12

Understanding Progressives

Posted by strugatsky 7 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


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you mean a change in tolerating opposition, there has been no change. The left has always used force to suppress those opposed to them.

    They became influential in the establishment because they were the product of establishment education. There wasn't anything new about any of it. It came from the European counter-Enlightenment over a hundred years old, applied to current politics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The left in the 60’s WAS the opposition. Now they are the mainstream swamp and try to silence the opposition. What happened?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is so much bad and regurgitated bad philosophy that you should be skeptical when someone announces in a sales promotion that they have a "philosophy of education". Then find out what it is and what they do in action before deciding if it is of any value.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Obama and the left have gone as far as they could with what they could get away with. That you haven't seen them acting out the role of full-blown fascists in uniform doesn't mean that they don't have statist and collectivist premises driving everything they do, or that they haven't imposed enormous damage through what they could do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The goal is to spread rationality and appeal to rational understanding, not to make irrational brutes rational. There is no way to do that. Language is the language of rationality. There is no other kind, only its misuse. It is not a "waste of effort"; it is all that is possible if you don't want to live like a brute. Persuading people what is right is the only way to do it. There is no "this feeling language" to learn and attempts to manipulate emotions communicate nothing.They are only a dishonest attempt to temporarily induce actions. You cannot protect what you have by pandering to brutishness and "masses" you think are "dumb and irrational". Such creatures, such as they exist at all, will not support you and do not represent this country.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism. That does not mean anti-intellectual libertarians. Those who are not "receptive" to the role of ideas in human life and civilization are themselves "wasting their time" here. No, we are not "receptive" to punching people in the face as a means to improve the country.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    English teachers whose main effect is to repeat each other's bad grammar are not the intellectuals who are leading the culture into statism and collectivism or anything else. Correcting their worst grammar will not change the role of the intellectual leaders. And the ones teaching and writing at major universities don't misunderstand simple observations of boiling water. To dismiss the influence of bad teachers in terms of the worst examples of ignoramuses is to miss the point. The educational establishment has a major bad influence because of what the most intelligent of them do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Japan lost the war it started. Tens of millions of people were killed, which was not good. Removing the emperor of Japan, along with the elimination of an independent Japanese military, was only a last event as the consequence of fighting back, not the motive. World War II did not, and could not have, wiped out the premises of statism and collectivism. It only eliminated some of the worst practitioners of the time and If the US had not had better ideas the war would have been nothing but musical chairs with different statists.

    World War II is not a lesson in how to reform the country by punching people in the face and ignoring the role of ideas that guide people's thinking and action. Dramatic slogans exhorting to 'follow the patriots' is not an explanation or answer to anything.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Human impact" is too vague to be a theory at all. The climate hysterics are making absurd claims of apocalypse with no theory applied in their "models" to justify it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not believe those examples of Obama and Hillary. I do believe Sanders is openly socialist. I am concerned that we will start seeing more figures like him for various reasons: a) post WWII nostalgia, b) automation changing society, increasing ROI and decreasing some labor costs, and c) less influence of media gatekeepers and increased feedback from click-through data. I really hope I'm wrong about this.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "your undeserving heroes "
    [Sarcasm]Clinton and Obama are my heroes![/Sarcasm] They're not.
    "call it crap is just more proof of your irrational bias"
    Let's call it very bad stuff then. By it I mean a plot to undermine freedom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh I did not mean to say the human effects on climate change are a law or anything on par with the Laws of Thermo. Human impact on climate is a scientific theory, i.e. a hypothesis shown to be true. My suspicion is if I live 35 more years I'll see some major changes in understanding. I do not have a guess as to whether the changes will be what we all wish: that human activities do not contribute to climate change as much as we though, some other effect offsets human activities, or that climate change is not as costly as we thought.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How can you say that "mainstream politicians aren't communist or fascist" when I have just presented examples to Obama's and Hillary's communist ties. Bernie is an openly proclaimed socialist completely in the Soviet mold. What kind of proof would convince you?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I see none of this crap anywhere I go."
    You support Hitlery and Obama, and you still don't recognize the anti-freedom, facism in their actions.
    Your eyes are closed when your undeserving heroes act like mobsters.
    The fact that you call it crap is just more proof of your irrational bias.
    You have to open your eyes to see.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Then please address the undeniable fact that Global Warming theories (or facts, as you may say, or whatever they are) have so many documented lies and falsifications of data that it makes the Clintons jealous. If the Laws of Thermodynamics were riddled with intentional lies and false data, would you still consider them Laws? I would be happy to discuss the fake "science" of GW, in detail, but I think that the above question needs to be addressed first, for we must have a common discussion point of reference and a common understanding of "science."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    " intentional destruction of American past and her underlying culture will also become apparent, in time."
    I hope you're wrong. If you're right, we're in trouble.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "a science is called "settled" a"
    Right. Science does not call things "settled". (Maybe you say that when something becomes a law, like the law of thermodyamics.) Science is always looking for a surprising breakthrough. Being open to new evidence does not mean we do not know anything now. We'd love to find shocking evidence that ESP exists in some form, but the current scientific evidence says it does not. People who really want it to be true may say to avoid being dogmatic we must consider "both sides of the controversy". But there is no real controversy. The sides are science and ESP woo.

    I see all unscientific and pseudo-scientific things people would like to believe in like this: climate change denial, homeopathy, organic food being more healthful than GMOs, creationism, the Bermuda Triangle, gods/religion. I categorically reject the choice of dogma vs "at least consider the controversy". I have to accept what we know now. There may be some shocking breakthrough changing how we see those things. I'll be thrilled. True believers will laugh at science for not picking one desirable answer and sticking too it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Darling of the Left,"
    I wonder if one day I'll see the world radically different, but right now the whole thing looks like a professional wrestling. I see no plan whatsoever. Certainly mainstream politicians aren't communist or fascist. No one's pressuring you at mainstream stores. I find it bizarre to read. I travel a lot, so I don't think I live in a bubble. I see none of this crap anywhere I go.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, let's put these facts together - Obama, the Darling of the Left, has proudly written about his communist education (not from a school, but from his most respected tutor - Frank Marshall Davis); Hillary does not hide her communist schooling in the '60's (it takes a village); in schools, on TV and movies, greed is displayed as the most egregious evil against the society (the entrance to Hell is on Wall Street); altruism is taught in schools as the greatest virtue (I can't even go peacefully to Walmart without pressure to donate - I often feel like Rex Kramer going through an airport); the destruction of the statues is just the latest in a long march to demonize the leaders and achievers of the past, starting with Columbus about 25 years ago. I can go on, but the parallels with the Soviet Union are too obvious. And yes, the rank and file cannon fodder do not have a plan to destroy America, Capitalism and Individuality; they don't have a plan at all - they follow the plan from their leaders, from the Party.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don’t want to appear presumptivous, but I believe that the intentional destruction of American past and her underlying culture will also become apparent, in time. Coming from the Soviet Union, I recognize the strategy, having lived it before.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dougthorburn 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are soooo right, Strugatsky. I won't waste any more time with "ewv," as he/she obviously isn't receptive at this point. Likely a classic Spock-like INTP.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo