I am a progressive, ask me anything, now bear in mind that my views and opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of the majority of progressives.
Progressive AMA
Posts
Total:
40
-->
@Theweakeredge
How do you defend this enormous gish gallop of contradicting progressive beliefs, none of which you have ever endorsed?
-->
@SirAnonymous
To answer this question in general:
I can be a net progressive and still not support specific tenents of progressivism, such as a Christian can not support everything in the bible and yet still believe in god. Same as them, I can value the overall goal of progressives without actually adopting any positions they bear.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I am a progressive, ask me anything, now bear in mind that my views and opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of the majority of progressives.
You'd have to first outline the tenets and principles of progressivism.
I can be a net progressive and still not support specific tenents of progressivism, such as a Christian can not support everything in the bible and yet still believe in god.
Except the belief in God alone does not make one Christian (e.g. Judaists also believe in God.) And let me remind you that progressivism is a political philosophy, not an emotion. You don't get to arbitrarily determine how much of a progressive you are. That's the reason political hypocrites can't get away with calling themselves "moderates" or "centrists," or minarchists can't get away with calling themselves "Libertarian." Political philosophies like any philosophy are constituted by the entirety of their tenets and principles, not just "some." It is the line of reasoning that informs and substantiates the aforementioned principles. And if you sustain one, and reject the other, then you undermine the line of reasoning; hence, you undermine the principles.
Take me for example: I adhere to the philosophy of individualism. This necessitates that I also sustain anarchism/voluntaryism as a political philosophy and laissez-faire economics as an economic philosophy/approach. If I reject any one principle, then I'm rejecting the line of reasoning that informs all the others.
So here are my questions: (1) what are the principles, tenets, and/or precepts of progressivism with which you disagree? (2) why do you disagree with them? and, (3) does progressivism in your observation operate on a consistent line of reasoning?
-->
@Athias
Ah, you cut out an essential part of my response in order to make your rebuttal seem more fluid than it actually was, here is my entire response:
I can be a net progressive and still not support specific tenents of progressivism, such as a Christian can not support everything in the bible and yet still believe in god. Same as them, I can value the overall goal of progressives without actually adopting any positions they bear.
I believe the general goal of progressives should be to lead a country to positive progress, specifically in regard to the civil rights of people in general. Such as a woman's right to an abortion, such as a homosexual man's right to marriage, such as a transgender person's right to transition. Etc, etc..
Except the belief in God alone does not make one Christian (e.g. Judaists also believe in God.)
Except I think by use of context clues, you can easily tell I am referring to the Christina god, if not, regard this example instead: I can still be a theist and not believe the tenants of typical theism and still believe in a god. That should satisfy your need to nitpick.
And let me remind you that progressivism is a political philosophy, not an emotion. You don't get to arbitrarily determine how much of a progressive you are.
There is no arbitrary about it, I believe in the central goal of progressivism, but because of the ideology, people can disagree about what that best way there. As well as the fact that yes, I technically could determine how progressive I was, by measuring how towards the goal of progressivism my goals align.
That's the reason political hypocrites can't get away with calling themselves "moderates" or "centrists," or minarchists can't get away with calling themselves "Libertarian." Political philosophies like any philosophy are constituted by the entirety of their tenets and principles, not just "some."
I would disagree, that is one way you could say that they are made up, but this is a naive approach that is limiting unneedlessly. As you were so quick to ignore, one could simply identify the goal of one's political ideology and measure yourself based on this. This is you assuming that there is only one way to define or measure a political ideology.
It is the line of reasoning that informs and substantiates the aforementioned principles. And if you sustain one, and reject the other, then you undermine the line of reasoning; hence, you undermine the principles.
This is untrue on a simple basis, it basically goes back to my Christian example, I am still a Christian if I believe in god/jesus but I also believe that we shouldn't stone gay people. I am still a Christian if I believe I shouldn't own slaves, etc, etc...
So here are my questions: (1) what are the principles, tenets, and/or precepts of progressivism with which you disagree? (2) why do you disagree with them? and, (3) does progressivism in your observation operate on a consistent line of reasoning?
Never did I say I disagreed with any of them, I was simply saying I may or may not reflect all of their opinions. Same answer as the last one, and as far as I am aware, yes.
-->
@Theweakeredge
What economic system would you like to see and why? What are the key components of it. If a restrained form of capitalism, how do you envisage stopping economic inequality from running rampant again when the very rich will still exist in some form and be able to exert disproportionate power (including on future laws/taxation)?
