No we can't: A Progressive Critique

[IUCrazy2]

As mentioned in the past, I tend to find critiques from those who are part of the group being examined, as generally more interesting than those from outsiders. We could get a group of right leaning posters together and write a scathing report of the left (or vice versa) but that is easy to dismiss. Additionally, I don't believe that we are usually willing to give our political opponents the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations...or sometimes the view from the outside looking in is not as clear as we think it is (for instance I think this author misses the mark on his critique of the right...in fact he completely misstates the viewpoint on at least one topic.)

Oh well, either way, this guy is not a fan of the "new left".

Why I Am Not A Progressive

And Why, From Climate Change to Homelessness, Liberal People Are Giving Up

michaelshellenberger.substack.com

The reason progressives believe that “No one is safe,” when it comes to climate change, and that the drug death “homelessness” crisis is unsolvable, is because they are in the grip of a victim ideology characterized by safetyism, learned helplessness, and disempowerment. This isn’t really that new. Since the 1960s, the New Left has argued that we can’t solve any of our major problems until we overthrow our racist, sexist, and capitalistic system. But for most of my life, up through the election of Obama, there was still a New Deal, “Yes we can!,” and “We can do it!” optimism that sat side-by-side with the New Left’s fundamentally disempowering critique of the system.

That’s all gone. On climate change, drug deaths, and cultural issues like racism, the message from progressives is that we are doomed unless we dismantle the institutions responsible for our oppressive, racist system. Those of us in Generation X who were raised to believe that racism was something we could overcome have been told in no uncertain terms that we were wrong. Racism is baked into our cultural DNA.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

The “safe injection” sites have always blown my mind. It’s the ultimate defeatist attitude.

It’s like stopping a guy in a car who’s speeding toward a 500 foot cliff and making him put his seatbelt on before sending him over the edge.

Spend that money on treatment and prevention. Spend it on advertising for treatment and prevention. But we shouldn’t be enabling the very behavior we’re supposedly trying to prevent.

 

[Sope Creek]

As mentioned in the past, I tend to find critiques from those who are part of the group being examined, as generally more interesting than those from outsiders. We could get a group of right leaning posters together and write a scathing report of the left (or vice versa) but that is easy to dismiss. Additionally, I don't believe that we are usually willing to give our political opponents the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations...or sometimes the view from the outside looking in is not as clear as we think it is (for instance I think this author misses the mark on his critique of the right...in fact he completely misstates the viewpoint on at least one topic.)

Oh well, either way, this guy is not a fan of the "new left".

Why I Am Not A Progressive

And Why, From Climate Change to Homelessness, Liberal People Are Giving Up

michaelshellenberger.substack.com

The reason progressives believe that “No one is safe,” when it comes to climate change, and that the drug death “homelessness” crisis is unsolvable, is because they are in the grip of a victim ideology characterized by safetyism, learned helplessness, and disempowerment. This isn’t really that new. Since the 1960s, the New Left has argued that we can’t solve any of our major problems until we overthrow our racist, sexist, and capitalistic system. But for most of my life, up through the election of Obama, there was still a New Deal, “Yes we can!,” and “We can do it!” optimism that sat side-by-side with the New Left’s fundamentally disempowering critique of the system.

That’s all gone. On climate change, drug deaths, and cultural issues like racism, the message from progressives is that we are doomed unless we dismantle the institutions responsible for our oppressive, racist system. Those of us in Generation X who were raised to believe that racism was something we could overcome have been told in no uncertain terms that we were wrong. Racism is baked into our cultural DNA.

And crime keeps happening, and wars keep happening . . .

. . . should we fold our tents on the police and military too?

 

[IUCrazy2]

And crime keeps happening, and wars keep happening . . .

. . . should we fold our tents on the police and military too?

I am not sure what you are getting at, because the article does not make that argument at all (Did you read it all? Not to be snarky but I don't see how you came to those questions in response to his argument.) It is not my argument, but I think the guy makes the opposite point. I think his argument would be not to give up but that many of the neo-left (I imagine he means the AOC types in the Democrats) already have. Can't stop addiction, so why not just give them a place to shoot up to their heart's content.

