Commandments?

[Galen]

(08-30-2018, 09:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 03:25 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 03:05 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 02:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just as an oddity, does anyone fit David's idea of evangelism?  Will anyone claim that worldview or anything like it?

David's post is just a bit verbose.  Here's my definition.

1. Evangelism is the practice performed by annoying busybodies who butt into folks' business by telling said folks they must accept Jesus or else burn forever in hell.

Then there are their secular equivalents you would know them as liberals, progressives and socialists to name a few.  Their god is the state and it is far less merciful.  Come to think of it their followers are even more destructive than Christians have ever managed on their worst day.

This is why do gooders of all types are truly terrifying since they believe their good intentions justify their actions no matter how evil the results are.  Which explains Antifa and their antics.

I think the label progressive fits me better that the alternatives listed.  I reject the Agricultural Age, notably kings, slavery and autocratic government.  I would work to address future anticipated problems, such as waste, global warming and population, though I see that those who live in less populous areas than I would consider these problems less.  I hold to the Enlightenment virtues of equality, human rights and democracy.  I see the virtues of using taxes to provide services, though I acknowledge some taxed services might be less effective or not effective in less populous regions.

The problem with progressives is that they don't know their own history.  The faith you show in the efficacy of the state mirrors the Christian faith in Jesus.  It is the magic wand that you hope to use to cure all of the evils in the world.  Before you bitch about the who the author is, which Eric the Obtuse and pbrower will certainly do, you might try reading the damn thing and following the references.  At least see what other readers thought of it.

Come to think of it Conceived in Liberty is a really good history of Colonial America up through to the American revolution which was very well received by historians in the seventies and still highly regarded.

You would do well to remember that The Panic of 1819 is still the standard reference to the Panic of 1819 which is also well regarded by historians.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-30-2018, 03:25 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 03:05 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 02:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just as an oddity, does anyone fit David's idea of evangelism?  Will anyone claim that worldview or anything like it?

David's post is just a bit verbose.  Here's my definition.

1. Evangelism is the practice performed by annoying busybodies who butt into folks' business by telling said folks they must accept Jesus or else burn forever in hell.

Then there are their secular equivalents you would know them as liberals, progressives and socialists to name a few.  Their god is the state and it is far less merciful.  Come to think of it their followers are even more destructive than Christians have ever managed on their worst day.

This is why do gooders of all types are truly terrifying since they believe their good intentions justify their actions no matter how evil the results are.  Which explains Antifa and their antics.

Quite so. Antifa is the most extreme type of SJW's, who are another set of annoying busybodies.

[David Horn]

(08-30-2018, 04:01 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 03:25 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 03:05 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 02:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just as an oddity, does anyone fit David's idea of evangelism?  Will anyone claim that worldview or anything like it?

David's post is just a bit verbose.  Here's my definition.

1. Evangelism is the practice performed by annoying busybodies who butt into folks' business by telling said folks they must accept Jesus or else burn forever in hell.

Then there are their secular equivalents you would know them as liberals, progressives and socialists to name a few.  Their god is the state and it is far less merciful.  Come to think of it their followers are even more destructive than Christians have ever managed on their worst day.

This is why do gooders of all types are truly terrifying since they believe their good intentions justify their actions no matter how evil the results are.  Which explains Antifa and their antics.

Quite so. Antifa is the most extreme type of SJW's, who are another set of annoying busybodies.

Galen is always funny.  He sees all the ghosts except the ones from his own team.  OK, Antifa is a bit pathetic, but it's a lot less confrontational than the white nationalists.  I agree that they tend to be irritating (I'm less certain about "busybodies").  The whole antifascist schtick is a bit weird anyway.  If you really want to do that, then have the balls to walk out there unarmed.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-30-2018, 03:38 PM)Galen Wrote: The problem with progressives is that they don't know their own history.  The faith you show in the efficacy of the state mirrors the Christian faith in Jesus.  It is the magic wand that you hope to use to cure all of the evils in the world.  Before you bitch about the who the author is, which Eric the Obtuse and pbrower will certainly do, you might try reading the damn thing and following the references.  At least see what other readers thought of it.

