If you think of yourself as Progressive look at yourself in a mirror and think very carefully about what you are:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/ ... adism.html
Progressives and Mirrors
Re: Progressives and Mirrors
What has this got to do with being 'progressive' or otherwise? What is your definition of 'progressive'?Jccarlton wrote:If you think of yourself as Progressive look at yourself in a mirror and think very carefully about what you are:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/ ... adism.html
Re: Progressives and Mirrors
Softcore fascists with smiles on their faces who primarily use court orders rather than bullets to kill and maim, and always do everything from the very best of intentions.chrismb wrote:What has this got to do with being 'progressive' or otherwise? What is your definition of 'progressive'?Jccarlton wrote:If you think of yourself as Progressive look at yourself in a mirror and think very carefully about what you are:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/ ... adism.html
Fer instance, if you read Harry Potter novels, Dolores Jane Umbridge, the High Inquisitor of Hogwarts Academy, professes to be a progressive reformer, but in practice is, in fact, a fascist, because it always takes fascism to put progressive reforms into place.
Re: Progressives and Mirrors
That's your definition of a progressive?IntLibber wrote:Softcore fascists with smiles on their faces who primarily use court orders rather than bullets to kill and maim, and always do everything from the very best of intentions.
But what the heck has this got to do with the article? So is someone here saying that if you are a sadist then you are a progressive? The article was about facism and sadism.
I don't think you can be a 'progressive' without the serious desire to force people to 'improve'. At least, improve according to current 'progressive' standards - which at one time (pre ww2?) seemed to actually imply a general betterment of conditions for all. Better roads, better housing, better medicine, better communications...
Now, being 'progressive' seems to be an attempt to return to a mythical time where everyone lived in harmony with the land, wore sustainable clothes, farmed organically, eat seasonal fruits and veggies and grains grown within 100 miles and lived healthy lifestyles with holistic medicine to balance their humours. Dismantling dams, conservation, reducing energy usage, reducing your ecological footprint - generally living simply... whether you want to or not.
Conditions which our ancestors did their damndest to get away from.
The problem occurs when people do not want it. At which point, the progressives apparently see nothing wrong with forcing people to do what they 'should', whether through legal or extralegal means. And the rules seem to apply only to others. Al Gore, imho, is a 'progressive' - he's basically advocating a return to near-1900's energy usage to 'save the planet'... but HE is justified in having dueling mansions on E&W coasts, big houseboat (using biodiesel, so it gets a pass) and flying around the world like some folks hop on a bus to cross town.
(Not saying conservation isn't a good idea - but making sure the resources aren't available isn't conservation, wise usage of them is.)
But the key to 'progressive' thinking now is that it's perfectly okay to force compliance. Because, as Intlibber points out - their intentions are pure.
You and I might see Orwell's '1984' as a dystopian cautionary tale - they see it as a utopian how-to. Control the thinking, and you control the population. Control the population, and you can enact every progressive idea w/no dissent. The population becomes the tool for the idea - the people don't have a say in the ideas they're subjected to.
As far as sadism goes - what fun is it when the victim agrees with everything you're doing?
Now, being 'progressive' seems to be an attempt to return to a mythical time where everyone lived in harmony with the land, wore sustainable clothes, farmed organically, eat seasonal fruits and veggies and grains grown within 100 miles and lived healthy lifestyles with holistic medicine to balance their humours. Dismantling dams, conservation, reducing energy usage, reducing your ecological footprint - generally living simply... whether you want to or not.
Conditions which our ancestors did their damndest to get away from.
The problem occurs when people do not want it. At which point, the progressives apparently see nothing wrong with forcing people to do what they 'should', whether through legal or extralegal means. And the rules seem to apply only to others. Al Gore, imho, is a 'progressive' - he's basically advocating a return to near-1900's energy usage to 'save the planet'... but HE is justified in having dueling mansions on E&W coasts, big houseboat (using biodiesel, so it gets a pass) and flying around the world like some folks hop on a bus to cross town.
(Not saying conservation isn't a good idea - but making sure the resources aren't available isn't conservation, wise usage of them is.)
