Members banned from this thread: Blah


Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 222
Thanks Tree171Thanks

Thread: Show me the best arguments for progressivism please.

  1. #21
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    13,939
    Thanks
    5182

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by Jmayspaint View Post
    I'm a life long liberal. My father was a democrat, and active in local politics. As soon as I was old enough, I worked the polls with him. We were in the political minority in east TN, but there were a few victories. One was forcing the local government to allow other, secular documents to be placed along side the Ten Commandments display in the local court house.

    Lately though I'm hearing more convincing arguments coming from the right and those on the left that call themselves classical liberals.

    Commentators like Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, Larry Elder, Ben Shapiro, etc.. are putting out content that is making me question the progressive agenda that most on the left seem to embrace.

    I know there are a lot of progressives here so I though this would be a good place to ask for references to the cream of the crop of progressive arguments.

    I fear that because of YouTube/Google algorithms I might be missing compelling counter arguments to the content I'm watching lately.

    For example, does anyone have a link to a good video explaining why identity politics is a good thing? Perhaps some thoughtful refutations of the classical liberal ideas that the modern left seems to have abandoned?

    Or anything at all in that vein.

    Kindly leave out any arguments that rely on calling ideological opponents an "ist" of some kind in an attempt to shut down conversation. TIA.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    interesting. before I can reply, could you please explain precisely what your idea is of "progressive" and what characterizes a person who expresses that view?
    Thanks from DebateDrone and MaryAnne

  2. #22
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,239
    Thanks
    3611

    The progressive religion isn't about arguments. It's about emotions. All their best arguments are like the dueling banjos of the heartstrings. This is not to say that progressive thought does not have a place in the national discussion. It just needs to accept a subordinate role. There is no adding, balancing or long term consequences in the progressive religion and those things are clearly necessary. Likewise, the myth of american superiority and destiny is a religion. There is no humility or proportion in its aims. This is not to say that american exceptionalism does not have a place in the national discussion. It just needs to accept a subordinate role. So we bounce between these extremes, because religion has an irrational core. It is self righteous in the extreme. But it inspires followers, irrational followers. We are not a secular nation.

    So if these (and other forms of zealotry) take a subordinate role, what philosophy should rule the nation and exactly how do we elect the right rulers?

    Embrace compromise, elevate the status of the consensus builder, look for those who put the zealots in their place and nurture admiration for those who have the skill to navigate the minefields and distractions.

    https://americanhumanist.org/what-is...sm/manifesto1/

    The Project for the New American Century
    Last edited by kmiller1610; 7th July 2017 at 02:08 AM.

  3. #23
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    30,210
    Thanks
    25699

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Jmayspaint View Post
    I'm a life long liberal. My father was a democrat, and active in local politics. As soon as I was old enough, I worked the polls with him. We were in the political minority in east TN, but there were a few victories. One was forcing the local government to allow other, secular documents to be placed along side the Ten Commandments display in the local court house.

    Lately though I'm hearing more convincing arguments coming from the right and those on the left that call themselves classical liberals.

    Commentators like Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, Larry Elder, Ben Shapiro, etc.. are putting out content that is making me question the progressive agenda that most on the left seem to embrace.

    I know there are a lot of progressives here so I though this would be a good place to ask for references to the cream of the crop of progressive arguments.

    I fear that because of YouTube/Google algorithms I might be missing compelling counter arguments to the content I'm watching lately.

    For example, does anyone have a link to a good video explaining why identity politics is a good thing? Perhaps some thoughtful refutations of the classical liberal ideas that the modern left seems to have abandoned?

    Or anything at all in that vein.

    Kindly leave out any arguments that rely on calling ideological opponents an "ist" of some kind in an attempt to shut down conversation. TIA.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Here is what to look for when people are using and talking against the term Identity politics.

    It is a way to say to the coalition of groups that have formed mostly based out of need, mostly from a historical stand point of those groups, that were disenfranchised and marginalized...no longer need to use race, or culture as their guide.

