Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[pbi]

The problem with "Progressives" is that they require Progress.  Progress demands change.  If change doesn't happen than no progress has occurred.

But what is inherently wrong with either "change" or progress"?
Not, I hasten to add, the sort of random, wasteful change for change's sake that we sometimes see from time in various places  like...oh...let's see....the military? >

...But what happens if you have progressed to an Optimum?  Not a maximum or a minimum but simply the best possible...

OK...fine. And who decides what the "Optimum" is? "Optimum" for whom? If "progressives" want to defend a gain or change in society, but reactionary people want to roll it back, who is "liberal" and who is "conservative"?

The goal of most political and social movements is to acquire status - even if it is merely the status of "see how noble I am".

This is a pretty broad condemnation, if you mean "status" in a negative way as in glory-seeking. Would you group the US Civil Rights movement, the Women's Suffrage movement in the UK, the movement to establish publicly funded healthcare in Canada, all together in the same pot as "most political movements? Just being shameless attention-seekers?

If , on the other hand, by "status" you mean that a movement has recognition, influence and credibility, then I agree with you 100%. Without those things no movement worthy of the name is ever going to change anything anyway.

Here are two examples of what progressivism has wrought: destruction of family formation among American blacks, and de-institutionalization of mentally unstable people into the streets of Canada and the US.  I need not reach back into the 1930s.  Progressives have a lot for which to answer.  Good luck even getting them to admit their policies are the causes of the effects.

IMHO the social problems of poor black Americans (and, I would add, some Canadian black communities) have lots more causes than just "progressives". I would certainly agree that badly thought- out or badly applied- social programs have not helped, at all, but identifying that is in no way the same as making a blanket condemnation of liberal or progressive thought. After all, it was the "progressives" of the day, first in the UK and then in the US, who ended slavery.

I think that probably the de-institutionalization of people in mental institutions was done with good intentions (and no Provincial government that I'm aware of, "liberal" or "conservative", has ever moved seriously to roll it back in the decades since it happened), but I agree that it looks like a trainwreck now. Either that, or we have a lot more mentally ill people than we did twenty years ago.  I don't know if this was due to "progressive" thinking, or to a simple lack of analysis of cause and effects.

To fire a broadside like that above against "progressives" is like saying that because conservative US politicians in the 1930's, 40s and '50s opposed civil rights reforms (some Southerners even opposed striking down lynch laws) that all conservatives are narrow minded racists defending the status quo. That isn't true either, quite obviously.

I would argue that while progressive thinkers have lots to answer for, they have historically had quite a bit to be proud of, too. And, BTW, good luck getting committed people from either end of the political spectrum to admit to bad effects from their actions. Just look at the political train wreck in the US. Being married to bad ideas isn't the sole property of "progressives".

My guess is that the people we all really hate are not people who want to stand up for making life better by righting real wrongs, but it's those whiny, excessively politically correct people who champion rubbish like the silly university courses sometimes collectively called "Victim Studies" (read "The Victim's Revolution" for a good take on this nonsense). The same people who don't want to hear the word "responsibilities" in the same sentence as "rights", or want to call unemployed "unwaged", r don't want to hear about "work for welfare" because it's "demeaning".  These are the real problem.

IMHO most of them do not deserve to share the historical stage with true progressives.

 

[Kirkhill]

But what is inherently wrong with either "change" or progress"?

But what is inherently wrong with either "stasis" or regression?

OK...fine. And who decides what the "Optimum" is? "Optimum" for whom? If "progressives" want to defend a gain or change in society, but reactionary people want to roll it back, who is "liberal" and who is "conservative"?

That one's easy. I do. 

And if you don't like it, well, one of us will have to lump it.

I am inclined to take a rather liberal view of what is progress while still conserving my ire for what I consider excess.  Equally my conservative nature requires that I am accepting of the status quo and thus more tolerant which in turn makes me more liberal in my associations with others.

Enjoy yourself parsing that one....

 

[pbi]

Enjoy yourself parsing that one....

Hmmm......you are mocking me in some way, I just know it. ???

I will figure out what way. :rage:

And I will respond with an age-,cultural- and gender-neutral socially appropriate discourse which will allow us to dialogue this meaningful seamless transitional paradigm shift while validating the needs of marginalized communities. ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Aye, I do mock.  But only to take the sting out.

The real issue is that while words have meaning they only have meaning in context.  When discourse is reduced to single words soon it is simplified further to the monosyllabic fricative.

;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to my last thought:

I just remembered an event that speaks to my "context" argument.  I was on a MITCP course long ago and far away and after a strenuous bout of square bashing and yelling commands over the top of my competing course mates we fell out for a brief rest.  I took myself away from the mob for a bit to enjoy my own company.

A this point our instructor bellows across the parade square at me.  "Mr Kirkhill (name changed to the protect the innocent), are you an individual?"

