Progressives
Progressives by nature want progress. Since the majority of progressives are young kids (or old children), that suffer from chronic Dunning-Kruger effect (those that know the least are the most self-assured) and think they know how to fix everything better than the people who have spent their lives in those industries, progress is virtually always an immature "knee-jerk" far-left reaction on how to make things better, that results in unintended consequences and would make things much worse. If only they had the wisdom to listen to the experts before regulating/legislating. But if they had that wisdom and temperament, they would be moderates.
Progressives is kind of a broad brush, and a sloppy one -- in that different countries might have different standards. But basically they have a few sub-segments, some of them worse than others. The worst are the "College Kids" regurgitating what they were taught in Marxist Grievance Studies classes, gullibly trying to change the world, without understanding the first thing about the past, present, or able to think through the consequences of their policies (and thus the future). It is slightly unfair to paint this vocal minority as all progressives -- but then most progressives have no problems with using the broad brush sloppily, so don't they deserve a little back? Maybe. But insert some caveats here, and don't just all of them by the actions of their vocal majority: it's just the 90% that give the rest a bad name.
Issue | Lie | Truth |
---|---|---|
Progressives | Progressives see other progressives as good (by ignoring all the ways they aren't). They see those that resisted progress as bad, luddites, or vile (by ignoring the ways they aren't). They teach their side to fear the other side: Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Trump were all like Hitler, or dangerously unstable. (Lookup the Goldwater Rule). They know their side is morally superior, because they scare their base about the opposition. Any deeper glance at their side shows some rather unsavory behaviors from the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Martin Luther King Jr., Margaret Sanger, and a rapid emotional (fearful?) attacks on anyone that points out their flaws. | There's no moral high ground in taking other people's property, keeping a cut, and giving a percentage to your cronies or constituents. Teddy was a blowhard war-monger. Wilson was a racist pawn of corporate interests. FDR was one of more corrupt Presidents and nasty human being. MLK was a philander and a hypocrite. Margaret Sanger was a vile eugenicist. And so on. The world is a lot more nuanced, and people a lot more complex than the caricatures painted by leftist historians. But if they told the truth, their voters might not fear the alternatives as much. If you doubt it, point out inconvenient truths and see if they can accept them, or they attack. |
Progressive Choice |
---|
The progressive choice is like the light or dark side in Star Wars (and the Force). You can look at people who have more success, money, looks, and so on, and you can pick either to:
I think society is better the more people b's and few a's there are. So I'd rather doom people to a realistic optimism of (b), than the cynical pessimism of (a). Life sucks and is hard for most people. But the green-eyed monster of envy or trying to force fairness on an unjust world, is dooming people to failure and a bitter existence. While teaching them to cherish what they have, will make life better for them, and most who interact with them. Emotionally happy and healthy people aren't progressives. more... |
Progressive Quotes |
---|
I generally prefer quotes about progressives that try to enlighten. There are few insightful progressives because most of them are just not that self-aware of themselves, the world around them, or what their policies would lead to. So they are often pithy, simplistic, and wrong -- but some are worth reading for the jaw-dropping barbarism that they believe, when they're being honest. (Later progressives learned to hide it better). |
Progressives gave us |
---|
You often hear advocates claiming, "if it wasn't for progressives, you wouldn't have X...", then they explain without progressives, we wouldn't have roads, schools, police, fireman, military, or some other thing we had for decades or centuries before progressives. But I wanted to compile the other side of the equation (the balances). Here's a reminder of what they gave us that wasn't so great, or started off fine but entropied into something bad, so people can decide if jumping on every new big-government bandwagon is a good idea… or if a little prudence, caution and research is warranted before gobbling up the bandwagon fallacy and putting on that Che Guevara T-Shirt. The short list of losers would include the following:
|
More
Progressives : 4 items
Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez - Thomas Piketty is a French Economist (and woman-beater), who used Emmanuel Saez's discredited research (study) on how things haven't gotten better for the middle class, as the basis for his new socialist manifesto called Capital in the 21st Century (a play on Marx’s Das Kapital). Economically, the study/book was crap: politically, it was gold. It told the left leaning and their media what they wanted to hear. So it made the NYT best seller list in Fan Fiction, and everyone talked about it. It was peer reviewed and debunked in spades, but not before the gullible gobbled it up as a tasty plate of confirmation bias. Nom nom.
Margaret Sanger - Progressive activist racist eugenicist founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate as many inferior (brown) babies as possible, to advance white protestantism. The party that loves to hate and remove Confederate heroes and statues has no problem worshiping at the feet of their bigots: proving all standards don't apply equally.
Linda Sarsour - Linda Sarsour, the face behind the Pussy-Hat protests, who personifies the nasty hyper-partisan and far-left hypocrisy that defined the movement. The whole thing was a fraud: the march and movement were never really about women. The real purpose is to advance the left’s political agenda: The whole “women” thing is just a convenient political banner. How else to explain why one of the march’s leaders, Linda Sarsour, who was featured by Glamour. Is this really the new poster girl for women’s lib?:
- She defends sharia law and Saudi Arabia’s legal system — which, as CNN explains, denies women basic rights, such as the freedom to “marry, divorce, travel, get a job or have elective surgery without permission from their male guardians”?
- Sarsour is pals with many terrorist sympathizers and organizations: if it's radical Islam, she supports it (with all the sexism in tact)
- Her "Mentor" (her words), was Imam Wahhaj - an unindicted co-conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings and a prominent leader of the Muslim Alliance in North America. (Never enough evidence to bring charges).
- Imam Wahhaj's son (Siraj Ibn Wahhaj) was found creating a terrorist training camp in Taos, New Mexico. His radical islamic school for teaching kids how to do school shootings had 11 pupils and the body of his "missing" son.
- She tweeted that female-genital-mutilation survivor and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali is asking “4 an a$$whippin’ ” and “I wish I could take their vaginas away — they don’t deserve to be women.”
Jim Jones -
Jonesian Democrats | Tribalism
|
Hypocrisy
|
Ignorance
|
Intolerance
|
Transparency
|
Paranoia
|
Leavability
|
Abuse
|
Insecurity
|
Eccentricity
|
Prophets
|
Extremism
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level | 🔟 | 9️⃣ | 9️⃣ | 8️⃣ | 🔟 | 🔟 | 🔟 | 🔟 | 9️⃣ | 8️⃣ | 9️⃣ | 🔟 |
Total | 112/120 |
You've probably heard of Jim Jones, the Jonestown cult, and references to drinking the Kool-aid. And you might have heard the basics that 900 people died in Jonestown, Guyana on November 18, 1978, because a religious cult leader convinced them drink the cyanide laced Kool-aid, and commit mass suicide. But if you don't know that Jim Jones was the first trans-racial Marxist, given the MLK award, was called the most influential Democrat on the West Coast, and was supported by Jerry Brown, Willie Brown, George Moscone, Milk, John Burton, Diane Feinstein, and was appointed to head Housing and Human Services in San Francisco, then you've been a victim of propaganda, and don't really know what happened. He started a far-left Cult by promising everything the left ever wanted in one place, and when it turned out like leftist utopias always do, he did what many leftists resort to: killing their own rather than admitting their mistakes. Following in those footsteps, the media/left does their best to suppress that part of the story, or waive it off as "not real socialism" (aka the appeal to purity or No true Scotsman fallacy).
Conclusion
I'm not saying progressives are ALWAYS wrong. But they are virtually never right... at least not in degrees.
It's not that I don't like progressives: quite the opposite. We NEED progressives.
- When they're the minority, they're great. Since they're a consensus culture (collectivists), and they know they don't have the majority, they point out real problems, push for moderate change, reasonably, and they're a great counter-balance to change-nothing (or too little) conservatives.
- But when they get 50%+1 of the vote, they put on their jack boots, and their cupidity can never be assuaged. They push for radical change, ignoring the speed limit of progress (how fast society can adapt), and they cause backlash. Then blame that backlash on everyone but themselves. Since their ideas don't fix things, they keep looking for more and more radical/extreme variants to fix them, never questioning that they might be wrong or that they are taking things too far. And they will tear communities apart, and bully anyone who disagrees with them. They become California Bay Area, or NYC under Bloomberg, and keep getting worse until they're Detroit or Nazi Germany.
So, I like progressives... and in many ways, I am one. Or at least an educated one... which makes me a moderate. I like some of the things they champion: just not to the degrees or velocity they do. If they could grow up, they'd be great. But the problem is that if they grow up, they grow up out of being progressive, and into being more moderate and eventually conservative with change. Once you understand the consequences of change, it's harder to be a blind and ignorant champion of it. And if you want conservative and cautious change, and to apply skepticism, well then, you're an adult and a conservative.
|