Conservative books on progressives are apt to be as messed up as progressive books on conservatives.  They are more apt to contain vile stereotypes as real histories of the time.  I chose instead George Washington University's Elanor Roosevelt project to briefly review the Progressive Era.

Quote:The Progressive Era (1890 - 1920)

Progressivism is the term applied to a variety of responses to the economic and social problems rapid industrialization introduced to America. Progressivism began as a social movement and grew into a political movement. The early progressives rejected Social Darwinism. In other words, they were people who believed that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated, and believed that government could be a tool for change. Social reformers, like Jane Addams, and journalists, like Jacob Riis and Ida Tarbel, were powerful voices for progressivism. They concentrated on exposing the evils of corporate greed, combating fear of immigrants, and urging Americans to think hard about what democracy meant. Other local leaders encouraged Americans to register to vote, fight political corruption, and let the voting public decide how issues should best be addressed (the initiative, the referendum, and the recall). On a national level, progressivism gained a strong voice in the White House when Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901. TR believed that strong corporations were good for America, but he also believed that corporate behavior must be watched to ensure that corporate greed did not get out of hand (trust-busting and federal regulation of business). Progressivism ended with World War I when the horrors of war exposed people's cruelty and many Americans associated President Woodrow Wilson's use of progressive language ("the war to make the world safe for democracy") with the war.

I would include the New Deal through Great Society period as another progressive era, though the names were changed, and the issues.

I quoted Global Warming, waste and population as issues I was concerned about.  The above period features child labor, worker safety and hours.  This is because in some issues the government is the right tool to fight corporate greed.  You pass a law banning certain practices, and the problem is solved.  I like the line about having strong corporations, but a strong government to check the greed of the corporations.  You can argue that OSHA and similar agencies have gone regulation happy, that we are far past the point of good returns.  You cannot say that government is a poor tool at fighting corporate greed.

I found the blaming of race problems on that generation of progressive disingenuous.  At that time both major parties had conservative and progressive wings, the parties were still fighting the Civil War, and Jim Crow was in its prime.  You could merrily prove all white power structures racist.  It was not until the 50s and 60s and the Civil Rights movement that things began to change.

Nowadays it is more clear.  The Democrats have gone all progressive, favor racial equality, and the racists have gone conservative, the Southern Strategy forever, clinging to yesterday and prejudice.  It is the exact opposite of what the author tries to show.  He is similarly confused on the other issues.

Yes, I believe in fighting corporate greed, and that government is a needed tool to achieve that end.  No, I don't think this religious, or worship the power structure.  Greed is part of the human equation, something I'd hope most religions (and high holy men like Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha) would preach against.  I believe this strongly, but strong belief does not make one's motives religious. Atheists and agnostics can dislike excessive greed too.

And while child labor, safety in the workplace and hours were very strong issues during the late Guided Age, they do not define progressive generally.  My definition is more inclusive over a broader time frame.  I would say that checking corporate greed is broad, that my concerns over Global Warming, waste and population also reflect a need to change the culture to meet changing technology and environment.

I would say the problem is not that government is not effective in writing laws to limit greedy corporations.  It is that the government has been bought by the rich, which makes them not apt to enact the correct laws.

[Eric the Green]

(08-30-2018, 04:10 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 04:01 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 03:25 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 03:05 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 02:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just as an oddity, does anyone fit David's idea of evangelism?  Will anyone claim that worldview or anything like it?

David's post is just a bit verbose.  Here's my definition.

1. Evangelism is the practice performed by annoying busybodies who butt into folks' business by telling said folks they must accept Jesus or else burn forever in hell.

Then there are their secular equivalents you would know them as liberals, progressives and socialists to name a few.  Their god is the state and it is far less merciful.  Come to think of it their followers are even more destructive than Christians have ever managed on their worst day.

This is why do gooders of all types are truly terrifying since they believe their good intentions justify their actions no matter how evil the results are.  Which explains Antifa and their antics.

Quite so. Antifa is the most extreme type of SJW's, who are another set of annoying busybodies.

