|
icantfindaname posted:This doesn't have much to do with the thread topic, but the term 'progressive' and its popularization, is really irritating IMO. Like, it's a term with no history, it refers specifically to a very narrowly defined strain of elite liberal thought in the US and UK in the 1910s or so, and nothing else. It's blatantly a way of severing connection to the greater left-wing tradition and its history and limiting it to a very specific subset which is acceptable to the current American political and economic establishment. Liberalism and leftism are terms that refer to well-established political traditions with long histories and a huge amount of internal variety, 'Progressivism' might as well have been invented by Hillary's campaign team specifically to sell the platform she's running on this cycle. loving millenials The modern use of "progressive" as a synonym for "liberal" is really due to the centrist/conservative Democrats' reaction to the rapid expansion of the right-wing fringe media in the 90s. The Rush Limbaugh types uniformly used the word "liberal" with the same sort of invective normally only seen in slurs, and the influence of Limbaugh and the like was enough in the 90s that Democrats in not-so-blue states and districts started distancing themselves from the word "liberal" by subbing in "progressive" in its place when talking about their politics and policies. The end result is that "progressive", like "liberal", doesn't really mean much of anything in and of itself, other than indicating that the person or policy being labeled as such is implicitly in sync with the Democratic party line.
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Hiter wasn't insane, he was just having a bad day is all. If believing that genocide is acceptable or desirable is an indicator of mental illness, then a plurality if not majority of white Americans (and Canadians, Australians, etc) during the colonial period were insane. If your definition of insanity is so loose that it potentially encompasses the majority of the population, your definition of insanity is meaningless on every level. Find a more useful word than "insane" if you want your argument to be taken seriously. Or, if you don't care about how and why people come to believe irrational or abhorrent things and just want to tar them with the brush of "they think bad things because they got bad brains", don't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Like it or not, genetics dose play a role into the behavioral patterns and thought process of different people. Some do think bad things because they do have bad brains in a way. Not that it's their fault to begin with anyways. There are stupid people who endanger everyone and there are the unfortunate. The former I would gladly get rid of in a heartbeat if it were possible and taken care of in a manner that limits the most consquences. One, your definition of insanity isn't complicated at all. Just the opposite: it's facile, and it has no bearing on any actual legal or medical use of the term. And two, I'm surprised that it took this long for someone in the thread to make a sincere argument for eugenics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 05:36
|
|