But the key to 'progressive' thinking now is that it's perfectly okay to force compliance. Because, as Intlibber points out - their intentions are pure.
You and I might see Orwell's '1984' as a dystopian cautionary tale - they see it as a utopian how-to. Control the thinking, and you control the population. Control the population, and you can enact every progressive idea w/no dissent. The population becomes the tool for the idea - the people don't have a say in the ideas they're subjected to.
As far as sadism goes - what fun is it when the victim agrees with everything you're doing?
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
Wrong dystopian novel. The proper comparison is "Brave New World."JLawson wrote:You and I might see Orwell's '1984' as a dystopian cautionary tale - they see it as a utopian how-to. Control the thinking, and you control the population. Control the population, and you can enact every progressive idea w/no dissent. The population becomes the tool for the idea - the people don't have a say in the ideas they're subjected to.
Vae Victis
Well, now I understand the issue. The definition of 'progressive' is misunderstood here.
Glossary;
"Progressive"; policies or taxation that redistrubute equitable benefits towards the 'less fortunate' of a society, from a given status quo.
"Regressive"; policies or taxation that tends the status quo to further benefit the already well-benefitted on the basis that they should be rewarded extra for generating benefits where there would otherwise be none at all for anyone.
(I have no view on which position is a 'better' form of politics. Both can work under particular circumstances, if they are managed appropriately and efficiently.)
Example; Andy Street, MD of John Lewis in the UK, has stated that he sees no reason to seek a salary bigger than his current £500,000pa, even though he could've more than likely found better pay. This has the effect of reducing the overall salary burden to John Lewis and the less well payed are benefitted. This is an example of an individual's 'progressive' act. (And I do not see how he might be described as a sadistif fascist as an outcome of his modest view that he is already paid enough?!)
Someone like Dolores Jane Umbridge (which is a fictional character - just in case there is any confusion between reality and fiction there!!
) is a charicature of some people, I grant you. But these are not 'progressives', they are just bullies who like power and who use means of manipulation that purport to be benefits for the greater good.
This thread is nonsense, linking that article to 'progressives'. I'm not sure why I am participating in it, so I will desist.
Glossary;
"Progressive"; policies or taxation that redistrubute equitable benefits towards the 'less fortunate' of a society, from a given status quo.
"Regressive"; policies or taxation that tends the status quo to further benefit the already well-benefitted on the basis that they should be rewarded extra for generating benefits where there would otherwise be none at all for anyone.
(I have no view on which position is a 'better' form of politics. Both can work under particular circumstances, if they are managed appropriately and efficiently.)
Example; Andy Street, MD of John Lewis in the UK, has stated that he sees no reason to seek a salary bigger than his current £500,000pa, even though he could've more than likely found better pay. This has the effect of reducing the overall salary burden to John Lewis and the less well payed are benefitted. This is an example of an individual's 'progressive' act. (And I do not see how he might be described as a sadistif fascist as an outcome of his modest view that he is already paid enough?!)
Someone like Dolores Jane Umbridge (which is a fictional character - just in case there is any confusion between reality and fiction there!!
) is a charicature of some people, I grant you. But these are not 'progressives', they are just bullies who like power and who use means of manipulation that purport to be benefits for the greater good. This thread is nonsense, linking that article to 'progressives'. I'm not sure why I am participating in it, so I will desist.
I can't help but think that there is more than a little sadism in this progressive:
http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=chan ... 91/1012314
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/free ... /id/368506
The fact is that Progressives are so certain of their right to steal and pillage from the rest of us that they cannot bear any kind of opposition. Because they don't have any true philosophy other than theft, they inevitably must resort to the tools of the thief when guile doesn't work, bullying and extortion. The fact that so many of them actually enjoy the bullying, petty smears and just generally making people miserable makes them what they are.
http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=chan ... 91/1012314
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/free ... /id/368506
The fact is that Progressives are so certain of their right to steal and pillage from the rest of us that they cannot bear any kind of opposition. Because they don't have any true philosophy other than theft, they inevitably must resort to the tools of the thief when guile doesn't work, bullying and extortion. The fact that so many of them actually enjoy the bullying, petty smears and just generally making people miserable makes them what they are.
Seems like there's a number of definitions of 'progressive' - guess you can pick and choose which one supports your agenda.
Me? I'm looking to see progress in energy generation, progress in removing corruption from local, state, and federal government, progress in technolgy and medicine, progress in fundamental human freedoms.
Am I looking for perfection? No. Just progress. And I don't see 'progress' as tearing apart what already exists and works (even if imperfectly) without a sound plan for a substitute.
That's one problem I have with 'progressive' taxation. Yeah, let's redistribute the weath, take a lot of it from the folks who make it and then give it to the folks who won't. After a point, the guy making it goes "WFT am I doing this for?" and quits. No more money. Or the business goes under because it can't make it. No more revenue, so taxes have to be jacked even higher because there's a lot of folks sucking on the government teat and they've GOT to be fed or they'll get mad at you and vote you out of office.
It's a feedback loop. A slow one - but you know what happens with those... all of a sudden your system goes out of control. And it doesn't help to go "But we MEANT well!" - the crowds just don't care.
Me? I'm looking to see progress in energy generation, progress in removing corruption from local, state, and federal government, progress in technolgy and medicine, progress in fundamental human freedoms.
Am I looking for perfection? No. Just progress. And I don't see 'progress' as tearing apart what already exists and works (even if imperfectly) without a sound plan for a substitute.
That's one problem I have with 'progressive' taxation. Yeah, let's redistribute the weath, take a lot of it from the folks who make it and then give it to the folks who won't. After a point, the guy making it goes "WFT am I doing this for?" and quits. No more money. Or the business goes under because it can't make it. No more revenue, so taxes have to be jacked even higher because there's a lot of folks sucking on the government teat and they've GOT to be fed or they'll get mad at you and vote you out of office.
It's a feedback loop. A slow one - but you know what happens with those... all of a sudden your system goes out of control. And it doesn't help to go "But we MEANT well!" - the crowds just don't care.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
Nah, Brave New World attacked the consumerist mindset.djolds1 wrote:Wrong dystopian novel. The proper comparison is "Brave New World."JLawson wrote:You and I might see Orwell's '1984' as a dystopian cautionary tale - they see it as a utopian how-to. Control the thinking, and you control the population. Control the population, and you can enact every progressive idea w/no dissent. The population becomes the tool for the idea - the people don't have a say in the ideas they're subjected to.
Brin's The Peace War shows the sort of future you get with progressives in charge.
Using a term to describe a system of taxation as applicable to an entire political movement is disingenuous.chrismb wrote:Well, now I understand the issue. The definition of 'progressive' is misunderstood here.
Glossary;
"Progressive"; policies or taxation that redistrubute equitable benefits towards the 'less fortunate' of a society, from a given status quo.
"Regressive"; policies or taxation that tends the status quo to further benefit the already well-benefitted on the basis that they should be rewarded extra for generating benefits where there would otherwise be none at all for anyone.
(I have no view on which position is a 'better' form of politics. Both can work under particular circumstances, if they are managed appropriately and efficiently.)
Example; Andy Street, MD of John Lewis in the UK, has stated that he sees no reason to seek a salary bigger than his current £500,000pa, even though he could've more than likely found better pay. This has the effect of reducing the overall salary burden to John Lewis and the less well payed are benefitted. This is an example of an individual's 'progressive' act. (And I do not see how he might be described as a sadistif fascist as an outcome of his modest view that he is already paid enough?!)
Someone like Dolores Jane Umbridge (which is a fictional character - just in case there is any confusion between reality and fiction there!!
This thread is nonsense, linking that article to 'progressives'. I'm not sure why I am participating in it, so I will desist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressiv ... _States%29
This group is the inheritor of the earlier incarnations of the Progressive Party in the US in the early 20th century. They've strayed a long way from Teddy Roosevelt.
Actually it's the other way around.kcdodd wrote:chrismb, here is the argument in case you missed it:
P1: Fascism
P2: Progressivism
C: Progressives are fascists.
lol
P1: Progressivism is the root of many ideas that were used by Fascists.
P2: Fascism is evil
C: Progressivism allows one to indulge in evil and sadism. Progressives are evil. Not funny.