    Those that speak against coalitions do so from the current perspective that...we are NOW all the same; These people like Shapiro and Harris...im sure others, but those are the two I listened to...claim that America is at an even playing field of it's treatment of groups once marginalized...so why do we need groups of peoples of different cultures, races, and orientations all thinking alike?

    Here is why. The playing field is still not level. While Shapiro and Harris may be more inclusive and color blind...the Right is not.

    Maybe it is most imperative for you to check your convictions...and see who you are before you ask others who they are. Base what you want to be politically off who you are and what is important to you.
    Last edited by DebateDrone; 7th July 2017 at 02:48 AM.
    Thanks from Babba

  4. #24
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    13,939
    Thanks
    5182

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Here is what to look for when people are using and talking against the term Identity politics.

    It is a way to say to the coalition of groups that have formed mostly based out of need, mostly from a historical stand point of those groups, that were disenfranchised and marginalized...no longer need to use race, or culture as their guide.

    Those that speak against coalitions do so from the current perspective that...we are NOW all the same; These people like Shapiro and Harris...im sure others, but those are the two I listened to...claim that America is at an even playing field of it's treatment of groups once marginalized...so why do we need groups of peoples of different cultures, races, and orientations all thinking alike?

    Here is why. The playing field is still not level. While Shapiro and Harris may be more inclusive and color blind...the Right is not.

    Maybe it is most imperative for you to check your convictions...and see who you are before you ask others who they are. Base what you want to be politically off who you are and what is important to you.
    agreed. that is the basis for my question. text books are notoriously vague on descriptive details about political ideology - and there are few individuals who subscribe exactly to any ideology 100%. until a definition is stated by the owner of the OP, all discussions become highly subjective.
    Thanks from NiteGuy and Blues63

  5. #25
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63,757
    Thanks
    44232

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    That's a very partisan response to a very complicated discussion.

    From a policy standpoint Trump has been anything but exciting, he hasn't done much of anything. The left's bitching and moaning about Trumps escapades is nothing but window dressing that doesn't matter one iota to anything from a historical perspective.

    And we are no closer to a nuclear war than we ever have been, that is just more partisan BS.

    As for identity politics that never surfaced for most of Bush's presidency, it was overridden by the war. Once that turned south you began to see the left embrace identity politics to demonstrate their hate for Bush, that's when the democratic party embraced that methodology and expanded it and that's where the democrats are now.
    In the 70 years since, the clock has swung back and forth as it appears on every cover of the Bulletin, usually after important developments related to the world’s nuclear arsenal, like the development of the hydrogen bomb (two minutes to midnight in 1953) to progressive arms agreements (17 minutes to midnight after post-Cold War nuclear reductions). The clock has also showed up in everything from rock music (Iron Maiden’s “Two Minutes To Midnight”) to playing a pivotal visual role in DC’s seminal Watchmen series.

    More recently, the Doomsday Clock has taken into account not only nuclear weapons but the similarly dire situation of climate change. It was the latter that caused the clock to move in 2015 from five minutes to midnight to three. On January 26, the inauguration of the unstable and volatile Donald J. Trump led the clock to be moved to two-and-a-half-minutes to midnight, the first time the clock has been moved in half-minute increments, and its closest position to Doomsday since 1953.
    The people behind the Doomsday Clock explain why we?re so close to midnight · Expert Witness · The A.V. Club

    Yes, the majority of the left was behind Bush until he got all belligerent toward people who didn't agree with him and when he attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
    Thanks from Panzareta and MaryAnne

  6. #26
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    29,166
    Thanks
    7559

    From
    TN
    It bankrupts blue states... IL, CT, NY CA the 4 worst state fiscally in the US.

