Progressive trends - What's next?

The future for progressives....

 

I gave a number of examples of right wing authoritarianism/totalitarianism in my previous post. Running around crying "NO NO NO" will not change these facts.

 

what's the post number of those examples? I read through this thread and saw you posted vague stuff, but no actual examples.

 

Post 36 but, you should be able to come up with many yourself - either that or you don't know the founding principles or the principles of Republicanism. The Patriot act is not "vague" .. nor are the attacks on free speech, freedom of info/press.

 

You will be forced to be homosexual. You ******!

PS: I can’t say the F-word.

 

From WIKI, an excerpt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

In the modern era, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions"[3] In the 21st century, those who identify as progressive may do so for a variety of reasons: for example, to favor public policy that reduces or ameliorates the harmful effects of economic inequality as well as systemic discrimination, to advocate for environmentally conscious policies, as well as for social safety nets and rights of workers, to oppose the negative externalities inflicted on the environment and society by monopolies or corporate influence on the democratic process. The unifying theme is to call attention to the negative impacts of current institutions or ways of doing things, and to advocate for progress, that is, for positive change as defined by any of several standards, such expansion of democracy, increased social or economic equality, improved well being of a population, etc

As you can see, things can get pretty cloudy politically. I personally find the term "progressivism" confusing when applied to domestic or international political trends. It seems to mean whatever one wants it to mean, i.e., not very useful

 

I find little to none in your post to quarrel with.

 

Progressives are nothing more than rebranded Antebellum Slave Owning Elites.

If they have their way, everyone will become their subjects. The social status matrix that Google is configuring for China at the moment would portend things to come here.

 

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

The attitudes and behavior of Progressive elites during the Obama years was a major contributor to the Trump EC landslide.

Progressive elites don't give a rats ( ) about the common folk in the heartland.

 

All really bad stuff. I think it's time the democrats are labeled as a terrorist organization

 

Anorectic is actually correct usage, just a bit vague. Anorectic means having a loss of appetite. Anorexic means having a loss of appetite due to having anorexia nervosa.
https://wikidiff.com/anorectic/anorexic

 

The cannibalism bit, IMHO, was just a 21st Century "Modest Proposal." No scientist (well, biologist, anyway) would ever recommend cannibalism. Cannibalism is unnatural, even in the animal kingdom. Almost no species of animal eats it's own species under normal conditions. The chances of diseases from human meat is too high to ever eat humans.

 

As ridiculous as it sounds I think the way people are going to identify themselves in the future is by their mental disability. The bipolar those suffering with faux PTSD they're going to be tomorrow's trans people.

You may think this is a little better but think about all that's included in mental disorders. We've already heard people try to defend child molesters.

 

A frightening observation, yet a very interesting one since it does not seem to far-fetched at all. We already have "positivity" movemtns to normalise the most bizarre of physical and sexual conditions and it would not at all surprise me if they will go after mental disabilities soon too. In some circles of Psychology it is already popular to deny the existence of some conditions, so I think you are onto something here.

A very scary prediction.

 

I wish I could say it's mine but it actually came from Joe Rogan of all people and it just made a lot of sense.

I don't think it's necessary scary, just kind of sad. No doubt you'll have fakers to try and be cool or get recognition and living like you have a mental illness for a while will cause you to develope one.

 

Yeah, we wouldn't want to eliminate the fake gray areas that progressives and democrats invent, like saying Nazi aren't a leftist form of government, or some such. The only confusion there could ever be would that which is manufactured for the sole purpose blurring lines that don't actually exist...

 

Nice .. I figured it was a difference in definition rather than a difference on substance. Getting closer to the topic of PC/ progressivism in general...

The main plague that I see is "Utilitarianism". We see this everywhere with these "Harm Reduction" arguments "If it saves one life" - "No Super Size for You"

The problem these arguments is that they often seem good on the surface "who does not want to save one life" ? Don't you !!! Don't you want to save on life you evil human !

That some of these arguments can "seem good" is what makes this infection so insidious and more apt to spread.

Utilitarianism is a justification for law that considers only "what will increase happiness for the collective". This justification does not take the rights of the individual into account. It is all about what is best for the collective.

This then allows for an end run around the founding principles which are based on individual rights and individual liberty. These principles also constitute the safeguard put in place by the founders to protect individual liberty - Thereby removing the one of the main safeguards that limits Gov't Power . Simply put it is a path to quazi totalitarianism on the basis of "collectivism" - communism lite.

The other issue with Utilitarianism is "who gets to decide" what will increase happiness for the collective - one mans poison in another mans pleasure. (sorry sub Person for Man)

So lets give a few examples to see if Utilitarian justification for law is valid justification on its own.

IF - "if it saves one life" - "Harm Reduction" - is valid justification for law - in of itself - Should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? Would this not save one life ? How about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? - Forget it.

In fact we should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck. This is a terrible justification for law - a slippery slope past the safeguards which protect individual liberty.

In a free nation the individual has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to themselves. By Definition a constitutional Republic wants to avoid "Tyranny of the Majority".

Yet - we are where we are. Never mind the Majority - we live under Tyranny of the "Minority" .

 

Giving an example of a trend is not using the actions or words of one individual to define a trend it's just an example.

 

You know I got to thinking about it since I read your post. All the body positivity. And it reminded me of a recent movie. Particularly a song in a recent movie. Everything is awesome.

And that seems like the thing these days every little thing in your life is positive I think if people think they can bring wash themselves to believe that they really will. Instead of cherishing the moments of Joy all things must be joyous. I just wonder how long people can fake it.

Very few men are going to find obese women sexy regardless of how beautiful they think they are. Women are different from men regardless of what people want to be true.

 

Lego Movie is a fantastic film.

I honestly think that these individuals are seriously mentally ill and they are projecting their illness onto those who are sane to make themselves appear as the sane ones. These are people who are not worth talking to and if you ever run into one, you should tell it to their face; "You are sick!"

 

Yes I enjoyed the Lego movie.

I think the idea behind these people doing this is to say that they are sick so they can say it's not their fault. Obese people can lose weight it's just it's very hard. These days among the millennial generation remember I am one so I speak from experience, you're never allowed to fail because it's hard. And the way we were treated by adults when we were growing up was that you should never have to do anything that's hard things worth doing should be easy and that's completely wrong. Now i partially learned this from my parents, but they had a lot of things working against them any of the things I participated in competitively speaking we're always no winner sort of things meaning everybody got a ribbon. Everybody got a trophy or whatever trinkets of achievement you can imagine. It was difficult to learn how not to expect accolades if I didn't do anything as an adult. I skated through school it was easy.

 

But the asylums were the right place to warehouse the lunatics. Once those places were shuttered the demented, deranged and insane immigrated to the Democrat Party.

 

In reality they were actually just thrown out in the streets.

Mental illness is now being used as an excuse not to be an adult.

 

For me the biggest issues, and what I have focussed on mostly was the destruction of our civilisation Progressivism is causing, meaning the safety security, food, water issues, overpopulation etc.

However what you are talking about is possibly the four Harmonies

Harmony of self
Harmony of nature
Harmony of work
Harmony of others

When you are confused about your gender, sexuality, clearly you are not in harmony with yourself, and could probably argue not in harmony with nature nor with others.

Progressivism have pushed very hard for acceptance "harmony with others" and although you can see the humanitarian angle... the question also begs whether this have pushed the majority of people "out of harmony with self and others" and is the reason for all the conflict. ie. Why should I be uncomfortable with who I am... when you are the one who questions nature? And so I don't really see a solution to this problem... in fact I only see the conflict escalating.

I often referred to South Africa because I see South Africa as a precursor to what is coming to Europe, the UK, America and Australia. In South Africa experts believe we are now, with the collapse of the country seeing a "decoupling" of ethnic groups and races... we are seeing a separation/winding back of multiculturalism.

 

Said succinctly and correctly.