-->
@Vaarka
Nah, he's nice and all but he's pretty gross
Why?
AMA - Bsh1
Posts
Total:
177
-->
@bsh1
You shouldn’t play the gay card.
-->
@bsh1
Just not a very clean person
-->
@Alec
You shouldn’t play the gay card.
What does that even mean?
-->
@bsh1
I live in Maryland too, here's my question
I don't know if someone's asked you this but how did you find out about this site and become chief moderator, and are you ever going to make an assistant moderator.
-->
@bsh1
This reads as an attempt at a "gotcha" question.
Nah. Just thought of it and thought it would be useful in seeing if you are consistent. Think what you like but I thought of this on the stop like that sperm watching TV.
That being said, referring to trans women as women does not violate our basic understanding of the terms involved when one apprehends the nuances of those terms.
Yes it does. A woman is associated with humans that have vaginas instead of penises.
The term "woman" is used to refer to both sex and gender, depending on the context. In the context of referring to someone as a trans woman, we're referring to their expression of gender, not to their sex.
I didn't even tell you the context. What is the context you are using?
I doubt that a haploid cell would be able to apprehend the information required to make such a judgement.
Can you not engage with a hypothetical? Do you want it to be gay oriented so that something I think you dislike is not being talked about?
If it wasn't clear haploid cells can now apprehend the information required to make such a judgement.
Progressivism is, in the US context, a left-of-center movement that calls for evidence-based sociopolitical reforms which are geared to helping the least well off in society.
Evidence based sociopolitical reforms? So not evidence based economic reforms?
From this, we can glean that progressivism is not populist, is aimed at ending severe income inequality and ensuring a basic standard of living for all, is for using government regulation and action to achieve its aims, and rejects social darwinism/rugged individualism.
Severe income inequality can be done by being a populist. So progressivism and populism can be bonded. Can you tell me examples that progressivism is not similar if not the same as populism?
The mainstream within the Democratic Party is progressive, and we often use "progressive" as a synonym for "liberal" in the American political context.
Pelosi?
I think that is a fair (if imprecise) equivocation, as progressivism is inherently not conservative. More accurately, we can say that progressivism is the economic and socioeconomic component of modern American liberalism.
I don't think so. Liberalism tends to favor freedoms and rule of law rather then what would be best for the worst if we go by your definition. This can be a problem when lets say the government steps in to make things more affordable. A liberal qualms would be that it would have a negative impact on the businesses while also impacting other markets given no one market is by its own. A progressive would say the value of the less advantaged is higher than maintaining the market. If we go by your definition.
What about the problems I had with prominent self-proclaimed progressive YouTubers?
-->
@bsh1
It means using your sexuality as an excuse for when something didn’t go your way. You said:
And your not rooming with the gay one
-->
@Alec
It means using your sexuality as an excuse for when something didn’t go your way.
And how was I using sexuality as an excuse for something that didn't go my way?
You said:
And how does that have anything to do with something not going my way?
-->
@Gatorade
I don't know if someone's asked you this but how did you find out about this site and become chief moderator, and are you ever going to make an assistant moderator.
I came to this site from it's predecessor, DDO, and was appointed moderator by the site owner. I already have several assistant moderators. You can learn more here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346/about-dart-resources-for-new-members
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes it does. A woman is associated with humans that have vaginas instead of penises.
This comment again fails to take into account important distinctions between sex and gender. I may call someone a woman because their sex is female, but I may also do so because their gender is female.
Can you not engage with a hypothetical?
I engage with them all the time, but that does not mean I will engage with every one I encounter. Without actually engaging in the hypothetical, I would say this: there are two possible answers to your question (exist, don't exist). Choosing not to exist presupposes, I think, a utilitarian logic which treats non-existence as null (i.e. neither good nor bad). One then must ask: is utilitarian logic the best framework to use in resolving this question, AND is non-existence really null? Choosing to exist I think welcomes a different kind of justificatory logic altogether. One possibility I see is that the potential to experience joy--any amount thereof--is sufficient to make life worth living. We can make the argument that even a fundamentally awful life can be redeemed by moments of happiness; indeed, it is these moments that give most of us the strength to fight on in the face of hardship. Alternatively, one might make the claim that non-existence is not null, arguing by analogy that a full canvas, even if the picture is tragic, is more beautiful and rich than an empty one.
