Jump to content

What's wrong with Progressivism?


Airbrush
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

"Considered" is different from getting out the racism club, and swinging it at everything one does not like. 

I wonder whether using this term 'racism club' (twice) is indicative of a particular sort of pre-judgment of another poster's motivation. And I wonder whether the inclusive but unspecific phrase 'everything one does not like' indicated less than objective or incisive intellectual inquiry.

Is the 'racism club' a hyper-inflated version of the old  'racism card'? 'Playing the racism card' was a charge that used to be levelled at anyone who mentioned historical bias in relation to the distribution of anything from baby clinics to public transport to polling stations to secondary schools. Now that the very same inequalities of distribution have remained  unchanged or increased through space-age gerymandering, the not-very-effective card has grown into an equally ineffective club....

....which, I'm guessing, is only ever used by "progressives" who still don't like everything they didn't like 50 years ago.     

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And while my charges and blame might not seem to be toward the GOP, re-read my posts, I've acknowledged it and don't feel the need to sing it back to the choir here, given the actual topic of the thread.

 

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

n countries with more universal health care systems, how do the root causes of the discrepancies differ? How much of what is considered  systemic racism would disappear with a more universal health care system in place?

This, OTH, is a meaningful question. I would very much like to know the answer. Or at least be shown the way to an investigation of the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I wonder whether using this term 'racism club' (twice) is indicative of a particular sort of pre-judgment of another poster's motivation.

It's indicative of my view on "what's wrong with progressivism". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

And while my charges and blame might not seem to be toward the GOP, re-read my posts, I've acknowledged it and don't feel the need to sing it back to the choir here.

Throwing another vague cliche at an unasked question goes no way at all toward the the question of how language is used,  subverted, perverted and corrupted. 

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It [the term racism club]'s indicative of my view on "what's wrong with progressivism". 

Yes.... Only the OP question was not so much directed at "What are progressives doing wrong?" as at "What's so bad about progressivism itself, that it must be avoided, even at the cost of reinstating the most grotesquely destructive presidency the US ever had."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, CharonY said:

Race and gender blind measures have therefore a history of not working out well, if the existing biases are not considered.

 

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

"Considered" is different from getting out the racism club, and swinging it at everything one does not like. 

@ Peterkin: I originally typed ""Considered" is different from getting out the racism club, and swinging it at everything you don't like."

But changed it as I didn't want to suggest CY was doing that...It is certainly a tactic I've observed in other posters...but the intent was toward the topic.

I often don't agree with CY, but his posts are at least more thoughtful than clublike.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

And while my charges and blame might not seem to be toward the GOP, re-read my posts, I've acknowledged it and don't feel the need to sing it back to the choir here, given the actual topic of the thread.

 

The actual question of the thread is, what's wrong with progress and why is it an ism? IMHO...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Throwing another vague cliche at an unasked question goes no way at all toward the the question of how language is used,  subverted, perverted and corrupted. 

Yes.... Only the OP question was not so much directed at "What are progressives doing wrong?" as at "What's so bad about progressivism itself, that it must be avoided, even at the cost of reinstating the most grotesquely destructive presidency the US ever had."

Or how about, "what elements of current progressivism should be avoided, so as to avoid paving the way for Trump part 2?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But changed it as I didn't want to suggest CY was doing that...It is certainly a tactic I've observed in other posters...but the intent was toward the topic.

I believe you. What I'm getting at is the phrase itself. What does it mean literally? What does it mean culturally? What does its use indicate to another person speaking that symbolic language? I don't use those terms, and so to me, as an outsider, they sound like a code - they seem to stand for much assumption that is undeclared and unspecified.

The charge "playing the race card" used to be a charge levelled at at anyone who raised the possibility of bias to defend a visible minority from some punitive action by an authority. Sometimes the defence was wrong and bias was not a factor.  Sometimes the defence was right and bias was a factor. In all cases, the objective of the phrase "playing the race card" was to stop probing into whether it was or was not: a kind of verbal shut-off valve to inquiry.

And that's what I wonder about this blunter, more graphic version of the term.    

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Or how about, "what elements of current progressivism should be avoided, so as to avoid paving the way for Trump part 2?"