Now normally I would have responded in the affirmative.  However something in that CAR Sgt's tone suggested to me that that was not the answer he was looking for.  I doubled over and joined the mob.

Context is everything.

 

[Kilo_302]

Deconstructing "Conservative" thought:

Either you're an evil, smart mother$%%#*^ making decisions, or you're one of the idiots at the bottom too stupid to see you're fighting for your own right to $#^$ yourself over.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Deconstructing "Conservative" thought:

Either you're an evil, smart mother$%%#*^ making decisions, or you're one of the idiots at the bottom too stupid to see you're fighting for your own right to $#^$ yourself over.

Care to expand on that?

 

[pbi]

Context is everything.

Yes, it is. For example, just look at the phrase: "That was smart".

Does it mean it was smart, or stupid, or smartly turned, or had onboard digital guidance systems (as opposed to "dumb").

People get caught by this in e-mails all the time.

 

[pbi]

Deconstructing "Conservative" thought:

Either you're an evil, smart mother$%%#*^ making decisions, or you're one of the idiots at the bottom too stupid to see you're fighting for your own right to $#^$ yourself over.

Care to expand on that?

Yes, I would like to see that, too.

 

[a_majoor]

Deconstructing "Conservative" Progressive thought:

Either you're an evil, selfless, smart mother$%%#*^ making decisions, or you're one of the idiots at the bottom too stupid to see you're fighting for your own right to $#^$ yourself over.

That's exactly how "Progressives" view the world, with themselves in the driver's seat, and the rest of us needing to be nudged, guided or otherwise socially engineered to do what is "good" for us (in their opinion).

Now as Edward, Brad, Kirkhill and many others (me included) have pointed out, there are plenty of busybodies coming at you from many different positions (Socons and religious fundamentalism come to mind), but the common denominator is always they want power; the power to impose their values and the power to make you conform, regardless of where on the "political spectrum" they claim to be on. Perhaps the real spectrum isn't "Left" and "Right" but Illiberal and liberal (using the classical definition of liberal).

Going a bit upthread about so called "corporate power", recall corporations are legal entities that exist at the pleasure of the government and only have as much or little power as the State is willing to grant. The fact this power is granted unevenly and often for reasons that are not clear to the public (for example, why are we all forced to pay Bell for the privilege of having CTV news on ordinary cable, but need to pay QMI separately to receive SUN TV?).

 

[Brad Sallows]

When I slag "progressives", I mean "progressives" in the contemporary understanding: welfare statists with a strong streak of nannyism (practices they enjoy=protected; practices they don't care about=forbidden).  I don't mean "anyone seeking change".

Many of the successes today's "progressives" like to claim as their doing in fact stemmed from much broader movements, while at the same time they disavow their much more directly tangible relationship with earlier "progressives" responsible for such abominations as eugenics and cultural assimilation programs.  They certainly don't get to have it both ways.

It is noteworthy that the big, unmistakeable successes of change form an intersection squarely in the set of classical liberal and libertarian principles regarding basic human and civil rights: ending slavery, extending voting and other civil rights to 100% of competent adults, etc.

 

[Shrek1985]

That's exactly how "Progressives" view the world, with themselves in the driver's seat, and the rest of us needing to be nudged, guided or otherwise socially engineered to do what is "good" for us (in their opinion).

What weird is that at heart they seem to view people as "essentially good" in a bad system, without giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. So; we're all good people, but we need lots of rules and watching.

I think you get farther, with better ideas if you understand that human beings are essentially evil, cruel creatures, advanced animals really. And then give them benefit of the doubt.

Progressive ideas seem to stem from a beliefe of inherant goodness in all people in all times and places. Bad histories are the result of a flawed system. Communism is a "good" idea, which "good" people willl prosper under. But every communist government ever "did it wrong", their system was bad, which created bad people who took advantage of the good idea.

 

[pbi]

What weird is that at heart they seem to view people as "essentially good" in a bad system...Progressive ideas seem to stem from a beliefe of inherant goodness in all people in all times and places...

The usual anti-"progressive" narrative seems to hold the opposite view: that "progressives" view people as inherently errant, lazy, and negligent beings who must be regulated to death and completely protected from the consequences of their actions.

When I slag "progressives", I mean "progressives" in the contemporary understanding: welfare statists with a strong streak of nannyism (practices they enjoy=protected; practices they don't care about=forbidden).  I don't mean "anyone seeking change".

Then it's too bad that we sully the word "progressive" by associating it with people like this. It seems similar to the way we have turned "intellectual" or "elite"  from positive terms into epithets, because of associations.

I don't see any more intellectual rigor in it than in associating "conservatives" with racism, homophobia, sexism, anti-labor-ism, anti-environment-ism, pro-corporate-ism, etc. All of which they frequently are tarred with. You can hold "conservative" views on things and not share any of these positions. I'm not really sure how much good these "shotgun" terms do fr us.

