12

Understanding Progressives

Posted by strugatsky 6 years, 5 months ago to Politics
171 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Today, I had accidentally gone to a meeting of Liberals/Progressives, about 20 of them, on the subject of healthcare. The topic was intentionally advertised so as to conceal its aim and I, in a state of bliss, took the bait. Disappointed at first, I ended up almost enjoying it, for this was not the typical college uneducated crowd of children (per Obamacare, childhood has now been officially defined as 0-26), but a geriatric congregation where some of the patients may have gone to real schools back then. So I stayed. What I learned was quite interesting. The presenter was a retired medical doctor, whose medical expertise I won't question (though he seemingly retired at an earlier age than most), but whose lack of understanding of economics and other subjects which he proclaimed to champion was astounding. It was like listening to a NFL player or a Hollywood star. But most interesting was the reaction of the audience, who approvingly nodded their heads to every unsubstantiated claim. Even a claim that doctor visit deductibles are evil, as, he claimed, that a $5 deductible prevents patients from seeing a doctor – regardless of the fact that these same patients spent that on cigarettes every day. I thought that I was in a middle of circus seals, only these were too weak to clasp. As the level of bull rose above my tolerance level (quickly, actually) and I began to politely challenge with facts, the audience became most uncomfortable and their leader asked me to be quiet (of course, I did not). My main take away was the amazing shallowness of these people – every attempt at analysis, delving even a little deeper, caused them pain and anguish. I have seen this before – from the teenagers going onto 30-something, but these were supposedly adults in their 60's and 70's. Had American education failed us that long ago?

Second takeaway – the Progressives actually believe that the US economy, prior to Obama, was pure capitalism! I was and remain, at a total loss how to confront such a deviation from reality. Can anyone here help?


All Comments

  • Posted by $ pixelate 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    G. Edward Griffin is an excellent author and also a fine speaker. I think that he is not on the radar in terms of the globalists. He has also written material regarding the cancer industry and has assembled a panel to to shine a light on the climate change hoax.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have seen it used as a litmus test. Then suddenly the like minded morons flock together and because they are so relieved to find another asylum inmate they can have a "normal" conversation with!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am surprised it is still available...it is the blueprint on where the globalists, like Obama and Clinton are taking us...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Regarding your comment on Trump and Climate Change ...

    I get similar from my ultra-lib neighbors. We meet, have a dialog regarding the goings on in the neighborhood. As I am leaving, Linda chimes in with her 2 cents on regarding how the latest tax cuts only profit the rich corporations, or how blacks are being targeted by police, or how we need more money for schools (99 million dollar bond got passed in my area, but no, we need more). After tossing a highly biased bit out there vocally, she adds "But I don't want to talk about politics... have a nice day!"

    I walk away scratching my head... What? But you just did talk about politics, you did bring it up? I suspect that folks take this approach - the blind shotgun - because they cannot defend their assertion or would choose not to. Another idea is that they just lack self-awareness. I have thought about trying this tactic myself, but I just don't speak that language.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I finished reading "Creature..." for the first time just last week. I plan to read it again in order for the materially to really soak in.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    " Fighting the British did not create the individualism that was already in the colonies. " True. It secured it, along with the God given rights that come with it. An auto repair manual is full of ideas, procedures and truths of engineering, but it cannot open the tool box, or use a wrench. "Exactly who do you propose to fight whom and by what means..." is a reference you have used often in this discussion, if you have read any of my essays and could see the bullet / blade wounds, not to mention 60+ years of multiple violent contacts, you might see just how mistaken you are in that regard.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This country was founded on the ideas of reason and individualism of the Enlightenment, not fighting bullies. Without the ideas no wars of any kind would have accomplished a country founded on the rights of the individual, as the previous ceaseless wars with people 'standing up' to opposing armies demonstrate. Fighting the British did not create the individualism that was already in the colonies. That and the ensuing formation of a constitutional limited government were an intellectual achievement by those who shared the ideas.

    Restoring the country requires the spread of the proper ideas to replace the progressive collectivism that is increasingly dominating, not dramatic calls to stand up to bullies. Your website and posts invoke all kinds of imagery about 'patriots' and courageous battles of the past; they do not address how to restore the required ideas that must dominate a culture.

