The Reality Of Progressivism

[Diogenes]

In the mean time it's counter productive to alienate the people you wish to convert. They are all just homo sapiens. All that needs to be done is push the right button. The button that triggers "hands on ears shutdown mode" is not the right button.

I debate myself about this very issue from time to time. In practice, I find there are people who cannot be swayed by any amount of facts, reasoning and examples. They have simply soulmated with their ideas, and will not be dissuaded.

The only thing to be done with such people is to make them and their ideas look ridiculous. I. E. to show them to be the fools they are. I count this as a positive outcome. It achieves some utility out of people who are worse than useless, indeed, people who are detrimental to society and humanity because of the horrible ideas they spread.

Regarding other people who might be persuaded, it is best to not be too strident. (yeah, I know. coming from me! Ha ha)

Much of the time, I substitute milder language and images than what I prefer in an effort to not offend too many people, or to not offend them too badly. Much of the discussion is really aimed at the lurkers and not the debating opponent. It is a given that people generally will not back down from their positions in a public argument. Too much social status is tied up in not being wrong, or not being made to look foolish.

[Diogenes]

I come to this website because it is related to plasma and fusion energy, and has typically been open to anyone to contribute.

I have no desire to debate your political discontent. I have given no background to my own political ideology, or stated any political topic to debate, and yet you have already labeled me a zombie progressive. You have simply continued to do what I have already accused you of; building up the word progressive as something to be looked down on, and then used it to try and bring down my own credibility. So, ask yourself who is really doing what here.

I liked it when talk polywell was a-political, but that door has already been opened. I know the owner of the site (Joe Strout) preferred the site to be free of politics, but is unhappily tolerant regarding it being used this way. I make a point to keep my political opinions off any area except for the general.

Maybe I am "a progressive", or maybe I'm not.

For some reason this reminds me of the Shaun Connery line in "the Untouchables."

Malone: OK, pal, why the mahaska? Why are you carrying the gun?
Ness: I'm a treasury officer.
Malone: Alright. Just remember what we talked about now.
[Malone walks away]
Ness: Hey, wait a minute! What the hell kind of policemen you got in this god d@mn city? You just turned your back on an armed man.
Malone: You're a treasury officer.
Ness: How do you know that? I just told you that.
Malone: Who would claim to be that who was not? Hmm?

[JLawson]

Fanatics are always like this; they believe in their points so thoroughly that they think respecting other veiwpoints is morally wrong. That's his right, and within a set of consistent principles, it is very logical. But take heart: progressives are in power right now.

Well, it's obvious YOU believe in your ideology so thouroughly that to you Jccarlton isn't worthy of having his opinions respected. So would you be counted as a fanatic?

As far as taking heart because progressives are in power - I'm looking at how well the 'progressive' folk in the EU are doing, how well the 'progressive' thinking in Greece is working for them, at how high the bill the 'progressives' are running up in the US - and wondering just where and when your 'progressives' are going to start paying for all the wonderful things that you've chalked up on everyone else's tab?

Cause, ya know, I just ain't feeling the luuve of trillion dollar annual deficits for the next decade on top of the $12-14 tril we already owe. And I'm looking at my son - he's 12, I'm 54 (late bloomer, what can I say? :D ) and he's going to be saddled with one hell of a bill for the party and presents you guys are so happily throwing each other at this point.

Now, maybe there's some solution to the tremendous debt that's headed in our direction - the first fragments of which California and the EU are enjoying - but the thought that "we'll just tax the rich more" works as long as:

1. You got a really good supply of the 'rich' - who are
2. Willing to be taxed up to confiscatory levels.

I think you're missing on both counts. I sure hope there's a backup plan.

And there's an old saying - "you can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin him once".

The 'progressives' weren't happy with regular shearing. They've been taking off strips of skin for decades - figuring that as long as the sheep didn't die with each new 'requirement' and regulation that everything was fine and business as usual could go on. Can't drill. Can't use nuclear power. Can't use coal. Gotta be ecologically sensitive, so we can't use solar in deserts or wind where there's birds. We can pay people to do nothing, and they will keep us in power - as long as we can pay them with the money of the people who don't vote for us. 'Progressive' ideas, 'nice sounding' concepts, progressively stripping skin off the back of the sheep - leaving exposed muscle with blood pouring out and infection getting in.

Well, the sheep's in pretty bad shape at this point - and the strips lately have been getting ENORMOUS. Hey, hope and change, baby! That sheep's still good for trillions! But the sheep's looking at 'Health Care', and 'Cap and Trade', after bailout after bailout - and the legs are getting pretty weak.

But maybe you can rip off bigger strips because the sheep's still alive, so what you're doing can't be THAT bad for him!

In Greece, the sheep is near dead. It's already collapsed, and it's getting transfusions from the other sheep, but it's only a stopgap. You either stop ripping the sheepskin off and let it heal (and it's going to take YEARS for that to happen) - and content yourself with the results of occasional shearing thereafter - or you're going to have nothing in the end but a useless carcass, not good for wool or meat.

And you just try to get all the people you've promised everything and a cookie to for DECADES to settle for that!

/Conservative rant - which I hadn't really planned on until I read through all this.

The credit card's maxed out. Someone's going to pay. Personally, I'm all for the people who ran the bills up in our name being the ones held responsible - but you know that while we're being good little citizens eating beans and tofu, they're not going to be passing up the kobe steaks.

[MSimon]

I think politics is a waste of time.

Politics is what got Polywell research restarted.

To rephrase Trotsky - You may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you.

The 20th century piled high the bodies of people not interested in politics. I'm against that sort of thing so I pay attention to it and write about it.

[MSimon]

In the mean time it's counter productive to alienate the people you wish to convert. They are all just homo sapiens. All that needs to be done is push the right button. The button that triggers "hands on ears shutdown mode" is not the right button.

I can't convert anyone. My hope is that when the pain gets so bad that they are holding their gonads and writhing on the ground a few of my words may be remembered. Of course I'd be more than happy if that scenario didn't come to pass. I'm not real optimistic. The city is almost always betrayed by some one within if the siege lasts long enough. The siege has been going on for 150 years.

[MSimon]

What beats the midwife method? Nothing that I've seen so far. I'm all ears.

Sufficient pain.

[Betruger]

So, kung fu midwife.

If the other guy is smart enough to understand what you're saying without having to make him give birth to the idea you're putting forth, you can just present the thing concisely and he'll either concede or try and dodge concession. At which point the best way still isn't repeating the argument he refuses to concede, but laying bare the relative nonsense of his argument. Much like you lay bare particular elements in math to put everything else in function of it, where the truth is so transparent that no appeal can be made to deny it. Except the other guy clearly passing off as desperately clinging as he would be at this point.


Politics - Gotta think it over so I can explain myself concisely.

[MirariNefas]

Fanatics are always like this; they believe in their points so thoroughly that they think respecting other veiwpoints is morally wrong. That's his right, and within a set of consistent principles, it is very logical. But take heart: progressives are in power right now.

Well, it's obvious YOU believe in your ideology so thouroughly that to you Jccarlton isn't worthy of having his opinions respected. So would you be counted as a fanatic?

Wow... that's kinda funny. I'm not the one filling up boards with rhetoric about how progressives are stupid. I even threw a bone and said that this sort of thing is his right, and that it is internally logically consistent. In my book that's called a modicum of respect, which is more than he (or some others here) give to the progressive side of the debate. I respond and use the negative term "fanatic"... and I take fire for that. Just... wow.

As far as taking heart because progressives are in power - I'm looking at how well the 'progressive' folk in the EU are doing, how well the 'progressive' thinking in Greece is working for them, at how high the bill the 'progressives' are running up in the US - and wondering just where and when your 'progressives' are going to start paying for all the wonderful things that you've chalked up on everyone else's tab?

Certainly a problem. Not that the conservatives are really any better at spending, it's just a bigger talking point for them. There should be some compromise - raise taxes, cut spending, meet halfway... but neither side is really interested in that.