 

[outside shooter]

Opposing racism, sexism, misogyny, anti-science conspiricism, automatic weapon-loving culture, etc. doesn't require an "overthrow" of anything at all. It merely requires people THINKING and not being a-holes. That seems hard for a lot of woe-is-me white men.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Opposing racism, sexism, misogyny, anti-science conspiricism, gun-loving culture, etc. doesn't require an "overthrow" of anything at all. It merely requires people THINKING and not being a-holes. That seems hard for a lot of woe-is-me white men.

Did you read the article? Based on your response I am lead to the belief that you did not.

I wish a few of the white males on the forum would actually take the time to read the damn articles posted before jumping in with their commentary based on an their assumption of what was said in the article. (Hint: I posted a provocative quote to try and get people to open and read what he said.)

But you got all the woke bullshit crammed into your one paragraph response, so kudos to you I guess.

Edit to add: You are apparently a smart guy who I disagree with on a bunch of topics (immensely) but you have really made the habit of not reading the posted articles before firing off your responses. And if you are reading them, slow down, because you keep missing the point of what is being said. You have done this multiple times on articles I have posted. You don't read them and instead lash out based on your perspective of what was probably said. That's weak sauce by any measure.

 

[Sope Creek]

I am not sure what you are getting at, because the article does not make that argument at all (Did you read it all? Not to be snarky but I don't see how you came to those questions in response to his argument.) It is not my argument, but I think the guy makes the opposite point. I think his argument would be not to give up but that many of the neo-left (I imagine he means the AOC types in the Democrats) already have. Can't stop addiction, so why not just give them a place to shoot up to their heart's content.

*snicker*

You're blinkered. Flip the question around, put the shoe on the other foot, and you're lost.

 

[outside shooter]

I was not refuting the article, I was instead refuting the stupid responses made here to the article.

 

[IUCrazy2]

*snicker*

You're blinkered. Flip the question around, put the shoe on the other foot, and you're lost.

It is still going over my head so you will have to spell out your point for me. Flip which question around? Giving up on the military or police? Or was that your attempt to flip the question around? If the latter, the guy in the article was not saying to give up. He was arguing that some of this stuff coming from the new-left is in fact a surrender already.

If you think I should be challenged with an article from the right side criticizing how the right approaches things, by all means find it and post it. We need to have our views challenged and often the most effective challenge will come from someone who is viewed as part of our "tribe".

 

[IUCrazy2]

I was not refuting the article, I was instead refuting the stupid responses made here to the article.

There were 4 posts when you responded:

1. The original post which quoted the author and was the only post that mentioned race in either way.

2. Hoopsdoc's post about the safe injections.

3. Sope asking if we should give up on the police and military too since crime and war aren't going away.

4. Me responding to Sope indicating the author is not arguing to give up.

Then you dropped that broadside against white males. Who specifically were you responding to? The only wah your response makes any sense is if you reacted to the pull quote in the original post without reading the article. Just be honest and admit you did not read the article and were instead reacting based on what you think was said because of the person who linked it. The pull quote I used was talking up the New Deal and Obama's "Yes we can". This is not some conservative hit piece on Democrats. It is very targeted to a specific subset and it leans on "liberal" solutions.

Maybe give it a read and then come back after the fact. You might find a bunch you agree with.

 

[hoot1]

Whenever someone starts an essay with ""I was once a progressive or conservative" my instincts tell me I am in for explanation of why a particular label no longer is viable to the person writing the essay. It doesn't mean that having been one then makes the person more qualified to pass judgement on his former tribe.

Furthermore why should either a progressive or conservative who has changed his stripes speak kindly of the ideology from which he no longer accepts?

By the way, Yes We Can and Make America Great Again are merely slogans just like Lucky Strikes Taste Good Like a Cigarette Should. They are meaningless as descriptions about what a party or person intends to do if elected..

 

[IUCrazy2]

Whenever someone starts an essay with ""I was once a progressive or conservative" my instincts tell me I am in for explanation of why a particular label no longer is viable to the person writing the essay. It doesn't mean that having been one then makes the person more qualified to pass judgement on his former tribe.

