R U Progressive?

[Lootifer]

Its cause all commie hippy such as myself have ants in our pants from sleeping outside

[Phatscotty]

Okay. So, progressives are people who support eugenics, segregation, and governmental control

That is an accurate basic summary, yes. The technology, and political/media/educational strategy has changed, somewhat. Also, the 4 generations or so in the last century have become progressively dumber n dumber, generally speaking. Not sure anyone disagrees with the last part.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, you appear to be talking about a specific political party rather than progressivists in general.

would you vote for someone who would keep everything exactly the same as it is now? because if you want anything of the present changed, then you are a progressivist in that respect

i am not sure why you started talking about forced abortion or slavery, as these sound like very specific examples of the past. i can not think of any current politicians of the world who advocate a return to slavery or eugenics.

they are very specific examples of the past (finally at least someone who does not ignore it). The slavery is no longer on the plantation, simply because the plantation is not a major source of power and wealth and longer.

However, their economic slavery, ideological slavery, and educational slavery is far stronger and more efficient today than it ever was.


And no, I would not vote for someone who would keep everything exactly the same as it is now. I would vote for someone who would give us back our freedoms that everyone knows we have lost and continue to lose year after year.

[Woodruff]

Historically, the "Progressive Era" is considered to have ended at World War I. As to a definition, progressivism (forward thinking) in the United States is a broadly based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature. It arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations and railroads, and fears of corruption in American politics. In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice.[1] Social progressivism, the view that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.

And finally...Would you consider it fair for me to point at certain historical Christians and state that's what Christians are? Because I promise you...it will look a lot worse than your view of "progressives" if I do. Are you really so unable to remove yourself from historical definitions in order to deal with today's reality, or is it just so very convenient for you not to do so?

Except I don't claim to be like the Christian government (because that's what they were at that time) of the middle ages. Heck, that whole period was dominated by the Catholic church and their beliefs and teachings, which are mostly things that I don't subscribe to.

And I don't claim to be like the Progessives of that time, nor do I subscribe to many of their beliefs and teachings. So are you done avoiding my question, or were you going to answer it?

However, when it comes to today's progressives, some of the current ones, like Hillary Clinton, clearly and definitively refer to themselves as modern progressives similar to those progressives of the early 20th century.

Hillary Clinton used the phrase "similar to those progressives of the early 20th century", did she? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a quote. Or, alternatively, you could point out where she wanted to de-segregate the military or go back to slavery...got a quote for that?
Yeah...I didn't think so.

[Woodruff]

When you use the term "right-wing," that doesn't accurately describe econlib.org or MarginalRevolution.com. "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like.

Or is your use of "left-wing" above meant as a pejorative?

No. I don't really care if someone labels himself as left-wing.

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

I don't follow.
By ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like" I'm referring to the weird lumping of very different political systems and philosophies under one term. That's how I've been exposed to the left-right dichotomy. The "right-wing" seems to range from right libertarians to monarchies, military dictatorships, theocrats, etc. The rationale to me which explains this odd lumping is this: "left-wing doesn't like these systems; therefore, lump them in the 'right-wing'; makes the left-wing seem so much better."

This isn't a difficult concept, unless you're trying to avoid the reality of it. You state that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. Yet, you use the term "left-wing", while simultaneously attempting to claim that it's not meant in a pejorative sense. You can't have it both ways. Either you're being dishonest with yourself, you're lying or you made a stupid claim that you now realize wasn't accurate (which you should probably admit now).

[Woodruff]

Okay. So, progressives are people who support eugenics, segregation, and governmental control

That is an accurate basic summary, yes.

That's an idiotic summary that only an utter moron would agree with.

Also, the 4 generations or so in the last century have become progressively dumber n dumber, generally speaking. Not sure anyone disagrees with the last part.

You'd be the expert on that.

[Night Strike]

Hillary Clinton used the phrase "similar to those progressives of the early 20th century", did she? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a quote. Or, alternatively, you could point out where she wanted to de-segregate the military or go back to slavery...got a quote for that?
Yeah...I didn't think so.

So the video I posted on Page 2 of this thread where Hillary said that she prefers to call herself a Progressive, which has its roots in the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century doesn't count as a quote?

SHE'S the one who linked herself to that movement, not me. All I've done (actually, mostly others have done, I'm just sharing it here) is point out what the progressives of the Progressive Era actually believed and did.

[Woodruff]

Hillary Clinton used the phrase "similar to those progressives of the early 20th century", did she? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a quote. Or, alternatively, you could point out where she wanted to de-segregate the military or go back to slavery...got a quote for that?
Yeah...I didn't think so.

So the video I posted on Page 2 of this thread where Hillary said that she prefers to call herself a Progressive, which has its roots in the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century doesn't count as a quote?
SHE'S the one who linked herself to that movement, not me. All I've done (actually, mostly others have done, I'm just sharing it here) is point out what the progressives of the Progressive Era actually believed and did.

She "linked herself to that movement" in precisely the same way that you are, through your Christianity, linked to the many problems of the Catholic Church. Seriously..."which has it's roots in the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century" is simply making the point that's when the concept of progressivism started. I think everyone here is aware of that. I'm sorry that your dishonesty can't twist that into Hillary Clinton being an evil segregationist and slave-owner, but I'm not going to let you do that.

[BigBallinStalin]

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

I don't follow.
By ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like" I'm referring to the weird lumping of very different political systems and philosophies under one term. That's how I've been exposed to the left-right dichotomy. The "right-wing" seems to range from right libertarians to monarchies, military dictatorships, theocrats, etc. The rationale to me which explains this odd lumping is this: "left-wing doesn't like these systems; therefore, lump them in the 'right-wing'; makes the left-wing seem so much better."

This isn't a difficult concept, unless you're trying to avoid the reality of it. You state that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. Yet, you use the term "left-wing", while simultaneously attempting to claim that it's not meant in a pejorative sense. You can't have it both ways. .

Pejorative? As in "Pejoratives[1] (or terms of abuse, derogatory terms), including name slurs,[2] are words or grammatical forms that connote negativity and express contempt or distaste (wiki)"? I didn't state that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. "Not liking" certain ideologies and then lumping them into "the right" doesn't mean to me that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. It's a descriptive term formed erroneously by lumping different ideologies into an incoherent mass of divergent political visions.\

That quote which you removed was useful in explaining my reasoning behind the sentence ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

Either you're being dishonest with yourself, you're lying or you made a stupid claim that you now realize wasn't accurate (which you should probably admit now)

Or we have yet to reach mutual understanding, which I think is what's happening.

Maybe this is why we keep going back and forth:

The term "right-wing" encompasses many different ideologies, which the left-wing does not want to be associated with, i.e. they'd prefer not to; as in, they do not like "Theocracy, Monarhcy, etc.," so why not lump those into "right-wing"? One can't explain "the left" without describing its opposite, "the right."

Here's what you said earlier:

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.[/

Since this post, you've led yourself astray.

I've already explained my response to this, but here's my answer in a nutshell as expressed by Thomas Sowell:

A rough summary of the vision of the political left today is that of collective decision-making through government, directed toward-- or at least rationalized by-- the goal of reducing economic and social inequalities. There may be moderate or extreme versions of the left vision or agenda but, among those designated as "the right," the difference between free market libertarians and military juntas is not simply one of degree in pursuing a common vision, because there is no common vision among these and other disparate groups opposed to the left-- which is to say, there is no such definable thing as "the right," though there are various segments of that omnibus category, such as free market advocates, who can be defined.

Intellectuals and Society, p 91

[Woodruff]

That quote which you removed was useful in explaining my reasoning behind the sentence ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

It's irrelevant. You're using the exact same term (left-wing vice right-wing), yet trying to claim that your use of it was not meant as a pejorative, but that the use of right-wing is.

Either you're being dishonest with yourself, you're lying or you made a stupid claim that you now realize wasn't accurate (which you should probably admit now)

Or we have yet to reach mutual understanding, which I think is what's happening.

It seems to me that the most common way you "reach mutual understanding" with someone is to have the other person give up and agree with you. It's fascinating how you're trying to dodge this very simple thing.

Maybe this is why we keep going back and forth:
The term "right-wing" encompasses many different ideologies, which the left-wing does not want to be associated with, i.e. they'd prefer not to; as in, they do not like "Theocracy, Monarhcy, etc.," so why not lump those into "right-wing"? One can't explain "the left" without describing its opposite, "the right."

So? That does nothing to counter my point.

I've already explained my response to this, but here's my answer in a nutshell as expressed by Thomas Sowell:

I don't give a flying f*ck what Thomas Sowell says on the issue. And I've not at all led myself astray. You're nothing but a windbag who won't admit when they've made a stupid statement. It's really sad, because I used to consider you a fairly straightforward individual like thegreekdog. But lately, it's become clear that you're much more like saxitoxin.

[BigBallinStalin]

lolwut

That quote which you removed was useful in explaining my reasoning behind the sentence ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

It's irrelevant. You're using the exact same term (left-wing vice right-wing), yet trying to claim that your use of it was not meant as a pejorative, but that the use of right-wing is.

No, I'm not. Where do I say that one is pejorative and the other isn't? What do you think pejorative means?

I've been saying that "right-wing" is an inaccurate term; it's formed by lumping whatever is the opposite of "left-wing" because whatever the left-wing doesn't like (as in, "don't want in their group," or "prefer not to be associated with"), they'll place into the right-wing, hence free market libertarians, monarchies, theocrats, conservatives, and Republicans all exist in one group. That doesn't make sense given that those groups lack a common vision; whereas, the groups within "left-wing" generally have a common vision. There's nothing pejorative with that explanation. I'm not making any normative judgments here. But it seems to me that you are; you're "putting words in my mouth."

I haven't been able to follow your logic because it doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sorry, Woodruff. I'm not out to get you. This isn't a sax-attack, or TPDS operation. You're just not making sense.

[Woodruff]

That quote which you removed was useful in explaining my reasoning behind the sentence ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

It's irrelevant. You're using the exact same term (left-wing vice right-wing), yet trying to claim that your use of it was not meant as a pejorative, but that the use of right-wing is.

No, I'm not. Where do I say that one is pejorative and the other isn't?

Either last page, or the page before. It's at least quoted on the last page.

What do you think pejorative means?

You defined it earlier. At any rate, if you don't like "pejorative", let's just go with "negative connotations" then.

I haven't been able to follow your logic because it doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sorry, Woodruff. I'm not out to get you. This isn't a sax-attack, or TPDS operation. You're just not making sense.

You're using the term "left-wing" while positing that the use of "right-wing" is done with intentional negative connotations and claiming that's not what you're doing with your use of "left-wing". Your inconsistency is my point. Well, it was my original point...now it's come down to more of your unwillingness to admit that you made a dumb statement.

[BigBallinStalin]

That quote which you removed was useful in explaining my reasoning behind the sentence ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

It's irrelevant. You're using the exact same term (left-wing vice right-wing), yet trying to claim that your use of it was not meant as a pejorative, but that the use of right-wing is.

No, I'm not. Where do I say that one is pejorative and the other isn't?

Either last page, or the page before. It's at least quoted on the last page.

This? "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like."

OH MY, IT'S PEJORATIVE!

No, that doesn't fly. I already explained earlier; you just keep repeating your mantra without actually explaining how that is pejorative, but but but don't use "pejorative," you recently switched to "negative connotations."

Was it this string of replies?

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

I don't follow.
By ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like" I'm referring to the weird lumping of very different political systems and philosophies under one term. That's how I've been exposed to the left-right dichotomy. The "right-wing" seems to range from right libertarians to monarchies, military dictatorships, theocrats, etc. The rationale to me which explains this odd lumping is this: "left-wing doesn't like these systems; therefore, lump them in the 'right-wing'; makes the left-wing seem so much better."

This isn't a difficult concept, unless you're trying to avoid the reality of it. You state that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. Yet, you use the term "left-wing", while simultaneously attempting to claim that it's not meant in a pejorative sense. You can't have it both ways. .

Pejorative? As in "Pejoratives[1] (or terms of abuse, derogatory terms), including name slurs,[2] are words or grammatical forms that connote negativity and express contempt or distaste (wiki)"? I didn't state that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative. [u] "Not liking" certain ideologies and then lumping them into "the right" doesn't mean to me that the term "right-wing" is used as a pejorative.[/u] It's a descriptive term formed erroneously by lumping different ideologies into an incoherent mass of divergent political visions.

You ignored this response. Read the underlined. Please explain how that's wrong. (YOu haven't though, you just keep flipping your position, changing "pejorative" to "negative connotations" and blah blah blah.

What do you think pejorative means?

You defined it earlier. At any rate, if you don't like "pejorative", let's just go with "negative connotations" then.

Ah, so we moved from "pejorative" to "negative connotations." Talk about inconsistency! Care to make your accusations any broader before we continue?


Again.... I've been saying that "right-wing" is an inaccurate term; it's formed by lumping whatever is the opposite of "left-wing" because whatever the left-wing doesn't like (as in, "don't want in their group," or "prefer not to be associated with"), they'll place into the right-wing, hence free market libertarians, monarchies, theocrats, conservatives, and Republicans all exist in one group. That doesn't make sense given that those groups lack a common vision; whereas, the groups within "left-wing" generally have a common vision. There's nothing pejorative with that explanation. I'm not making any normative judgments here. But it seems to me that you are; you're "putting words in my mouth."

So, you'll have to explain how the underlined is false in order for your position to make any sense.

I haven't been able to follow your logic because it doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sorry, Woodruff. I'm not out to get you. This isn't a sax-attack, or TPDS operation. You're just not making sense.

You're using the term "left-wing" while positing that the use of "right-wing" is done with intentional negative connotations and claiming that's not what you're doing with your use of "left-wing". Your inconsistency is my point. Well, it was my original point...now it's come down to more of your unwillingness to admit that you made a dumb statement.

You haven't explained how this is true. You simply keep repeating it ad infinitum without explaining how this actually applies to what I've been saying (see underlined above). Here's your logic from earlier:

When you use the term "right-wing," that doesn't accurately describe econlib.org or MarginalRevolution.com. "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like.

Or is your use of "left-wing" above meant as a pejorative?

No. I don't really care if someone labels himself as left-wing.

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

I don't follow.

By ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like" I'm referring to the weird lumping of very different political systems and philosophies under one term. That's how I've been exposed to the left-right dichotomy. The "right-wing" seems to range from right libertarians to monarchies, military dictatorships, theocrats, etc. The rationale to me which explains this odd lumping is this: "left-wing doesn't like these systems; therefore, lump them in the 'right-wing'; makes the left-wing seem so much better."

For clarification, I like using Donald Snow's categories of political stance: radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, reactionary. But for conversations focusing on state intervention, I'll use the (classical) liberal v. progressive spectrum.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=164454&start=90#p3593834



Why is your position false? Let's copy-paste your logic for your convenience:

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like [true]. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it[False; because that isn't the case. I already explained how the use of "left-wing" is not "similar in nature." Recall: DIFFERENCE IN IDEOLOGIES and RIGHT-WING HAS NO COMMON VISION AMONG ITS ERRONEOUSLY LABELED POLITICAL SYSTEMS]. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" [Yes, they're opposite, yet the term "left-wing" has something in common among itself; whereas, "right-wing" doesn't--as I've already explained. Remember that Thomas Sowell quote? For FFS, that has almost everything to do with this. You deleted it because it throws a monkey wrench in your Odd Logic]. or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? [What does this mean? My use of "left-wing" or "right-wing" should be excluded from my definition? WAT]. You're being very inconsistent here[lol~! Yes, Woodruff, you've laid your case so clearly, which is why I have to keep explaining the same thing to you while you keep repeating the same mantra.