The credit card's maxed out. Someone's going to pay. Personally, I'm all for the people who ran the bills up in our name being the ones held responsible

I guess that's one way of thinking, but you know, I don't really hold such a grudge against the military and those who've promoted it.

[MirariNefas]

So the deal is: if you don't want to deal with right wing politics it is best (in general) to avoid engineering forums.

Wait, why is this an engineering forum? Wouldn't it be more of a physics forum? Or, considering that the actual work on polywell is going on elsewhere, isn't it just a forum based on a generic interest in fusion?

True.

But there are a LOT of engineers attracted. And they have set the tone here since the inception.

Please, name them.

[Diogenes]

Here's an example of what I meant. No amount of reasoning will sway these people from their position.

Support for the school voucher program crossed party lines. Both Democrats and Republicans argued that the vouchers were necessary to give the kids a fighting chance against a system almost determined to steal their future. The appeals were delivered in language that would do justice to condemned men fighting to stay alive on death row. But the entreaties fell on deaf ears.

Fighting back tears during the lengthy debate, Rep. Suzanne Bassi, R-Palatine, called on fellow lawmakers to “search your souls” to support the measure because “we have failed these kids in the inner-city schools.”

“I’m pleading with you,” said Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago, who represents an area with four public schools where students would have been eligible for vouchers. “I’m begging you. Help me help kids in my district.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernande ... #more-8904

[MirariNefas]

May I suggest avoiding General if the information upsets you.

Thank you. I probably will soon. This has been a bad habit for me. I don't really have the aggressive nature it takes to hold onto these arguments. I prefer a more civil discourse, and while I can become impassioned enough to deviate from that, I find it draining.

[JLawson]

Wow... that's kinda funny. I'm not the one filling up boards with rhetoric about how progressives are stupid. I even threw a bone and said that this sort of thing is his right, and that it is internally logically consistent. In my book that's called a modicum of respect, which is more than he (or some others here) give to the progressive side of the debate. I respond and use the negative term "fanatic"... and I take fire for that. Just... wow.

Progressives aren't stupid - just completely blind to the consequences and side effects of what they desire so deeply.

Certainly a problem. Not that the conservatives are really any better at spending, it's just a bigger talking point for them. There should be some compromise - raise taxes, cut spending, meet halfway... but neither side is really interested in that.

It's really hard to compromise with fanatics, have you noticed? California's staggering under mounting debt and a lack of power - yet the 'ecologically responsible' folks out there have cancelled solar power plants and wind farms. And have hysterics when nuclear power is mentioned, or drilling for oil.

That might be a reason why even the Auto Club of southern California moved 1000 jobs to Texas. Apparently a lot of companies have packed up the ol' U-Haul and beat feet to better economic climes...

Is it possible to be an environmental fanatic? Or is it simply a case of binary thinking - that if we aren't shoved back involuntarily to a medieval agrairian lifestyle we will pollute the earth to an unrecoverable state - with no possible point between the two extremes?

I guess that's one way of thinking, but you know, I don't really hold such a grudge against the military and those who've promoted it.

Sorry - guess again. This projected deficit chart's interesting, isn't it?



If you were to dig into the actual budget, military spending hasn't gotten above about 20% of the total. It'd be less, of course, if we weren't having to spend money overseas - but even though you may not be interested in war, that doesn't keep war from being interested in you. And all things considered, even though it's very rude and Ameri-centric of me, I want to keep the fighting far, far from our shores. Which will be expensive, unfortunately.

But the 2010 budget was about $3.5 trillion - the military budget was about $700 billion (rounding up - what's a few tens of billions any more?) which leaves plenty of money. (About $2.9 trillion, if my fingers are right.) That's a whole lot of bailouts and paybacks - comes out to about $11,700 per person, figuring 300 mil as the population. But it's good that the government is so generous.

By the way, it's really interesting to see the curve between '04 to '07. It almost looks like we were within about two years of actually NOT having an annual deficit - and then the economic climate and the unemployment rate of 4.5% was so horrible in 2006 that the Democrats got control of the House and Senate.