    Exactly who do you propose to fight whom and by what means, and how do you propose that it change what people think about the nature of government they have accepted and pursued? Blowing up the Korean peninsula is expected to replace progressivism here? Fighting for ideas is an intellectual battle that begins with identifying the proper concepts and principles, not emotional imagery about patriotic wars and fighting bullies.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This Country was made possible by a few hundred citizens willing to stand up to a much larger force - our original "bully in the schoolyard". April of 1775 saw some 800 british soldiers enter Concord and begin burning the town ( the bully takes your lunch money) twice citizens retreated (the bully advanced) then the citizens attacked ( the bully ran away and stopped his aggressive actions) the citizens than cut through the woods and waited in ambush to make sure the point was made ( dont take our stuff) . We all know the losses that followed, but the ultimate victory insured our "lunch money" remained in our possession and the " bully" went home. There is a time for diplomacy, and when that has come to an end, force - or surrender is always required. As to cheering about wars, those are your words, not mine. Enlightenment and ideas are what made this Country, a willingness to fight for them made this Country possible. N. Korea and its nukes are one of the largest "bullies in the parking lot", they have been cajoled, appeased and given things for decades, all in the name of diplomacy - is there a well defined change in their actions as a result? Of course not, bullies only respect one thing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Individual self defense does not address how to deal with progressives.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What does individual self defense have to do with understanding and dealing with a nation of progressives?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The issue discussed was how to talk to Progressives (adults), with the question being whether rational arguments are appropriate or should the Leftists' own language of exaggerations and hyperbole be used and, after you brought up the issue of physical force (the rejection of it), I have added that in some instances, such as when children are growing up in order to prepare them for adulthood and in the adult life as self-defense, physical force is appropriate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Statism is not a necessary component of existence, and can't be dealt with like a minor schoolyard bully.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It matters for the purpose of lessons learned (or not). Physical self-defense is a required part of human existence. Actually, all living beings on this planet employ it, including plants. I fail to understand your seeming reluctance to accepting physical force as a necessary component of our existence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In the rational adult world, initiation of force is, obviously, a no-no. But not all adults are rational. Thus, children need to learn how to deal with bullies at an early age, just as bullies need to learn that there are consequences to their behavior. Fighting among children is a good way to learn these skills, while being too young to cause any serious damage. Now, I am certainly not suggesting getting kids into a ring like roosters, but allowing kids to work out their problems without the interference of adults has benefits. As it is now, children do not acquire the skills to deal with bullies and the bullies haven't throttled down. The result is snowflakes who need plush puppies in safe-spaces to protect them from micro-aggressions and thugs who don't know how to stop until caught committing serious crimes. The language of rational thought is applicable to adults; but a person must first reach that level to understand it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There was a lot of political violence in Germany. The Nazis and other aspiring power seekers thrived on it. I wonder how many of the Jews there at the time were supporters of communists and other statists and collectivists. If more had had guns, different people would have been dead, but it would not have stopped the trend. 'Had lots of people done something different' is irrelevant. They did what they did for the motives they held. The course of Germany was not random.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I'm referring to supposedly scientists who unabashedly quote and promote falsified data and other people, whom I would expect to be rational, who accept lies and false data as if the Earth was flat.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The initial discussion was much broader than that; it tried to reduce the methods to metaphors and analogies as if dealing with a school yard bully were all that was required.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They not only don't know and can't predict, they have no causal explanations consistently integrated into a theory, only adjusted and tuned 'models'. Yet if you reject it you are disparaged as a "Skeptic" and must only be reading "politics"; viros want people to believe that they are untouchable and beyond reproach. There is always an excuse to dismiss the "Skeptics".

    There are a lot of psychological and political motives for hysteria other than money, not that they aren't riding an institutionalized gravy train.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are referring to the falsifications by scientists betraying their own fields, not just hysterics promoting their dogmas and slogans. Honesty and objectivity are required for all knowledge, not just science. They don't even get as far as the beginning of science. The viros' propagandistic, ideological rationalizing precludes them from the realm of knowledge entirely, not just science, no matter how many "models" the 'specialists' concoct. Yet viros pretend there is some core 'science' behind their climate ideology and which you are not allowed to question. It is truly religious while emotionally clinging to a claim to be science.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That humans affect the environment is an obvious fact. We live by changing the environment to suit our needs. Calculating things like rents does not make a vague "human impact" a science. Science is systematic,proven knowledge in the form of generalizations and causal explanations, not bean counting. The climate hysterics that are all over the place claiming to be "science" is what this discussion is about.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo