Jump to content

What's wrong with Progressivism?


Airbrush
 Share

Recommended Posts

Then please, dispel my so called confusion, and tell when exactly the term Anglo-Saxon became non-standard.

It is part of the cultural mosaic of the Enlish poples, along with the Bretons, the Flemings, and other cultures.

"Old English (Englisċ, pronounced [ˈeŋɡliʃ]), or Anglo-Saxon,[1] is the earliest recorded form of the English language, spoken in England and southern and eastern Scotland in the early Middle Ages. It was brought to Great Britain by Anglo-Saxon settlers in the mid-5th century,"

From       Old English - Wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, MigL said:

Then please, dispel my so called confusion, and tell when exactly the term Anglo-Saxon became non-standard.

It is part of the cultural mosaic of the Enlish poples, along with the Bretons, the Flemings, and other cultures.

"Old English (Englisċ, pronounced [ˈeŋɡliʃ]), or Anglo-Saxon,[1] is the earliest recorded form of the English language, spoken in England and southern and eastern Scotland in the early Middle Ages. It was brought to Great Britain by Anglo-Saxon settlers in the mid-5th century,"

From       Old English - Wikipedia

927 A.D. when it became the Kingdom of England, led by King Aethelsten. Prior to that it was a group of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. 'Anglo-Saxon' is an archaic descriptor. It's like calling modern Canadians 'Franco-English'.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

'Anglo-Saxon' is an archaic descriptor.

Archaic ? Yes.
And as English Royalty was of Anglo-Saxon descent, saying Anglo-Saxon English is equivalent to saying the King's, or Queen's, English. Also equally archaic.

What I want to know, as apparently it is moi that is confused, is how this follows ...

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Saying you aren't a racist while using non-standard terms like Anglo-Saxon

If you look for racism, you'll find it everywhere.
But a few times, the prejudices and intolerance are actually in your own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 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.

This seems similar to the current progressive playbook...attack the individual...don't even consider the intended context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Archaic ? Yes.
And as English Royalty was of Anglo-Saxon descent, saying Anglo-Saxon English is equivalent to saying the King's, or Queen's, English. Also equally archaic.

What I want to know, as apparently it is moi that is confused, is how this follows ...

Like I said, it's a way of distinguishing themselves as a more 'legitimate' inhabitant because they have been in a place far longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

One can be English and Ango-Saxon,

One can be it, yes (Polievre is supposedly of Irish heritage) but very few academic linguists can actually speak it (Maybe he is one, but I doubt he speaks it in public: the audience would have a better chance of understanding French. Still avoiding the extreme sacrifice of listening to Peterson interview, I'm willing to give odds he said it modern, impure, French-Celt-German influenced English. To make a cultural distinction with no embedded political code.)  

Quote

And as English Royalty was of Anglo-Saxon descent, saying Anglo-Saxon English is equivalent to saying the King's, or Queen's, English. Also equally archaic.

They may have been, before the Norman conquest, though perhaps not English and not royalty as we understand the terms. Now, they're not. And I bet they don't speak it, either. It's not the same as, it's not like, it's not equivalent to or interchangeable with:  it's either an informed or an uninformed lie and there was a reason for telling it.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/house-of-Windsor

3 hours ago, MigL said:

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

Yes. Politicians do keep saying that, but it keeps not happening, except in the aftermath of a military attack from abroad, and what they actually do when they 'get together' is activate the mechanism of war. I don't think that will get universal health care done. So: Which specific people - by name, party affiliation and rank - should be coming together? By what practicable means can the relevant persons be brought together? And how will the forgiveness of mistakes speeches go? 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This seems similar to the current progressive playbook...attack the individual...don't even consider the intended context.

That was a response to the actual context, if not the intended one.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If you look for racism, you'll find it everywhere.
But a few times, the prejudices and intolerance are actually in your own mind.

And other times language really is coded and being used nefariously by groups in growing numbers despite you’re lack of personal awareness of them doing so. 

See also: Urban, inner city, blighted, etc.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/07/13/recognizing-that-words-have-the-power-to-harm-we-commit-to-using-more-just-language-to-describe-places/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In part this is brought up as some of the organizers of the recent trukcer or convoy protests (which involved rather few truckers) are white nationalists who have promoted the "anglo-saxon replacement" theory. So yes, we are in a territory where certain words are co-opted by racists.