Galen is always funny.  He sees all the ghosts except the ones from his own team.  OK, Antifa is a bit pathetic, but it's a lot less confrontational than the white nationalists.  I agree that they tend to be irritating (I'm less certain about "busybodies").  The whole antifascist schtick is a bit weird anyway.  If you really want to do that, then have the balls to walk out there unarmed.

Right. I sympathize with antifa, because they are dedicated to confronting fascists, and not letting them demonstrate or parade unanswered. Hence their name. Their temper and sometimes their slogans and fighting fire with fire gives ammunition to their opponents, and turns off those who are annoyed with them. So, their tactics are questionable.

[Bob Butler 54]

Galen provided a link to a book where conservatives define progressives from a negative perspective.  Progressive books that describe conservatives from a negative perspective would also be common, are similarly off base, full of straw men, and echo the opinions we see here from certain extreme progressive posters when they lay rise to the accusations that progressives don't listen.

Now I don't blame them when straw men are presented, when a progressive describes imagined parodies of conservatives rather than conservatives, or vice versa.  If one has silly imaginings about what someone believes, it is unsurprising that the imaginings are ignored.  Books like the one Galen recommended are examples.  It just makes Galen look silly to people with real progressive beliefs.  When an arch conservative describes progressives in a way where I do not begin to recognize myself, the problem is with the arch conservatives bogus beliefs, not with mine.

Books written by progressives about progressives and books by conservatives about conservatives are more constructive, less likely to be centered on straw men, more likely to address good ideas and legislation.  They are more useful in building a real consensus, in addressing the other guy's concerns while building a consensus that could bring the two parties together.

Again, I don't see the Industrial Age solution of a violent crisis war.  The two world views are evenly matched.  The spiral of violence is not escalating.  Nukes discourage crisis war.  Changes in values seems to come in the new age in the second turning, not the fourth.  Again I would anticipate ecological values becoming more important with the next second turning.

At any rate, the current negative stereotypes seem built to be smashed.  David portrayal of the redneck's absolute belief in a negative portrayal of progressive seems to demand a rebuttal, and I am sure there are opposite world views on the other side which should be rebutted.  If you were locked with someone from the other side, what 'fact' that they are absolutely locked into could and should be rebutted by information that comes from an unimpeachable, objective non partisan source?

[David Horn]

(08-31-2018, 09:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Galen provided a link to a book where conservatives define progressives from a negative perspective.  Progressive books that describe conservatives from a negative perspective would also be common, are similarly off base, full of straw men, and echo the opinions we see here from certain extreme progressive posters when they lay rise to the accusations that progressives don't listen.

Now I don't blame them when straw men are presented, when a progressive describes imagined parodies of conservatives rather than conservatives, or vice versa.  If one has silly imaginings about what someone believes, it is unsurprising that the imaginings are ignored.  Books like the one Galen recommended are examples.  It just makes Galen look silly to people with real progressive beliefs.  When an arch conservative describes progressives in a way where I do not begin to recognize myself, the problem is with the arch conservatives bogus beliefs, not with mine.

Books written by progressives about progressives and books by conservatives about conservatives are more constructive, less likely to be centered on straw men, more likely to address good ideas and legislation.  They are more useful in building a real consensus, in addressing the other guy's concerns while building a consensus that could bring the two parties together.

Again, I don't see the Industrial Age solution of a violent crisis war.  The two world views are evenly matched.  The spiral of violence is not escalating.  Nukes discourage crisis war.  Changes in values seems to come in the new age in the second turning, not the fourth.  Again I would anticipate ecological values becoming more important with the next second turning.

At any rate, the current negative stereotypes seem built to be smashed.  David portrayal of the redneck's absolute belief in a negative portrayal of progressive seems to demand a rebuttal, and I am sure there are opposite world views on the other side which should be rebutted.  If you were locked with someone from the other side, what 'fact' that they are absolutely locked into could and should be rebutted by information that comes from an unimpeachable, objective non partisan source?

There are cases where opposition literature is not only justified but highly instructive. The conservative author Kevin Phillips described the Democratic Party as the second most capitalist party in the US and maybe the world. David Frum, a full-on neoconservative, wrote Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic -- not an expected source but one that should be considered at the very least. There are many other examples, but, as you noted, most authors tend to color inside their respective lines.