Severe income inequality can be done by being a populist. So progressivism and populism can be bonded.
Forgive me, but that's a ridiculous response. Many ideologies have overlapping goals--after all, many Republicans would argue that severe income inequality is problematic. What matters is not that the goals overlap, but (a) why those goals come to be an ideology's goals and (b) how the ideology plans to pursue those goals. Saying that "because progressivism and populism share a goal, they are linked or the same" is fundamentally absurd.
Populism is structured around anti-elite backlash. Progressivism is not structured around anti-elite backlash. Populism is often know-nothing and reactionary precisely because it is anti-elite, whereas progressivism is neither of these things. While progressivism may share goals with populism, then, it pursues those goals in substantially different ways and it arrives at those goals through substantially different logic.
Liberalism tends to favor freedoms and rule of law rather then what would be best for the worst if we go by your definition
I am using liberalism in the American political sense, not in the classic sense. Your statement here suggests you are using it in the classic sense, and not the American political sense. Liberalism in the American political sense refers specifically to a left-of-center ideology in which the government should be used to regulate the economy (not a laissez-faire approach to the economy), but should be hands-off regarding individuals private lives. Conservatism, by contrast, refers to a right-of-center ideology in which the government should be hands-off regarding the economy, but should be used to regulate individuals private lives (not a laissez-faire approach to legislating social mores).
-->
@bsh1
Populism is about focusing on the needs of common people.
It's not a political strategy against the elites. That would actually be a reflection of someone's worldview.
One of the problems I have with progressivism as a general form of philosophy is that of people coming to agreement on what constitutes "progress".
-->
@Snoopy
Populism is about focusing on the needs of common people
Populism is--inherently--a reactionary ideology. Yes, it is about focusing on the needs of the common people, but that focus takes place within the reactionary context. When we look at candidates like Trump and Sanders, both populists in their own right, we can best understand their populist positions as backlash to elite control or to the Other's alleged pernicious influence on our society. Trump's blaming immigrants and Sanders's blaming banks and corporations for our economic woes are manifestations of that reactionary backlash. These are not positions which would be intellectually tenable without some sort of bogeyman to react to because their justification is not primarily ideological, but primarily about slaying the bogeyman which has been represented as a threat.
One of the problems I have with progressivism as a general form of philosophy is that of people coming to agreement on what constitutes "progress".
That's only a tenable objection if you define the movement in the overbroad way Omar did.
-->
@bsh1
Donald Trump is a populist insofar as he is advocating for the working class and necessary means of a functional democratic system. The "elites" are not an aspect of populism. The climate whatever it may be is only associative. This is important to note. Populism is not a reactionary system based on backlash against elites, but a reaction may be populist in nature. Elizabeth Warren also has populist tendencies exhibiting what populism actually is without the association.
-->
@Snoopy
Donald Trump is a populist insofar as he is advocating for the working class and a functional democratic system for example.
At this point, you're essentially repeating your original contention without addressing the refutation I provided. I said: "When we look at candidates like Trump and Sanders, both populists in their own right, we can best understand their populist positions as backlash to elite control or to the Other's alleged pernicious influence on our society. Trump's blaming immigrants and Sanders's blaming banks and corporations for our economic woes are manifestations of that reactionary backlash."
So yes, Trump claims to be helping the working class, but he claims to be helping them by fighting the pernicious influences of China and immigrants, his chosen bogeymen. He is not motivated by any particular ideology, but rather by a rather primal effort to defeat some alleged bogeyman which has been represented as a thread.
The "elites" are not an aspect of populism.