Maybe that finally settles this. Maybe if I copy-paste the following again, you'll read it:


Again.... I've been saying that "right-wing" is an inaccurate term; it's formed by lumping whatever is the opposite of "left-wing" because whatever the left-wing doesn't like (as in, "don't want in their group," or "prefer not to be associated with"), they'll place into the right-wing, hence free market libertarians, monarchies, theocrats, conservatives, and Republicans all exist in one group. That doesn't make sense given that those groups lack a common vision; whereas, the groups within "left-wing" generally have a common vision. There's nothing pejorative with that explanation. I'm not making any normative judgments here. But it seems to me that you are; you're "putting words in my mouth."

So, you'll have to explain how the underlined is false in order for your position to make any sense. You could also try deleting certain responses in here in order to validate your position, but we already went through that, and now they've resurfaced--waiting to be dealt with your Superior Macho Logic.

[Woodruff]

I give, you've managed to do what I pointed out is your end goal...you've beaten me down with your bullshit to the point that I don't care anymore. Go ahead and claim the victory...go ahead and claim I'm just throwing a hissy fitting and walking off in a pout...I don't care. I won't make the mistake of taking you seriously again.

[Aradhus]

Lol, since the left owns all the media, runs all the universities, writes all the history books and utterly defines the political language in America, it makes sense that they'd label everything they dislike as right wing, and that that label would stick because if there's one thing the left is good at it is advertising and messaging.

[BigBallinStalin]

Fair enough, Woodruff.

You kind of lost it when you switched from "pejorative" to "negative connotations," and then when pressed for evidence, you said, "well uh you said what I claimed you said some time ago."

BBS: Well, you mean this post here when I already addressed that? Or this other post when I already addressed this other claim of yours? I can't follow your logic, maybe you aren't reading what I'm typing.

Woodruff: MEH, I give up, You win because you're a dickface!


Similar example:

Woodruff: Your end goal is to drag this on forever in order to beat me down.

BBS: No, I just don't follow your logic because it doesn't make any sense for reasons A, B, C, and D, which I previously stated.

Woodruff: You're just trolling me!

BBS: No, I honestly don't follow your logic because it doesn't make sense for (again) reasons A, B, C, and D. Would you care to actually address what I've been typing?

Woodruff: NOO!!! I'm right; UR WRONG! I"LL NEVER TAKE U SERIUSLY AGAIN!

BBS: lol okay, crazy man!

[Aradhus]

I think it is more reasonable to assume that a larger portion of political idealogies in America consider themselves right wing because the left and anything left wing has been so brutalized that nobody wants to be considered left wing. Look at some of the descriptions in this thread of leftist ideology. It speaks volumes.

A good example of this is when you poll americans on definitions a larger group identifies with conservatism, but when you poll them on issues they are more closely in line with liberal ideas.

[Lootifer]

What the f*ck happened in here? Jeez... you guys...

[Phatscotty]

Lol, since the left owns all the media, runs all the universities, writes all the history books and utterly defines the political language in America, it makes sense that they'd label everything they dislike as right wing, and that that label would stick because if there's one thing the left is good at it is advertising and messaging.

It also makes sense they would erase all the evil results of Progrsesivism in the media, universities, history books and language.

[ViperOverLord]

Lol, since the left owns all the media, runs all the universities, writes all the history books and utterly defines the political language in America, it makes sense that they'd label everything they dislike as right wing, and that that label would stick because if there's one thing the left is good at it is advertising and messaging.

Is this supposed to be sarcasm?

[kentington]

The LOL makes me think it's sarcasm, but the facts make me think it's not.
I was unsure as well.

[Aradhus]

Lol, since the left owns all the media, runs all the universities, writes all the history books and utterly defines the political language in America, it makes sense that they'd label everything they dislike as right wing, and that that label would stick because if there's one thing the left is good at it is advertising and messaging.

Is this supposed to be sarcasm?

That post is as sincere as the yellow driven snow mobile in my front yard.

[daddy1gringo]

Everyone is a progressive. They just have different ideas of what constitutes "progress".

[BigBallinStalin]

Everyone is a progressive. They just have different ideas of what constitutes "progress".

Kind of. People diverge on the means for attaining progress.