What are Progressive Values?

No they don't. Social democrats don't advocate for getting rid of capitalism, because they know a socialist economy doesn't work. They want a socialist culture.

 

I think I'm following you, but not sure. It's pretty abstract. Heterosexuality is probably the most promoted thing there is. It's on billboards, on TV, in magazines, everywhere. Are progressives complaining that sex sells? As to promoting maleness, I'm not sure what that means. We have family men, stand up guys, tough guys, GQ ladies' men, many others. How are they being promoted and what has been the backlash from progressives? Who promotes whiteness outside of the KKK?

 

Like I said

 

If Barry Goldwater were alive and running for office today, he'd be a Progressive Democrat. I cannot, and will not, hold being a Goldwater Girl against Hillary Clinton, even though I will be voting for that Socialist scum Bernie Sanders.

 

I just don't think multiculturalism is a good thing. I look at more homogeneous societies and think they are better for it. The constant in-fighting, lack of identity, and ability to solve problems have all increased dramatically in the progressive era, and I don't think this is an accident. I look at the behavior of average Americans, not the upper-middle class suburban types, and I see great weaknesses compared to countries like China. The parenting is terrible, the family ties are either distant or non-existent, and the sense of community is incredibly weak.

Equality under the law is totally fine and fighting against discrimination ids fine, but we have reached the point where they are often fighting problems that aren't as prevalent as they claim. Women getting screwed in the workplace? Nonsense. Black crime rates high because of racism? Nonsense. They claim to fight for the disadvantaged, but only if the disadvantaged are non-white. What's hilarious is that they then complain that the poor won't stand up for themselves against the system and resolve their racial differences toward a common cause...I wonder why?

I'm a really cynical person, so unless things are going exceptionally well, you can expect a negative twist on just about everything if it's coming from me lol. Heck, I just took some morphine (pill) and am in a great mood, but even that doesn't stop me from crapping on somebody's porch

 

Drug effects are biological processes that can be easily understood and be proven.

Behavioral disorders and issues of personal conduct are subjective, can be manipulated, and are going to be classified based on religious and political doctrines.

That is why the psychological industry is such a scientific backwater.

 

I've quite aware of progressive values as they have morphed or progressed into their current manifestation.

It is up to my critics to start their own thread.

 

Yes, the federal and state government used their newly acquired lands like a giant checkbook. However, these were investments. Most pioneers had to prove their land after 5 years to keep the land. And that required work, investment of time and resources on the part of the settlers.

Today, entitlements are handouts---they are debts never to be repaid, that do not encourage work, industry or investment. Where is the incentive for entitlement seekers to do better with all these freebies?

 

I gave my list of what I think are "progressive values" on post #60---and they do encompass sexual morals.

 

A fetus is not a human....only after being born is a baby a human. A fetus is no more a human than a fertilized egg in a petri dish.

 

If they are so easily understood why were all those kids born with birth defects?

 

Its not an easy situation, and its not a one way street. People - both the employee and the employer - are not emotionless robots lacking all principle, and are complex entities who do not compartmentalize their lives into work/public/private elements. Throw the government into the mix and it becomes prone to political manipulation.

For 200 years people have largely been able to agree to disagree and respect their differences, but now that isn't good enough. The system is breaking down.

 

That's brilliant.

 

Yes, It would be nice if the psychiatric industry could tell the difference between a mentally retarded person with Trisomy 21, and a 1st degree murderer who planned their attack, hid their crime and lied to the authorities about it---and then be deemed "mentally retarded" to avoid the death penalty.

 

Lots of things would be nice. It would be nice if medical science could do lots of things. Its fun to talk about what would be nice.....right?

 

So, do gay Catholic priests get to exercise conscientious objection?

Yes, like you say jobs such as being in the military come with requirements ("mandates") that some may well oppose. Yet, if you can not live with those requirements, then you should leave (or never join) the military.

This anti-gay thing is certainly not the first time we've run into this issue of people wanting to continue a discrimination that was ending. In fact, the civil rights movement included whites who saw their preference for racial discrimination in the work place, in real estate, in public accommodation as being important to their religion.

From another angle, look at the "religious freedom" bill passed by Arizona (but vetoed by the Gov). It tried to incorporate religious freedom to override all sorts of laws that are often seen as constraining the practice of religion and even opening up the question of whether a state could possibly judge whether someone's religious beliefs are legit (vs. being an excuse for breaking the law). That is, where is the end to this "religious freedom" movement? Can buggy drivers use our freeways? Can your downtown residential neighbor open a halal slaughterhouse? ...

 

Glancing through your communist website and your favored material (mostly on East Germany) does not hardly impress enough to cut any of the great monsters of the 20th Century: Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot even a little bit of slack.

One may as well discuss what Amerindian tribe was the most brutal and savage. Was it the Aztec or the Comanche?

The fact that the gulag system was so vast and so brutal should be enough evidence that living under Stalin was human rights debacle.

I think looking at how Stalin treated his enemies gives the best insight into this brutal dictator. Could you imagine Churchill or FDR printing propaganda for their troops like this?

http://www.rense.com/general75/ehr.htm

This was no about killing German soldiers---this was about killing all Germans young and old---which the Soviets are well known for doing.

Now being a communist your greatest hate would be for Nazis, followed by White Christians. So if the Germans soldiers were all so terrible in WW 2, then why did the Germans fight the British with a generally good code of honor, and not the Soviets? Isn't it logical to assume the Soviets were so savage in their treatment of the Germans that the gloves came off? Your website gave false claims on the magnitude of Stalin's prison state. Seeing how many captured Germans perished at Stalin's hand MIGHT give you a clue:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html

The fate of your pet Stalin's own troops who returned from German POW camps was no better than German POW's---they too ended up in labor camps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._270

 

Certainly, but its exactly the same as the person who objects to war joining the Army. The rules for the Army and the Catholic Church have been constant for 100's of years, a person knows what they are signing up for in both cases. Its foolish to enlist in either if you object to their rules.