Now, it is entirely possible that Poilievre, who condemned the the replacement theory after the Buffalo attack, was not aware of these usages, which would that he is surprisingly badly informed about current happenings in Canada (I mean the convoy and its instigators were quite prominently in the news (and in the streets).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2022 at 11:47 AM, beecee said:

But progressivnism like political correctnness can reach a stage of going mad and silly and shooting themselves in the foot in the progress.

d1c935482626006aac58136c72895db0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MigL said:

You mean like 'indigenous' or 'native North American' ?

Yes, but the difference is they are existent in the present moment and Anglo-Saxons are skeletal in the ground or in museums.

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

d1c935482626006aac58136c72895db0.jpg

Progressivism is nearly always alien to Luddites, obviously, as your silly photo implies. If you take that personally, I don't mind. :)  We shouldn't deny as a society what we have learned since your time as youngster.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Two questions. 1. When adjusted for wealth or just income? 2. Which problem is foremost, the discrepancy due to wealth with race factored out or the discrepancy due to race with wealth factored out?

I would need to go through all of them again, but most of the time income as a measure is used. That being said, there are a few studies looking at wealth separate from income and overall it seems that income had a higher effect on improving health outcomes rather than incorporating wealth.

An older study showed that African Americans had a 67% higher likelihood of dying than White Americans when accounting for age sex and marital status. Including wealth reduced it to 54% and introducing income (without wealth) the difference was "only" 43%. So while wealth and income attenuate issues, it clearly does not come close to closing it. The other observation in other studies is that whenever there is an economic downturn, black folks are more vulnerable to these effects. 

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

In 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?

That is an interesting question, and there is no clear answer, mostly as universal health care system differ quite a lot. In Canada provincial differences are huge and depending on racial composition it could be difficult to compare national data. However, I do expect that with improved access much of the bigger issues we see in the US to be attenuated. A lot will also depend on the characteristics of the non-white population. In the US native black Americans fare much worse than recent black immigrants, for example. And in the UK and Canada, recent immigration of highly educated folks with high income would need to be separated out from these issues.  That being said, there are still erroneous assumption and mistreatments in happening in universal health care system even fairly recently (forced or coerced sterilization, for example), but I would need to see what is out there in literature. 

I should also add that for about the last 10 years the medical community has become more aware of racial inequities and also has allowed more research in that area to happen. As such, practices are (slowly) changing relevant to racial disparities and I know that these conversations are also happening in Canada. I would need to take some time to find numbers but I will say that in order to uncover issues, it would be necessary to conduct research that actually tries to quantify inequities.

As an anecdote, when I was doing more research looking at biomarkers of health, several of my proposals were shot down because the area I had collaborations with serviced more black folks. The reviewers contended that those were not representative of the majority white population and were therefore not of interest. I am moderately sure that today I had a much better show to have this cohort included.

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If wealth is the leading factor, why is racism so often assumed to be the driving factor?

It depends on the definition of racism, and I think you might think of something else. Racism in this context is refers to a system that does something that somehow results in different outcomes, depending on your race. It may or may not have roots in some racists ideology and it really does not matter for this. Often, it is a mix. 

As I mentioned, wealth or income affect the outcome, but do not explain it sufficiently. Others include things like living in an area with little to know medical services or with underfunded schools or any of the dozen positive factors that even poor white folks have access to. The way to think about it is that we have a black box (the complete system that affects health) and if we put a white person in and a black person with same income wealth and so on, we get different outcomes. This is the issue with systemic racism. It is not about someone being shitty to someone or even someone thinks badly about a race. It is a system (such as a medical algorithm) that somehow and even inadvertently creates inequity, even if it was not designed to so. As such race-blind measures require at minimum non-race blind analyses to figure out whether they do create equity. Historically, we have been really bad at it.

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Easy to blame the GOP here, rightfully so,but are the Dems not implicated in much of this also? Especially when they are so quick to pick up and wield the racism club, and all the while protect the Clintons and the Bidens.

Of course, not political party in pretty much any country is free from blame. I am not sure why it seems to be a kind of revelation to you. The main difference I would say is that at least in recent times Dems try to say they are better than that whereas the GOP has weaponized racism to rally their base. So I think the way to look at it is that there is a weak hope that the Dems are willing to undo some of the harm they have done and the GOP is hellbent not to, as it seems to be their new identity fetish.

 

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How much more progress could be made if the "progressives" were more intent on real progress, and less on identity politics and power?