-->
@Theweakeredge
What would be the best general progressive policy that creates jobs in the private sector, especially for unskilled/inexperienced labor?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why do you guys support objectively bad things like multiculturalism?
-->
@TXHG
What economic system would you like to see and why?
Hmm.... probably a hybrid of our current system with some socialist values, not necessarily systems: such as giving the free market complete control, making profit less of a priority, etc..
Now, again, as I have pointed out in my other topic, I am very inexperienced when it comes to economics, so I will definitely have to look into the plausibility of such an economic structure in my studies. This could be completely wrong and I'm sorry if it is.
What are the key components of it?
I am not knowledgeable enough of the subject to give you a good or accurate response, I'm sorry.
If a restrained form of capitalism, how do you envisage stopping economic inequality from running rampant again when the very rich will still exist in some form and be able to exert disproportionate power (including on future laws/taxation)?
Hmm, most likely yes to the future question, as for the last part. You would probably have to see a fundamental change in how we fund cities, schools, and the like. In order to ensure economic equality - there are more than just economic principals there. Again I'm sorry if this isn't a satisfying response, I'm not very studies in economics.
-->
@Greyparrot
What would be the best general progressive policy that creates jobs in the private sector, especially for unskilled/inexperienced labor?
You are giving me more credit than you should, but if I'd try to answer? Hmm....
Progressism isn't necessarily against all of the current laws or policies, so I'm not sure if it would actually affect this as it is currently, If I'm wrong please do let me know, but as far as I'm aware only the discriminatory laws will have to go which won't actively change all that much there.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Thats literally America
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is promoting tribal diversity of many cultures over a dominant national culture a policy of progressives? How is this policy superior? Why?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Ah, you cut out an essential part of my response in order to make your rebuttal seem more fluid than it actually was, here is my entire response:I can be a net progressive and still not support specific tenents of progressivism, such as a Christian can not support everything in the bible and yet still believe in god. Same as them, I can value the overall goal of progressives without actually adopting any positions they bear.I believe the general goal of progressives should be to lead a country to positive progress, specifically in regard to the civil rights of people in general. Such as a woman's right to an abortion, such as a homosexual man's right to marriage, such as a transgender person's right to transition. Etc, etc..
What are the specific tenets of progressivism you don't support? Why don't you support them?
Except I think by use of context clues, you can easily tell I am referring to the Christina god, if not, regard this example instead: I can still be a theist and not believe the tenants of typical theism and still believe in a god.
The Christian God is the same as the Judaic God and Islamic God (They're all Abrahamic Religions.) And no, there's only one tenet of theism, and that's to believe in at least one god.
That should satisfy your need to nitpick.
There's no need to nitpick. Only a need to be accurate.
There is no arbitrary about it, I believe in the central goal of progressivism, but because of the ideology, people can disagree about what that best way there. As well as the fact that yes, I technically could determine how progressive I was, by measuring how towards the goal of progressivism my goals align.
You're conflating practice with philosophy. And no, your goals either align or they don't. And if they don't, you're not by description a "progressive." So if the general goal of progressivism is civil rights, then the reasoning which informs that goal must be consistent throughout. If there's a tenet of progressivism which sustains the same reasoning behind civil rights, but you for some reason deem it inconsistent with your goals, then you are being arbitrary. I suppose another consideration would be that progressivism isn't a consistent political position, and more of an itemized list of hypocritical requests.
I would disagree, that is one way you could say that they are made up,
No, that is the only way they're made up.
but this is a naive approach that is limiting unneedlessly.
Yes it is intended to limit, giving distinction between itself and other philosophies and/or particularizing its ends. There's nothing "naive" about understanding that.
As you were so quick to ignore, one could simply identify the goal of one's political ideology and measure yourself based on this.
What's the utility in "measuring"? You either adhere to the goal or you don't.
This is you assuming that there is only one way to define or measure a political ideology.
I don't assume there's only one way to define or measure a political ideology. First, as you can probably tell from above, I reject the utility of "measuring." And the definition is the definition--I don't assume it.
I am still a Christian if I believe in god/jesus but I also believe that we shouldn't stone gay people. I am still a Christian if I believe I shouldn't own slaves, etc, etc...
First the Bible doesn't state anywhere to "stone gay people," or prescribe "owning slaves." (It recommends stoning for pretty much everything else.) Yes, the Bible states that homosexuality is an abomination whose participants should be put to death, and that slavery ought to be regulated, but those aren't the principles taught by Jesus Christ which informs Christianity. Your analogy falls short. If you don't live by and sustain the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ, then you are not Christian.