Most sources would disagree with you there. For a reasonably solid overview, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
-->
@bsh1
Acknowledging what you mean by referring to Donald Trump, yes elites are an aspect of Trump's populism since he proports to believe that elites are a problem that needs solving, but that is not what populism is precisely. I have hard sources in front of me at the moment as well, detached from the current political climate. Its important to note, since redefining concerns for common people and advocacy of means through which aspiration is realized as a reactionary railing against the elites by some vague association is something that should bring one to pause and second guess, for obvious reasons.
-->
@Snoopy
but that is not what populism is precisely
But that is exactly what it is. It is an approach which seeks to improve the outlook of the common people through reactionary backlash to an identified threat which is either elite or Other.
-->
@bsh1
No, there is not necessarily a "boogeyman", which is only necessary for you to hold that populist rhetoric is irrational.
There's nothing wrong with saying the family farmer should be on a board discussing the economics of agriculture. There's no "boogeyman" in that either.
-->
@Snoopy
There's nothing wrong with saying
This is not an issue of wrong or right. This is an issue of definitions. You're incorrectly defining populism is a way that makes it seem as if you have some desire to recuse it from supposed criticisms. I have not criticized populism, and I don't see anything wrong with it in certain manifestations. But it is, and always is, reactionary. There is, and always is, a bogeyman. It is this reactionary nature which distinguishes populism from other pro-working class ideologies.
-->
@bsh1
You've been given a definitions that makes sense, and you are now claiming that elaborations on historic consequences are the definition of populism.
To help you relate, an equivalent from my standpoint might be to say that progressivism is inherently imperialistic.
-->
@Snoopy
You haven't really provided a definition of populism, except to say that is seeks to help the common man. That describes pretty much every ideology that has gain traction in the last 150 years. It's so overbroad and overinclusive as to be utterly useless and without meaning.
Only by examining actual cases of widely-acknowledge populists can we arrive at an actually meaningful definition. Having noted that most sources describe populism as anti-elite, and having discussed actually cases of modern populists, my definition is the only credible one so far presented. I welcome you providing actual analysis to support some alternative understanding, but as yet, have seen none.
-->
@Snoopy
progressivism is inherently imperialistic
That doesn't follow either. Progressivism as it manifests today is reliably anti-imperialist, which disproves any "inherent" link.
-->
@bsh1
Your sources say what none of mine do. I'm going to stick with my books, and common sense which dictates that I don't apply additional nonsense.
-->
@bsh1
Here, taken from a Webster dictionary
A political philosophy directed to the needs of the common people and advocating a more equitable distribution of wealth and power
No boogeyman
progressivism is inherently imperialisticThat doesn't follow either. Progressivism as it manifests today is reliably anti-imperialist, which disproves any "inherent" link.
So, then its a good analogy.
-->
@Snoopy
Your sources say what none of mine do
You've yet to cite any accessible source or provide any actual analysis in support of your claims.
A political philosophy directed to the needs of the common people and advocating a more equitable distribution of wealth and power
That still describes pretty much every ideology that has gain traction in the last 150 years. It's so broad that it lacks any real meaning.
-->
@bsh1
So, logically, you think populism is relevant to every political ideology to gain traction in the last 150 years. Now you have two people giving you the same basic definition.
-->
@Snoopy
you think populism is relevant to every political ideology in the last 150 years
Nice attempt at a strawman.
No, I think that your definition of populism is so void of specifics that it is unworkable and has no meaning whatsoever. Populism is reactionary, and you have been unable to refute that, largely because you have been unable to offer any analysis or any logic to support your position.
I'll be closing this AMA at the end of the day.
-->
@bsh1
I have been telling you that you should give pause to the "reactionary railing against the "elite"" narrative. All of your points have been addressed have they not? I have never delved into the idea that it is thought of in the way that liberalism is.
-->
@Snoopy
I have never delved into the idea
Not in this thread. In this thread, you haven't provided any analysis whatsoever.
-->
@bsh1
I think it should be expressed through a liberal framework, not in place of it.
I'm curious how you differentiate progressivism from a reactionary system of thought.