Not sure, but the GOP has shown how powerful identity politics is. You can do whatever you want and lie the heck out of it and still escape repercussions. Meanwhile, Dems have to acknowledge that black folks exist lest they lose their elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nice breakdown on what "systemic racism" means.  I don't think progressives can do other than continue to recognize it exists and patiently show how.  

 

Idiot side note: I used to have a couple pairs of rather conservative black socks.  When I tugged them on, I'd say to my partner, I am putting my Anglo socks on.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Now, it is entirely possible that Poilievre, who condemned the the replacement theory after the Buffalo attack, was not aware of these usages, which would that he is surprisingly badly informed about current happenings in Canada (I mean the convoy and its instigators were quite prominently in the news (and in the streets).

Sure, that's possible. He may simply mean a strong repudiation of the French influence on the English language, on culture in general and Canadian culture in particular. Maybe he's just a Western Separatist - as ignorant of geography as he is of history and language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I would need to go through all of them again, but most of the time income as a measure is used. That being said, there are a few studies looking at wealth separate from income and overall it seems that income had a higher effect on improving health outcomes rather than incorporating wealth.

An older study showed that African Americans had a 67% higher likelihood of dying than White Americans when accounting for age sex and marital status. Including wealth reduced it to 54% and introducing income (without wealth) the difference was "only" 43%. So while wealth and income attenuate issues, it clearly does not come close to closing it. The other observation in other studies is that whenever there is an economic downturn, black folks are more vulnerable to these effects. 

That is an interesting question, and there is no clear answer, mostly as universal health care system differ quite a lot. In Canada provincial differences are huge and depending on racial composition it could be difficult to compare national data. However, I do expect that with improved access much of the bigger issues we see in the US to be attenuated. A lot will also depend on the characteristics of the non-white population. In the US native black Americans fare much worse than recent black immigrants, for example. And in the UK and Canada, recent immigration of highly educated folks with high income would need to be separated out from these issues.  That being said, there are still erroneous assumption and mistreatments in happening in universal health care system even fairly recently (forced or coerced sterilization, for example), but I would need to see what is out there in literature. 

I should also add that for about the last 10 years the medical community has become more aware of racial inequities and also has allowed more research in that area to happen. As such, practices are (slowly) changing relevant to racial disparities and I know that these conversations are also happening in Canada. I would need to take some time to find numbers but I will say that in order to uncover issues, it would be necessary to conduct research that actually tries to quantify inequities.

As an anecdote, when I was doing more research looking at biomarkers of health, several of my proposals were shot down because the area I had collaborations with serviced more black folks. The reviewers contended that those were not representative of the majority white population and were therefore not of interest. I am moderately sure that today I had a much better show to have this cohort included.

It depends on the definition of racism, and I think you might think of something else. Racism in this context is refers to a system that does something that somehow results in different outcomes, depending on your race. It may or may not have roots in some racists ideology and it really does not matter for this. Often, it is a mix. 

As I mentioned, wealth or income affect the outcome, but do not explain it sufficiently. Others include things like living in an area with little to know medical services or with underfunded schools or any of the dozen positive factors that even poor white folks have access to. The way to think about it is that we have a black box (the complete system that affects health) and if we put a white person in and a black person with same income wealth and so on, we get different outcomes. This is the issue with systemic racism. It is not about someone being shitty to someone or even someone thinks badly about a race. It is a system (such as a medical algorithm) that somehow and even inadvertently creates inequity, even if it was not designed to so. As such race-blind measures require at minimum non-race blind analyses to figure out whether they do create equity. Historically, we have been really bad at it.

Of course, not political party in pretty much any country is free from blame. I am not sure why it seems to be a kind of revelation to you. The main difference I would say is that at least in recent times Dems try to say they are better than that whereas the GOP has weaponized racism to rally their base. So I think the way to look at it is that there is a weak hope that the Dems are willing to undo some of the harm they have done and the GOP is hellbent not to, as it seems to be their new identity fetish.

 

Not sure, but the GOP has shown how powerful identity politics is. You can do whatever you want and lie the heck out of it and still escape repercussions. Meanwhile, Dems have to acknowledge that black folks exist lest they lose their elections.

Thanks and+1. I think you are a little too forgiving of the Dems shortcomings but good post and thanks for the effort.