For example, I probably hold some positions on things that are considerably to the left (or is that "progressive" ?) of many folks here. On the other hand, I believe in capital punishment, work for welfare, a capable and well-funded military, and selective immigration: all traditionally "conservative" positions. I don't believe in "political correctness", but I do believe that there can be reasonable limits to free speech in a civil society. But, I do not want to be stuck in with either the Left or the Right or unthinkingly subscribe to any dogma. Where does that leave  me?

Confused, yes...I know.

I thought of that before you did. >

 

[Brad Sallows]

You poor reasonable, rational, pragmatic centrist.  You will never know the righteous satisfaction of being correct all the time.

 

[Kirkhill]

It seems everyone has caught the bug....

British politics has now reached the stage where all three main parties stand for the opposite of what their name suggests. The Conservatives wish to change everything: health, schools, welfare, the lot. The Labour Party gave up on the common worker some time ago: it stands for higher welfare, and the preoccupations of trade unions. But the newest misnomer is the Liberal Democrats. As Nick Clegg outlined in a speech yesterday, his party now regards itself as the enemy of liberal reforms and will fight the next election proposing to repeal them.

Fraser Nelson - Daily Telegraph

 

[pbi]

You poor reasonable, rational, pragmatic centrist.  You will never know the righteous satisfaction of being correct all the time.

Yes I will! I will! :threat:

 

[a_majoor]

Here is the progressive mindset in its full glory (and operating at two levels); a person shuts down debate when their own words are re-posted, and the opaque rules of Facebook, which allow for people's free speech rights to be eliminated without any form of due process whatsoever. Indeed, since it is quite possible that an attack could be launched anonymously, the effect is Facebook acts as a star chamber, without any ability of the victim to effectively respond, or even know what exactly happened. A fine example of the typical double standard is also there for all to see:

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/10/24/librarian-logic-i-hate-censorship-so-i-censored-you-on-facebook/?singlepage=true

Librarian Logic: I Hate Censorship So I Censored You on Facebook
Ah! Irony.

by
MEGAN FOX
Bio
October 24, 2013 - 11:00 am

Well, it’s official. I’ve been sent to the Facebook “naughty chair” for 12 hours. As I write this I’m still not able to access either one of my pages, personal or writer page, and it’s 1:46 am and I calculate that there are 14 minutes left in my punishment. That Mark Zuckerberg means it when he says it’s going to be a whole 12 hours.

What did I do, pray tell, that sent me, head hanging, to the corner with all the hate speechers and porn-posters? I got into an argument with a librarian who hates censorship. So she did what any logically challenged person would do and reported me to Facebook so they would censor me.

Ah, irony.

Unfortunately for Brittany Staszak, children’s librarian at Glencoe Public Library, actual laws (you know, the ones Congress makes without Mark Zuckerberg’s input), allow a person to re-post statements made in a public forum like Facebook or YouTube or anywhere else on the internet! So welcome to your 15 minutes of fame, Ms. Staszak. I hope it’s exciting for you! (Or at least as exciting as pushing the “report” button all day.) Here’s the exchange that got me thrown out of social media.

(see attached jpgs at link)

And then she reported me and made sure I was not able to access all the information in the form of media and internet access for the next 12 hours (actually we’re at 14 and counting now).  Staszak wants to have her cake and eat it too by posting her ridiculous ideas in a public forum but at the same time pretending no one else has a right to comment on how crazy her ideas are.

Well, she can’t ban me from America (outside of Facebook, which I learned today is a lot slower and colder than I remember). Eventually, Zuckerberg will cave (I think). In the meantime, Brittany, please do email my editor (DaveSwindlePJM[@]gmail.com) with any more complaints and demands about how I should be silenced and censored and any other general comments you have about how awful I am. He loves mail like that. I think he is wallpapering a bathroom in his apartment with them.

[Editor note: I'll go a step further. Rather than just complain, Ms. Staszak is invited to email me a letter to the editor for publication and a dialogue on these important issues. Likewise, any other librarians or others who object to Megan's activist efforts to make her public library a sexual predator and public masturbation-free zone, please do email me your submission. -DS] (Interpolation: how free speech is handled in a liberal society by adults. And by liberal I mean the classical formulation of Liberalism)

So that was the big crime that, in Mark Zuckerberg’s opinion, constitutes hideous harassment — screen-grabbing public comments from YouTube and re-posting them on Facebook to discuss with my friends and readers this terrible attitude about giving children access to porn. I had two major reasons for doing this.

1. No one believes me when I tell them that librarians are trained in college to give your kids access to porn.

The American Library Association wrote its own Constitution (isn’t that cute?), none of which was voted on or debated in Congress, in case you were wondering. In this fake “Constitution” (that has no legal authority over anything or anyone)  there is also a pretend “Bill of Rights” which states,

Lack of access to information can be harmful to minors. Librarians and library governing bodies have a public and professional obligation to ensure that all members of the community they serve have free, equal, and equitable access to the entire range of library resources regardless of content, [emphasis mine] approach, format, or amount of detail. This principle of library service applies equally to all users, minors as well as adults.

This lack of concern for content is the whole problem. And since we know they do not care what is in the books and they will not help parents, this brings me to my next reason for posting Staszak’s hair-brained philosophy on Facebook (still locked out at 2:44 a.m.).



2. Parents need to know

The library carries video games that are rated. They don’t peel off the ratings and just hand Grand Theft Auto to a five year old. But books are sacrosanct. Books cannot possibly be given ratings based on content because that’s censorship! I understand that libraries could not do such a thing because there are just too many books. But publishers could do it very easily. Someone has to take responsibility for what is in some of these books marketed to youth.

Page 38 of David Zimmerman’s Caring is Creepy (a book that won the 2012 American Library Association Alex Award for being relevant to teens ages 12 to 17) says,

I’m going to tear a hole in your belly button and f*** your piggy fat. I’m going to hunt you down and kill you with my c***…I’m looking at you through your webcam right now.

And the librarians will all scream together in a chorus, “CONTEXT, THERE’S NO CONTEXT! YOU’RE A BOOK BURNER!” in the exact manner of townspeople ordering a farmer’s wife to climb on the pyre because someone said she’s a witch. I really don’t care what the context is. I never ever want my teen daughter to read those words in any book, let alone one that the American Library Association (ALA) says is good for her. How many parents are out there who would see the ALA-approved stamp on a book and think their child is reading high literature? Don’t parents have a right to know the kind of violent, graphic sexual content is in the books in the “youth” section of libraries?

I do not advocate book burning. (And it bothers me that I have to even say that.) I do not “hate books.” I love books and I love libraries (contrary to what some people believe because I am investigating one for open pornography and failure to report crimes). Most of all, I love my children and I worry about what this culture of porn and violence will do to their minds. I believe any idiot can write whatever they want, the same way I believe any jerk can make a violent video game and sell it to people.

But if violent video games with adult content must be labeled (because parents had enough and demanded a change), the same should hold true for books marketed to children and teens. If you want to write all the violent gore and sex and put it in an “adult” section book, I will never bother you. Go for it. You and God can work it out in the hereafter. But why should the “youth” section be littered with disgusting, pornographic trash that is of no value to young people, and parents not even be given the opportunity to know about it?

I don’t expect libraries to do anything about this, so I have started my own project reviewing popular books for young people called Story Time with Megan Fox, and you can find the reviews on my YouTube page here. If you would like me to review a book, please send me your recommendations and I will do so. I am also always on the lookout for great books for youth (although they are increasingly harder to find). I will also be reviewing those in the upcoming months. This is a service I am providing for free for parents because I know how it feels to be told your authority over your own children is meaningless by statists who think they are smarter and more powerful than you.

It is now 10:04 a.m. and my Facebook account is still blocked. The librarians of America have ganged up to harass and censor me with “report” posts, and Facebook does not allow a person being harassed in this way to launch any defense. Facebook has also not responded to media requests for clarification and reasoning behind this decision. But not to worry!  “Godamn I Hate Sarah Palin” is still up and running.

Megan Fox is a homeschooling mom to her two girls ages 7 and 4 and happy wife to her husband of thirteen years. She writes, gardens, composes conservative folk music and enjoys angering progressive "feminists" as often as possible. www.Facebook.com/MeganFoxWriter

Many of the comments are also illuminating. And it isn't just children's books. Ever try to find an economics textbook about the Austrian school (or by members of the Austrian school)? It is similar to beig "bubbled" by Google; if the information is being withheld, how will you even know?

 

[pbi]

This isn't really about anybody acting in a progressive manner, ie: doing something that advances society, makes life better, or rights some societal wrong, which to me would be the valid definitions of "progressive".

This is about a silly person overreacting, and being facilitated by a gun shy website.

And I doubt, really, that most or even many librarians "want" children to look at porn.

 

[PMedMoe]

This is about a silly person overreacting

They both overreacted.  I personally think Ms. Fox was wrong to point out the person's first name and profession.  Not to mention her zealous, laser-like ability to assume that anything graphic must be pornographic.  And her belief that libraries "actively' want kids to have access to it.

And I doubt, really, that most or even many librarians "want" children to look at porn.

I agree.

 

[George Wallace]

They both overreacted.  I personally think Ms. Fox was wrong to point out the person's first name and profession.  Not to mention her zealous, laser-like ability to assume that anything graphic must be pornographic.  And her belief that libraries "actively' want kids to have access to it.

Her song went viral though..... >