An excellent new topic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I believe you. What I'm getting at is the phrase itself. What does it mean literally? What does it mean culturally? What does its use indicate to another person speaking that symbolic language? I don't use those terms, and so to me, as an outsider, they sound like a code - they seem to stand for much assumption that is undeclared and unspecified.

The charge "playing the race card" used to be a charge levelled at at anyone who raised the possibility of bias to defend a visible minority from some punitive action by an authority. Sometimes the defence was wrong and bias was not a factor.  Sometimes the defence was right and bias was a factor. In all cases, the objective of the phrase "playing the race card" was to stop probing into whether it was or was not: a kind of verbal shut-off valve to inquiry.

And that's what I wonder about this blunter, more graphic version of the term.    

An excellent new topic!

That's the Catch 22 isn't it? How do you recognize the difference in this political climate? Sometimes "the club" is obvious and sometimes less so. Sometimes the accusation of "race card" is attacking genuine concern. Both sides call "wolf" or act like chicken little too often and too often you hear crickets from the side of the bad actor.

(apologies for this borrowed metaphor word salad, but hope my point gets across)

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That's the Catch 22 isn't it? How do you recognize the difference in this political climate? Sometimes "the club" is obvious and sometimes less so. Sometimes the accusation of "race card" is attacking genuine concern. Both sides call "wolf" or act like chicken little too often and too often you hear crickets from the side of the bad actor.

Well, that explanation of linguistic usage is.... quite endarkening. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that progs could focus strongly on economic and eco reforms, without so much energy expended on waging culture wars or spreading shallow memes. IOW stay positive.  Don't attack, but also don't pretend Trumpism has any merits or that it can be wooed into some "bipartisan" efforts.  No sense wasting time on Faux News zombies.  Just tell people what progress can be achieved and put your backs into getting everyone to the polls.  Make sure every obstacle to voting can be vaulted over by those the GOP wants to disenfranchise.  Bring back the Kennedy maxim of "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

  

On 5/18/2022 at 11:39 PM, Airbrush said:

"Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform.[1] Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition, progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread around the world from Europe."

 

D.T. "progressive" (using your definition of the word)? Seriously?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02800-9

"How Trump damaged science — and why it could take decades to recover"

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/27/scientists-just-ran-the-numbers-on-how-much-trump-could-damage-the-planet/

"Scientists just ran the numbers on how much Trump could damage the planet"

 

https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/president-trump-announces-withdrawal-paris-agreement-0

"President Trump Announces Withdrawal From Paris Agreement"

 

...plus countless other examples that directly contradict the definition...

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, TheVat said:

  Bring back the Kennedy maxim of "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country."  

I remember Robert Ringer (civil libertarian) translating this as "Ask not what the people in power can do for you, ask what you can do for the people in power" He was entertaining if nothing else.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I remember Robert Ringer (civil libertarian) translating this as "Ask not what the people in power can do for you, ask what you can do for the people in power" He was entertaining if nothing else.

I wouldn't vote for him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Just tell people what progress can be achieved and put your backs into getting everyone to the polls.  Make sure every obstacle to voting can be vaulted over by those the GOP wants to disenfranchise.  Bring back the Kennedy maxim of "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country."  

I suspect it's too late for that. The chasms are too deep and too old; assumptions and perceptions have been indelibly imprinted on generations of minds. In the graphic-saturated, metaphor-dripping, slogan-heavy, logo-encrusted symbolic communication matrix of our times, anyone speaking in plain text is inaudible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plain text from someone who beat a ten-term incumbent on small donations.  

 

“We open doors so others can walk through them.”

– Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"When we talk about the word 'socialism,' I think what it really means is just democratic participation in our economic dignity and our economic, social, and racial dignity. It is about direct representation and people actually having power and stake over their economic and social wellness, at the end of the day."

-- AOC

We have to stick to the message: What are we proposing to the American people? Not, ‘What are we fighting against?’”

- AOC

“We don’t have time to sit on our hands as our planet burns. For young people, climate change is bigger than election or re-election. It’s life or death.”

- AOC

"Solving an unprecedented crisis will require unprecedented ambition.”

- AOC

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No wonder so many minions of the F(orces)o(f)D(arkness) want to assassinate her. I'm just glad they're incompetent! 

But then Bernie Sanders didn't get to be president, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This seems similar to folks who've posted here claiming NOT to be a creationist, yet they use terms like "Darwinian evolution". Riiiiiiight, you're not a creationist.

I think you are confused, and in the wrong thread.

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Guess I'm not voting for that guy!

Neither would I. But we are not discussing elections.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I wonder whether using this term 'racism club' (twice) is indicative of a particular sort of pre-judgment of another poster's motivation.

That's rich, since you seem to think using the term Anglo-Saxon', a cultural distinction, makes one a racist.
Is that not a pre-judgement ?

 

Back to the OP, which has as usual been hijacked to concentrate on the distinction between American Democrats and Republicans.
( there are other countries in the world. Really! Look at a map )

The biggest problem wth America is that its two Political parties will not work together to ensure progress.
Sometimes that is as easy as recognising that even though your side is 'better', they can make mistakes too, and need to be called on them
The betterment of American society needs three things to happen as soon as possible.
The aversion of anything 'socialist' or even 'communist' needs to be discarded, by the people and Government.
Some things are better handled together, not privately. Currently the capitalism/socialism/communism balance is totally skewed in the US ( as Phi has often said when he's not busy attacking me ).
That would imply the second need, a universal health care system, to lessen inequalities between rich and poor.
No-one should get sick or die because they can't afford treatment.
And third, get rid of the Scond Amendment, and regulate gun use.
The NRA and their lobbyists ( any lobbyists ) should have no say in the matter; it is up to the people.

If the people in power were not constantly butting heads with their opponents, America could do anything it wanted, from solutions to Global Warming, to reducing poverty/inequality, and putting a man on Mars.
They have done similar things before, when people and Government came together.
Politicians need to remind people of that.
Not the current situation when something as simple as a vaccine to keep you healthy is used as a wedge to keep those in power where they are by polarizing their base.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, MigL said:

Neither would I. But we are not discussing elections.

I rather think Pierre Polievre is... and it's somewhat at odds, both with his adopted name in a nation where that might otherwise be an asset, and with his own citizenship, though perfectly congruent with the values of some neighbours https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2021/04/17/new-conservative-group-would-save-anglo-saxon-traditions.html.

 

45 minutes ago, MigL said:

That's rich, since you seem to think using the term Anglo-Saxon', a cultural distinction, makes one a racist.
Is that not a pre-judgement ?

Neither. One may question the significance of another's choice of words without calling them names. I asked questions that seemed relevant to the subject. Further to which:  In what way is the term Anglo-Saxon a cultural distinction from English, and where did I say anyone was racist - let alone that their use of a specific cultural distinction makes them so? I was simply investigating the possible connotations of a particular person in a particular position making that particular cultural distinction in a particular venue to a particular audience - whether that had any political, rather than purely linguistic implications.

Linguistically, it's rubbish: an obviously false claim to a language nobody has actually spoken since the middle ages; culturally, it's an implausible negation of the Norman-French influence which has so pervaded English language, political organization and law that the user would have to go re-learn it from Vikings and Angle farmers who are currently unavailable.  I suspect they took their vaunted values with them.

 

45 minutes ago, MigL said:

They have done similar things before, when people and Government came together.
Politicians need to remind people of that.

Sounds wonderful. Which people should be coming together and how is that approach to be effected?   

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Sounds wonderful. Which people should be coming together and how is that approach to be effected? 

... it would be; but some people just read/see their triggers ...

36 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sometimes that is as easy as recognising that even though your side is 'better', they can make mistakes too, and need to be called on them

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I rather think he is.

 

Neither. I asked questions that seemed relevant to the subject. Further to which:  In what way is the term Anglo-Saxon a cultural distinction from English, and where did I say anyone was racist - let alone that their use of a specific cultural makes them so? I was simply investigating the possible connotations of a particular person in a particular position making that particular cultural distinction in a particular venue to a particular audience - whether that had any political, rather than purely linguistic implications.

 

Sounds wonderful. Which people should be coming together and how is that approach to be effected?   

One can be English and Ango-Saxon, but one cannot be Ango-Saxon and have non-white immigrant ancestry. It's a way of distingushing white English people from  naturalised English people i.e have non-English ancestry. The motives are malign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

I think you are confused, and in the wrong thread.

Saying you aren't a racist while using non-standard terms like Anglo-Saxon is a lot like saying you aren't a creationist while using non-standard terms like Darwinian evolution. You seemed confused, so I spelled it all out for you. Or perhaps you replied to the wrong thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.