In your opinion or impression though, is it fair to say you believe systemic racism is more of a factor than systemic wealthism? Or am I reading you wrong, or do you feel they haven't been factored out enough for you to say or feel you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with 'progressivism' and the betterment of the human condition.
The problems are in how we go about implementing the 'betterment', and while I don't need to point out the ways in which most Republicans go about it the wrong way because everyone is aware of it, trying to point out the ways Democrats are going about it wrong immediately brings out incriminations of racism.

Take this perfectly valid point 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

As such race-blind measures require at minimum non-race blind analyses to figure out whether they do create equity.

Yet 20 years ago, the common opinion amongst so-called progressives was that non-race blind analysis of things like crime, family abandonment, employment, and other factors which most consider nimportant for the 'health' of a society, were considered discriminatory.
Maybe these statistics were being used for the wrong reasons, but in the long run, they would have identifiedthe root causes of the resultant conditions.

I am not prepard to excuse Republicans for their many wrong-doings, but I will also not excuse Democrats ( who label themselves 'progressives' ) for their few, simply because they are the better choice.

 

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, but the difference is they are existent in the present moment and Anglo-Saxons are skeletal in the ground or in museums.

So the difference being an older culture versus a contemporary one ?
But still a culture nonetheless.
( you have really long arms to reach that far 🙂 )

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Sure, that's possible.

But it's much asier to simply jump to conclusions and throw out 'racist' accusations.
Not saying you specifically did, but many find it  easier to believe the worst about people based on superficial information.
( the very definition of bigotry and prejudice )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Progressivism is nearly always alien to Luddites, obviously, as your silly photo implies. If you take that personally, I don't mind. :)  We shouldn't deny as a society what we have learned since your time as youngster.

Totally wrong of course but I can understand your predicement and why you are blinkered. This "new age" thinking that one must envelop all forms of progressivism and extremes of PC, is pretentious at best. 

We have just elected a new "progressive central" government in Australia, and rejected the  and far right loonies, as well as those loonies on the far left. I'm confident unlike the previous conservative government, they will govern wisely for all Australians, most of who thankfully are of a  sensible and balanced progression, and acceptance of reasonable PC.

Reasonable, sensible and inevitable progressivism is the desire of most Australians including me and will in time be achieved. You know Stringy, the real meaty stuff like climate change action and alternate forms of energy...Old age and disability and care...equal pay...a livable mnimum wage...strenghtening of medicare...cheaper child care for working parents...recognition and consideration to our indigenous Australians and the Uluru statement enshrined in the constitution. All those reasonable sensible policies are the platform of Australia's new governemnt, and yet is already hearing cries of "we are doomed" from the far right ratbags, and the usual fucking "not going far enough nonsense" from the equal loony far left.

Thankfully sanity will prevail and the extremeties of both ends will rightly be like the words of a Sarah Brightman song, 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

But it's much asier to simply jump to conclusions and throw out 'racist' accusations.
Not saying you specifically did, but many find it  easier to believe the worst about people based on superficial information.

The superficial information is of a quantity and nature and smell akin to the circumstantial evidence a preponderance of which sometimes gets people hanged. 

And is it really all that much more noble if he's just insulting French-Canadians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations on your new Labor Government Beecee.
i understand you helped out canvassing and spreading the word.

I hope you will still criticise any mistakes they make.
How else will they learn to do better yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

So the difference being an older culture versus a contemporary one ?
But still a culture nonetheless.

Not anymore, and certainly not his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Congratulations on your new Labor Government Beecee.
i understand you helped out canvassing and spreading the word.

I hope you will still criticise any mistakes they make.
How else will they learn to do better yet.

When I was a young hairy arse brat, I was a Labor party member.

And sure I'll criticise when they make mistakes, and some will be made...minor I hope.

Here is the PM elect's acceptance speech......

Thanks for the thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

And is it really all that much more noble if he's just insulting French-Canadians?

I didn't say he's not a jackass, and I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
I said jumping to conclusions about his character and motives based on superficial information is the very definition of what some are accusing him of.

 

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Not anymore, and certainly not his.

So who are all these guys ?

Category:Extinct Native American tribes - Wikipedia

And is the heading of the Wiki article racist ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I suppose what conservatives see as "progressive" is more so referring to "socially progressive". 

The main problems that Republicans have with social progressivism is that according to them, it is decadent. Now to the extent in which something can be considered decadent (and even more difficult if it is a society) is debateable. However, according to the Republican Party it is a huge issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

So who are all these guys ?

I'm guessing a comprehensive list of people who will never go on a Jordan Peterson program and lie about their language.

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.