  7. #27
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63,757
    Thanks
    44232

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    The progressive religion isn't about arguments. It's about emotions. All their best arguments are like the dueling banjos of the heartstrings. This is not to say that progressive thought does not have a place in the national discussion. It just needs to accept a subordinate role. There is no adding, balancing or long term consequences in the progressive religion and those things are clearly necessary. Likewise, the myth of american superiority and destiny is a religion. There is no humility or proportion in its aims. This is not to say that american exceptionalism does not have a place in the national discussion. It just needs to accept a subordinate role. So we bounce between these extremes, because religion has an irrational core. It is self righteous in the extreme. But it inspires followers, irrational followers. We are not a secular nation.

    So if these (and other forms of zealotry) take a subordinate role, what philosophy should rule the nation and exactly how do we elect the right rulers?

    Embrace compromise, elevate the status of the consensus builder, look for those who put the zealots in their place and nurture admiration for those who have the skill to navigate the minefields and distractions.

    https://americanhumanist.org/what-is...sm/manifesto1/

    The Project for the New American Century
    Posts #19 and #20 don't seem like mere emotions. They seem like perfectly reasonable and logical points to me and do a much better job of explaining progressivism than you ever could. Your definition of progressivism comes from a purely emotional perspective based on your need to demonize the left. Progressivism, essentially, is about making society work for the largest number of people possible. And it does embrace a lot of Keynesian economics.

  8. #28
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    63,757
    Thanks
    44232

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    It bankrupts blue states... IL, CT, NY CA the 4 worst state fiscally in the US.
    Your contributions are always so deep and enlightening.
    Thanks from OldGaffer, Panzareta and BitterPill

  9. #29
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    29,166
    Thanks
    7559

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Your contributions are always so deep and enlightening.

    Yes they are and they are factually correct too.. IL and CT are soon to be Junk bond brokers. NY is not far behind, and CA is trying to make it to Junk bond status.


    Blue states need to be good at something, I guess leaders in the Junk Bond sales is the best they can do.

    Hell NY Harbor is losing ground to Charleston and Savannah.

  10. #30
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    30,210
    Thanks
    25699

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Jmayspaint View Post
    Idk, I imagine many Trump voters don't mind being bored at all. It must be incredibly boring to operate a rivet press (or whatever) at a factory that pays a good wage and offers some kind of retirement fund.

    What's not boring is loosing that job and trying to figure out how to support your family.

    I saw it first hand after NAFTA when the Levi's plant here closed. That was anything but boring. I worked in the trades, so it didn't hit me as hard as many others.

    To be clear, I was one of about 1,100 Hilary voters in the general in my district. Trump (obviously) won this rural TN district by a large margin. And while some of the people here might very well be the kind of ignorant hillbillies that leftists distain, many aren't.

    People here just want to live their lives as they always have. That's becoming harder for a lot of people. It might very well be foolish for these people to hope that Trump can somehow help them, but his message gave them more hope than Hillary's apparently.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The right has done an effective job is demonizing unions and collective bargaining. They even still blame workers seeking better pay and better working conditions as a reason jobs left the area. The fact of the matter is that American workers could never compete with slave wages American business have enjoyed overseas for the past 30 years.

    The right has excellent reasons why liberalism "does not work"...but little information on how to make their ideas work in real world situations.

    Right now the only two issues important to the right are 1] ending federal participation in health care insurance...and 2] reforming taxes to give tax relief to the most wealthy.

    I don't know what the right believes what America should be past those two issues.

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The failure of progressivism in one simple chart...
    By Raoul_Duke in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th December 2013, 05:56 AM
  2. Progressivism
    By Justoffal in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 27th June 2013, 08:08 AM
  3. Another two by four to the head of progressivism...
    By Raoul_Duke in forum Economics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th May 2013, 03:40 AM
  4. The Best Books to Combat Progressivism.
    By Angel of Dearth in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 3rd September 2012, 02:50 PM
  5. Progressivism (or liberalism)
    By Blueneck in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 10th May 2012, 10:53 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed