The Left Does not Reason

[JohnDonne]

OK, I am interested in what you see as the primary tenants of Progressivism

The progressive part of my brain is of the opinion that with the advent of automation and post-scarcity, the government should start giving people a mincome and let them use their free time to study, innovate and invent. Perhaps then we would see artistic and technological advancements at a truly awe-inspiring scale. But a conservative would be right to question whether it would really be a utopia.

I can see why Progressivism is seductive, you are hoping for Star Trek: The Next Generation.

I will have to give up my inalienable rights or have them taken from me. Once I do, I will be given a stipend for sustenance. I will have some down time to develop myself. There is going to have to be a very powerful government to make this happen. They are going to have to influence people to go along with putting their future into the hands of governments accepted science and technology. To do all this government needs to be large, have the agencies, personnel and resources to influence and if necessary force people to accept governments utopia.

How are we in disagreement about Progressivism ?

I am looking at the alternative to Star Trek which is widespread unemployment and social unrest.

Why do you think it would be significantly more complicated to stream-line our current bureaucratic labyrinths into a mincome agency than to keep doing what we are now? People would have much more time to keep an eye on their politicians that they do now, making for better governments. Also, I propose a healthy supply of guns for the people to keep the government in check.

[JohnDonne]

I'll be back tonight to talk some more folks. And Speakers, I was saying that you cast progressives as being only of two types, which I disagree with. It would be like saying Conservatives only come in the anarcho-libertarian flavor of the authoritarian police state flavor, so choose your poison.

[C-Mag]

I'll be back tonight to talk some more folks. And Speakers, I was saying that you cast progressives as being only of two types, which I disagree with. It would be like saying Conservatives only come in the anarcho-libertarian flavor of the authoritarian police state flavor, so choose your poison.

Yeah, lets talk later, I'm enjoying the discussion.

I need to start a thread on why Conservatives Suck, and they do in a lot of areas. That's why I would never call myself a Conservative.

FYI - As far as Star Trek goes, I would definitely have to be a Maquis in the Badlands. You can keep Federation HQ and Utopia Planetia.

[Speaker to Animals]

I'll be back tonight to talk some more folks. And Speakers, I was saying that you cast progressives as being only of two types, which I disagree with. It would be like saying Conservatives only come in the anarcho-libertarian flavor of the authoritarian police state flavor, so choose your poison.

For the most part, there really are only two groups. The issue with the marxists, however, is that it's a matter of how deep they wade into that pool of madness coupled with the fact that few of them are willing to admit this garbage they subscribed to is in fact marxism.

[jbird4049]

You mean this to be sarcastic and sardonic but we all know it is a copout because you are a cowardly bitch.

Why the personal insults? Does it contribute anything to the conversation? Except for destroying them, that is.

Once again when you cant respond to my substantive points you tsk tsk school marm tone police as if for the last 30 pages you and your allies havent been mollycoddling violent sjws, coporte dem shills and the hissyfit they throw. Save it, pipsqueak. Unless you are going to hand out the same admonishment to GCF you are just being partisan hack ass or simply angry at an inequious creator that bestowed such gifts to one as to be able to offer substintive arguments on the one side while handing out such profrane insults that it makes libertine liberals clutch their anal beads in shock and horror. I know I would be too.

True, I owe you some responses especially in my promised accurate, to me, explanation of the changes of our political parties.

It's also true, at least to me, that you are being gratuitous in your insults.

So why are you being so insulting?

[de officiis]

Why the personal insults? Does it contribute anything to the conversation? Except for destroying them, that is.

Once again when you cant respond to my substantive points you tsk tsk school marm tone police as if for the last 30 pages you and your allies havent been mollycoddling violent sjws, coporte dem shills and the hissyfit they throw. Save it, pipsqueak. Unless you are going to hand out the same admonishment to GCF you are just being partisan hack ass or simply angry at an inequious creator that bestowed such gifts to one as to be able to offer substintive arguments on the one side while handing out such profrane insults that it makes libertine liberals clutch their anal beads in shock and horror. I know I would be too.

True, I owe you some responses especially in my promised accurate, to me, explanation of the changes of our political parties.

It's also true, at least to me, that you are being gratuitous in your insults.

So why are you being so insulting?

Don't take it personally; that's just clubby being clubby, ain't no avoiding it. Cut to the substance and be done with it.

[LVH2]

The underlying theme is the marxist concept of historical determinism. They believe there exists a direction to history, at the end of which they will realize their social utopia on Earth.

It's a quasi-religious concept.

It's also why they freaked out so hard when Trump won the election. The fact that they lost all power indicates they in fact are *not* on the "right side of history", and they simply don't know how to process it. It's as if their religion were proved totally wrong before their eyes.

The word "progressivism" has always been a slogan that means different things to different people. It's a way of recasting your political goals as somehow predetermined and necessarily right without having to justify or explain them very well. The people who call themselves progressives today fall into two camps: marxists and globalists.


I would caution people to not conflate globalists with marixsts either. They may align on certain issues for now, but ultimately, if they are successful, one will have to destroy the other.

That really comes from Hegel, who could not have been a Marxist or a Globalist since he predated them.

I guess it was quasi religious in that he was always on about Spirit and Reason. He seemed religious to me, but others think not. I had a really hard time understanding him, tbh.

Even if your belief that every liberal, leftist and centrist dem. have all secretly understood and adhered to Marx were true, the assertion about Trump would not be.

History is a process in which ideas clash, not a smooth transition from a to b to c. Marxists, in particular, would expect to see greater levels of conflict leading to revolution.

At least for Hegel (who I remember more than Marx (believe it or not!) it is thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

I am in fact sympathetic to this view. I think our recent history is something like this. A more or less authentic liberal democracy (the US, UK etc.) clashed with totalitarianism, driven by psychopathy (USSR, The Axis). Liberal Democracy won, but now trending towards the absorption of the totalitarian, the fascist more than the communist as it's being driven by corporate dominance.

While I dislike Trump, I think one of the positive things about his election and Brexit is that it represents a recognition and resistance to this pattern. I think we picked the wrong man for the job, but he's doing some good things like burying the TPP, and hopefully the push back continues.

I understand that you will think this is a lie, because according to some youtube I am either a marxist or a globalist.

I think it could be an interesting thread. Since this is a history forum. What, if any, philosophy of history people believe in.

It does seem to me that history has some sort of direction driven by things other than chance.

[LVH2]

[Montegriffo]

Once again when you cant respond to my substantive points you tsk tsk school marm tone police as if for the last 30 pages you and your allies havent been mollycoddling violent sjws, coporte dem shills and the hissyfit they throw. Save it, pipsqueak. Unless you are going to hand out the same admonishment to GCF you are just being partisan hack ass or simply angry at an inequious creator that bestowed such gifts to one as to be able to offer substintive arguments on the one side while handing out such profrane insults that it makes libertine liberals clutch their anal beads in shock and horror. I know I would be too.

True, I owe you some responses especially in my promised accurate, to me, explanation of the changes of our political parties.

It's also true, at least to me, that you are being gratuitous in your insults.

So why are you being so insulting?

Don't take it personally; that's just clubby being clubby, ain't no avoiding it. Cut to the substance and be done with it.

I really don't understand why everyone turns a blind eye or even supports Clubby being Clubby. His insults are clearly designed to shut down debate yet the whole point of us being here is to debate. Every single time I challenge him he resorts to calling me a child fucker and everyone turns a blind eye. It's frankly disgusting behaviour but it seems everyone is so scared to be his next target of abuse they just ignore it.
Either you all condone his behaviour or you are frightened to challenge it.
Makes me want to give up sometimes but then I've let him win so I will continue to challenge it.....

[clubgop]

So why are you being so insulting?

Dirty dick and the tawdry teetotalling terrorist toddler trebuchet tosser lorry lover bring out the best in me.