Never did I say I disagreed with any of them, I was simply saying I may or may not reflect all of their opinions. Same answer as the last one, and as far as I am aware, yes.
With which tenets, principles, precepts, or opinions you may or may not reflect? Why don't you reflect them?
-->
@bmdrocks21
Like - see here:
That is how America was started and how it thrives, please demonstrate why its bad please
-->
@Athias
Than the progressivism I'm talking about isn't a political ideology, because I'm referring to the philosophy and applying it to politics, as far as I was aware that's how all political ideologies work, where is your authority to claim what is and isn't a political ideology, one of the words in it is literally ideology.
I'm sorry I'm simply not in the mood to respond today, I'll create a more in-depth rebuttal a little later :)
-->
@Greyparrot
Where did you get tribal? Is that just thrown in to make it seem worse? Ad hominem at best. And it's not, simple saying you can have two cultures isn't that hard. You can be American and African America, you can be American and Mexican (Cuture) there is no need to get rid of it or appropriate it.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Where did you get tribal? Is that just thrown in to make it seem worse? Ad hominem at best.
I have not said a motherfucking goddamn thing about you. I was asking about tribal diversity, not slinging insults at you.
Please don't translate everything you don't like into a personal attack. We have enough of those types of people on this site, and we don't need more.
-->
@Greyparrot
Well aren't you aggressive, all you had to do was clarify, I take back the ad hominem thing, now how about actually addressing my point?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Ok to clarify with a much easier question...do you think all cultures are equal in value?
-->
@Greyparrot
As long as there is nothing inherently harmful of that culture, yes.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Than the progressivism I'm talking about isn't a political ideology, because I'm referring to the philosophy and applying it to politics, as far as I was aware that's how all political ideologies work, where is your authority to claim what is and isn't a political ideology, one of the words in it is literally ideology.
I'm not claiming to be an authority. I'm merely applying salient reasoning. But since you've been under the microscope, let me relieve you of some scrutiny and use myself as an example. Say that I believe:
- Parents aren't obligated to rearing their offspring,
- The minimum wage should be abolished,
- It's a woman's decision to continue or terminate her pregnancy.
What do all of these have in common? They all require an individual's labor. Under individualist philosophy, individual sovereignty is paramount. And as an extension, each individual has a right to disseminate or withhold their labor as they see fit. Now if I am to sustain this principle as an adherent, I must accept all of the aforementioned. Because to reject one of them, would be to reject the line of reasoning which informs the others. Now case in point:
- Progressives believe that abortions should be legal because "it's her body, her choice."
- Progressives believe in raising the age of consent [because it's their body, but not their choice.]
*Note: those under the age of consent can exercise their "right" to an abortion with judicial approval.
How does sustaining the aforestated reflect a consistent set of principles which inform the political ideology? Or is it as I considered earlier, and progressivism is nothing more than an itemized list of arbitrary and hypocritical requests?
I'm sorry I'm simply not in the mood to respond today, I'll create a more in-depth rebuttal a little later :)
Fair enough. Take your time.
-->
@Theweakeredge
So let us say, a culture that expresses a belief like this for example:
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
Clearly does not believe all cultures are equal.
Do you agree?
-->
@Greyparrot
You are ignoring the cavieat, if there's any harm inherently then I exclude it, besides those, they are all equal.
-->
@Theweakeredge
please demonstrate why its bad please
I'd ask a few French priests and teachers about it, but they are having a hard time speaking out against it after their recent decapitations.
Thats literally America
Post-1960s America, maybe. It went from aggressively forcing people to assimilate to the current woke "what's wrong with having people with radically different values and cultures in close proximity?"
-->
@Theweakeredge
I believe the general goal of progressives should be to lead a country to positive progress, specifically in regard to the civil rights of people in general. Such as a woman's right to an abortion, such as a homosexual man's right to marriage, such as a transgender person's right to transition. Etc, etc..
Looks like you are an aspiring single issue voter
What should the voting age be?
-->
@Conway
What should the voting age be?
Maybe the age where you can't be declared as a dependent on tax forms. :)
-->
@Greyparrot
21 years old
-->
@Theweakeredge
21 is kind of harsh. Many people have their own home/apartment and job at 18.
-->
@Greyparrot
I think a lot of things should be moved up to 21, driving, minimum for joining the military, age of consent, all of that.
-->
@Greyparrot
I think a lot of things should be moved up to 21, driving, minimum for joining the military, age of consent, all of that.