maid generated our concept of a household. Religiosity in America was at a peak, people were less religious before the 50s.

If you were pining for the past in 1915, you weren't pining for the 50s. The 50s hadn't arrived yet. That's what I mean.

Because, things like the Jim Crowe laws are looking back at the past. To before the Civil War. Do you think Jim Crowe was Progressive?

Because here's how I read it. Jim Crowe was a Conservative movement that pushed back (and won) against the Progressives.

No, Jim Crow wasn't progressive, it was a conservative movement. Trying to preserve the pre-civil rights south. You are correct. Except for thinking they were fighting against Progressives. They were fighting against different conservatives, in a sense. It was the conservatives of the north against the conservatives of the south during Reconstruction. Think of the "we spread our Democracy around the world" branch of the Republican Party now.

When it got to the Civil Rights Era, it became southern conservatives vs southern progressives, but the progressives won that fight and Jim Crow died.

Also, do you think that McCarthyism is Progressive? Using public institution to drive towards the 60s culture?

Do you mean McCarthyism as anti-communism, or McCarthyism as the tactic of demonizing a group and then branding people you don't like with that label so you can persecute them? The former isn't progressive, I think by definition that anyone who is progressive or conservative is anti-communist, as communism seeks not to preserve or even reform society, but eliminate society as we know it altogether. The latter might be progressive, there are certainly self-proclaimed "progressives" now willing to dishonestly identify anyone they don't like as a white supremacists to try and chase us out of popular culture entirely. But it wouldn't be progressive because of the means, it would be progressive because of the intent. McCarthyist practices in defense of the status quo could be called conservative, McCarthyist practices with the goal of reforming society to something new would be progressive.

Lastly, because it's called the 'Progressive Era", do you think everything that happened was Progressive?

No, certainly not. But the people trying to find "solutions" to long-standing societal factors they deemed undesirable through eugenics and torturous psychotherapy definitely were.

Conservatism is not just defence of the here and now, it can also represent restoration of past policy (irrespective of whether the current status is working). Sometimes, that past can be considerably out of date, even outside the average person's lifespan.

Conservatives, for instance, might support aspects of small government with a rationale that explicitly appeals to (say) pre-1960s. And yes, they may ally with the libertarians, but with the difference that libertarians aren't really motivated by the history.

Sure, you can be a conservative advocating for past policies (within reason), but that's just another opportunity for competing conservatisms. Those who want the practice of the last decade vs those who want the practice of a few decades ago.

I think the acknowledgement that a progressive position becomes conservative after it wins out is very important, because otherwise you really do become the hammer in search of a nail. It's senseless to try and reform society if people don't acknowledge when they've succeeded. That's just being angry at everything on purpose.

I'd call this postmodern moral relativist nonsense, but postmodernists typically wear it better than you are by a long way.

It's not moral relativism, it's governmental relativism. A key part of progressivism is the knowledge that circumstances of a people and a nation change over time, and the laws need to change with them. If you think there is an objective answer to governance than transcends time and place, you aren't progressive, you're an ideologue.

Progress is generally regarded as liberation from oligarchy, traditional authoritarian hierarchies and other structures of oppression.

No, you're just talking about communism again. You're not a progressive, you're just a communist.

 

[Silvanus]

I'd tear apart this defense, but I don't really have to. It doesn't matter the time period when you lead on "That's not what they mean in a political sense, and it never was."

Oh! Okay, I'll happily amend that: "That's not what they mean in a political sense. It may have been over half a century ago, briefly, but nobody uses them in that sense today".

Yep, much better.

I get it, I'm using a word in a way you're not used to.

In a way almost nobody is used to.

I understand that the paradigm of free market, Christian conservatives vs social welfare, secular progressives is really well established in American political dialogue of the last 30-40 years. But that only works if you only care about America right now.

...you're aware that I'm not American, right? My understanding of these terms is not rooted in US political discourse. The usage you're pushing would be unrecognisable throughout Europe, for decades.

No, you're just talking about communism again. You're not a progressive, you're just a communist.

Wait wait wait-- removal from olicharchy and oppression is communism now?

We've passed peak hyperbole now. This is the kind of absurd rhetoric that got trotted out in the 1920s to argue against even the slightest social progress. Safety gear at work? Communism. Modest pay rise? Communism.

 

[tstorm823]

...you're aware that I'm not American, right? My understanding of these terms is not rooted in US political discourse. The usage you're pushing would be unrecognisable throughout Europe, for decades.

The usage I'm pushing should be patently obvious in Europe. Europe has a wide range of societal and governmental norms in a relatively compact geographical area, it should be really obvious that what's progressive/conservative in Norway isn't the same as it is in Greece.

Wait wait wait-- removal from olicharchy and oppression is communism now?

When specifically Seanchaidh says progress is liberation from traditional authoritarian hierarchies, yes, it's about communism. I say this because the stated goal of communism is a stateless, classless society, and Seanchaidh is a vocal communist.

That's not red-scare hyperbole, that's the actual person I was responding to.

Edit: got Seanchaidh's name wrong the first time. Mea culpa.

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

And it keeps happening. Why won't they think of the children!

This is the new normal. This is the new normal.

I bet it would keep happening if they took the guns away.

 

[Baffle]

According to Wikipedia there's only been 42 deaths and 154 injuries in US mass shootings since this thread started. That's barely any lives ruined at all!

 

[bluegate]

So, just to recap. Your definition of Conservative is a desire to go back to a certain point in the past.

No. To be conservative is to maintain established practices and resist change. For the most part, that's preserving the present, not going back to the past.

Considering how much the world is always changing, imagine being a conservative your entire life, you're on the losing side of history all the time.

I can see why some of them are a bunch of grouches.