There is a fundamental difference between racial discrimination and LGBT discrimination. Racial discrimination was enshrined in the Constitution, but was clearly incompatible with the rest of the major concepts of equality and rights. Racial discrimination was openly embedded in the many local governments and the federal government for many generations, government action separated people into 2 classes which resulted in disadvantages which were passed from generation to generation over 100's of years. The fight for racial equality required the government itself to correct generations of government actions.

There is no such history for LGBT.

There is no proof that LGBT is an inherent trait (as race is) and not a choice. While homosexual sex can be considered a private protected act, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires other people to accommodate and recognize that private act in public life or their own private life. Just as an atheist (or anyone else) cannot be forced to go to church or read the Bible or hire a Christian, people cannot Constitutionally be forced to accommodate people based on their bedroom practices.

LGBT actions also clashes with the right to exercise religion free of government interference, a right listed in the first sentence of the 1st Amendment and firmly established over many decades of law (until recently, but the legal system left the Constitution several decades ago).

I am not familiar with the Arizona law.

There are limits to rights based on the idea that one person cannot infringe on the rights of another.

There is no Constitutional right for one person to trespass onto another persons property - and that includes a persons business which means that there is no right to be served by a private business.

 

Progressive values can be seen in their rear view mirror. And so, it is not so much what their values are, but what they've abandoned.

 

False. Catholics have made reasonably significant changes. Our military recently started accepting women. Also, we see the policy changes on gays. Those definitely affect those who have been members for a long time.

You're just arguing that LGBT history doesn't go back as far. That's irrelevant to questions of whether equality is justified. So all you are demanding is a right to deny justifiable equality for more time.

You're just trying to deny science on this one.

You may need to explain your 1st amendment issue. As I pointed out, some Christians found racial discrimination to be rooted in their religion, too, and thus felt like their religious principles were being stepped on by requirements of public accommodation law, real estate law, employment law, etc.

As a nation, we've gone through that before.

Public accommodation and employment are supported by a multitude of governmental features, and having the benefit of those features comes with legal recognition that the public has some rights related to public accommodation and employment. For example, you and I pay taxes for that.

If you want to have a private club, you may avoid at least some of these requirements. For example, you can deny membership. Churches, for example, can deny membership on any basis including race and sexual orientation - thus churches don't have to offer marriage to same sex couples.

The AZ bill is worth reading as the law is broad and AZ is one of the few states that had a "religious freedom" bill travel toward being a law as far as it did. So, one can find comment on the various features and issues.

 

There's a ton more on that page covering Stalin and Mao, who didn't actually commit mass murder. Pol Pot was actually a homicidal maniac and it was communists that put a stop to it.

The gulags were simply prisons in a country that was trying to climb out of centuries of Tsarist oppression, underindustrialization, and decades of bloody warfare. The fact that they were able to maintain a prison system at all is astonishing.

The Nazis didn't try to wipe out the Americans or British. All of the world's slavic peoples were fighting for their own survival.

Also, the source you linked to is written by a holocaust denier who breathlessly lists Jew as a negative quality. It's spurious at best.

Furthermore, that wasn't even Stalin. It was Ehrenburg.

I don't support war crimes of any kind. The Germans made exterminating Slavs an intentional goal. Soviet war crimes were like any other war crimes in that they were spontaneous and unplanned atrocities, the kind that all countries are guilty of.

What would I have against white christians? I'm white, and my partner is white and also a catholic.

I don't care about religion so long as people are good to one another.

Because the Nazis regarded the Slavs as subhuman and the Nazis were unable to launch a land invasion of the British Isles.

You're talking about people who engaged in the industrialized murder of 12 million people simply because they existed. The Nazis didn't care how savage they were as long as the people they hated died.

Also, The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an organization primarily devoted to publishing and promoting books and essays described by critics as pseudo-historical that attack the mainstream historical consensus concerning the Nazi genocide of Jews.[2][3][4][5][6] It is considered by many scholars as the center of the international Holocaust denial movement.[2][7][8] IHR is widely regarded as antisemitic and as having links to neo-Nazi organizations.


I have linked to actual scholarly work dissecting why the idea that the USSR and PRC are responsible for millions of deaths is absurd. I do not deny that some wrongdoings were committed. I merely believe that the famines were natural disasters and that the state repression was much less severe than what contemporaries were guilty of. Holocaust deniers are preposterous and delusional individuals with not a leg to stand on.

I don't agree with this decision. I think it was wrong. I can understand it, however, because the Soviet people were fighting tooth and nail for their own survival. Surrender could mean thousands of noncombatants being murdered for the crime of having Slavic blood.

 

Let's see... What was that OP? "What are progressive values, and more importantly, what are progressive moral values?

Please give a basic list of what they today in 2016 and state whether you are a progressive or not a progressive.

Looking up current lists online have left me puzzled as to what they might be. "

Something awful amazing must have happened in the last two days. The only people who know are progressives.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Lesh View Post


The whole point of this thread was to put Progressives on the defensive so that wing nuts could attack them.

Don't play the ****'s game.

 

What makes you say that?
Being all of what you listed. I see, feel, hear nothing to what you post.

 

Refusing to play that game by refusing to say "I am a progressive, and X is what differentiates progressives from Y" doesn't work. How you do it is by being proud of progressive ideology and values.

You don't do this because leading with a glass chin isn't an effective tactic. The reason we know you have a glass chin is the same reason you don't want to play this little game. You can't win on ideas.