The wheels started coming off shortly after. There may be a connection, maybe not. With Barney Frank on record saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't need any additional oversight in '06, I'm thinking there's a connection.

By the way, the image above doesn't take into account the results of Cap&Trade or ObamaCare. It'd be even worse with those figured in. The estimated tax receipts for 2010 are $2.38 trillion, estimated expenditures are $3.51 trillion. I'm thinking they're not going to get as much as they expect, and are going to be paying out a lot more.

Of course, the usual remedies (raising taxes, cutting spending) might work - but as you've pointed out politicians are much better at talking about cuts than actually doing them. Taxing enough to even halve the deficit would probably throw us into a depression. And cutting spending?



Yeah. Call me when Obama does that.

Ah, we're in for SUCH interesting times!

[kcdodd]

Fine, ok. I guess I don't mind responding to actual criticism of current administration. What I objected mostly is the mindless generalization arguments projected by Jccarlton. I could make the argument that the Nazi's were a conservative party that used the fear of minorities in order to gain power, start wars, and commit genocide, so clearly we should not allow conservatives to gain power today because all conservatives think like Hitler.



As you can see, if we do nothing the united states will collapse under the weight of your beloved free-for-all healthcare system. So sue obama and everyone who is trying to avoid this issue potential catastrophe.

And sue obama and everyone who is trying to fix the catastrophe of your beloved failed free-for-all mortgage system.

I know that, as Nazis, it is hard for you folk to understand how fairness is really a prerequisite to freedom.

[Diogenes]

Fine, ok. I guess I don't mind responding to actual criticism of current administration. What I objected mostly is the mindless generalization arguments projected by Jccarlton. I could make the argument that the Nazi's were a conservative party that used the fear of minorities in order to gain power, start wars, and commit genocide, so clearly we should not allow conservatives to gain power today because all conservatives think like Hitler.

Just goes to show how much you know about Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party. Virtually every idea favored by Liberals was thought of first by Hitler and the NAZIonal Sozialists. The accusations against conservatives as being anti-minority is nothing but long term liberal propaganda that is still ongoing today. (The media people loved Hitler too.) Last I noticed, the Republicans are running 32 Black candidates in this November's election. I've already sent money to Allen West and Charles Djou. I was one of the first people to call JC Watts at his office at the Oklahoma Corporation commission and offer my money and my support if he would run.

As you can see, if we do nothing the united states will collapse under the weight of your beloved free-for-all healthcare system. So sue obama and everyone who is trying to avoid this issue potential catastrophe.

What Obama is/has doing/done is to expand coverage, not solve the price crises. This is like instead of steering a ship away from an iceberg, the captain takes on more passengers before impact. This cannot possibly be seen as progress by someone unless they are lying to themselves.

I know that, as Nazis, it is hard for you folk to understand how fairness is really a prerequisite to freedom.

Well, if we thought like Nazis, perhaps his ideas would make sense to us. The fact that we are the exact opposite of Nazis is perhaps the reason why it looks like a National Socialist power grab to us, and the Occupant of the White House is looking more like a dictator every day.





What's really amusing, is that there are so many parallels between Obama and the Nazis. Obama's people even started an organization called "Obama Youth" before people pointed out that Hitler had done the same thing! (They changed the name to "Youth for Obama" )

[JLawson]

I know that, as Nazis, it is hard for you folk to understand how fairness is really a prerequisite to freedom.

As Diogenes said - you really haven't a clue about the Nazis. But it's a convenient label, so I'll figure you're using it to avoid thinking about whether or not the people making the argument you don't like have a point.

There isn't anything in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence about 'fairness' - whether as a concept or a definition.

I really do believe that the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' covers it pretty well. There is no guarantee to happiness, or 'fairness' if you intend it to mean equality of outcome regardless of how much (or how little) effort was input.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They built better than they knew. Be a pity if we threw it all away in the elusive search for 'fairness'.