Furthermore why should either a progressive or conservative who has changed his stripes speak kindly of the ideology from which he no longer accepts?

By the way, Yes We Can and Make America Great Again are merely slogans just like Lucky Strikes Taste Good Like a Cigarette Should. They are meaningless as descriptions about what a party or person intends to do if elected..

He is still a liberal though. He just said that he does not ascribe to neo-progressivism and laid out an argument why. Some of you guys get pissed off when we point to AOC or Cori Bush as representative of the Democrats and then turn around and poo-poo a guy who is a liberal and is pointing out where they go wrong. So are the people he describes in his article really "the left" now, or are they something different? If they are different, then I would assume you would have criticism of them as well. This guy is not arguing he changed, he is saying the radicals are grasping control of the party.

So I guess we put you down for saying the Cori Bush/AOC wing of the Democrats are actually representative of the opinion of the majority of Democrats? That may be the case for this board, but I don't think it is reality...at least not yet.

 

[IUCrazy2]

He is still a liberal though. He just said that he does not ascribe to neo-progressivism and laid out an argument why. Some of you guys get pissed off when we point to AOC or Cori Bush as representative of the Democrats and then turn around and poo-poo a guy who is a liberal and is pointing out where they go wrong. So are the people he describes in his article really "the left" now, or are they something different? If they are different, then I would assume you would have criticism of them as well. This guy is not arguing he changed, he is saying the radicals are grasping control of the party.

So I guess we put you down for saying the Cori Bush/AOC wing of the Democrats are actually representative of the opinion of the majority of Democrats? That may be the case for this board, but I don't think it is reality...at least not yet.

"Most American progressives don’t hold such an extreme ideology. Most progressives want police for their neighborhoods. Most progressives want their own children, when suffering mental illness and addiction, to be mandated care. And most progressives want reliable electrical and water management systems for their neighborhoods.

But most progressives are also voting for candidates who are cutting the number of police for poor neighborhoods, insisting that psychiatric and drug treatment be optional, and that trillions be spent making electricity more expensive so we can harmonize with nature through solar panels made by enslaved Muslims in China, and through industrial wind projects built in the habitat of critically endangered whale species."

That is a quote from the article and yes the second paragraph is a bit scathing and in some case hyperbolic, but I think there is some truth there. But focus on the first paragraph, I think he is giving way more latitude to progressives than I would give. That is why the article was something I found interesting. I think he sees himself as still part of that progressive tribe even if he rejects the path that leaders appear to be taking it (from his POV).

 

[Univee2]

Whenever someone starts an essay with ""I was once a progressive or conservative" my instincts tell me I am in for explanation of why a particular label no longer is viable to the person writing the essay. It doesn't mean that having been one then makes the person more qualified to pass judgement on his former tribe.

Furthermore why should either a progressive or conservative who has changed his stripes speak kindly of the ideology from which he no longer accepts?

By the way, Yes We Can and Make America Great Again are merely slogans just like Lucky Strikes Taste Good Like a Cigarette Should. They are meaningless as descriptions about what a party or person intends to do if elected..

I don't know. "Where's the beef" was pretty meaningful . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

It is still going over my head so you will have to spell out your point for me. Flip which question around? Giving up on the military or police? Or was that your attempt to flip the question around? If the latter, the guy in the article was not saying to give up. He was arguing that some of this stuff coming from the new-left is in fact a surrender already.

If you think I should be challenged with an article from the right side criticizing how the right approaches things, by all means find it and post it. We need to have our views challenged and often the most effective challenge will come from someone who is viewed as part of our "tribe".

I simply used the same logic in other contexts that are more supported by conservatives, to show how flawed the author's logic is. His commentary is absurd.

And I ain't no progressive, either.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I simply used the same logic in other contexts that are more supported by conservatives, to show how flawed the author's logic is. His commentary is absurd.

And I ain't no progressive, either.

That's the thing Sope, you did not use his logic to show the flaw in the argument. You merely restated his argument against Progressives. So if anything you support what he said in the article.

 

[Sope Creek]

That's the thing Sope, you did not use his logic to show the flaw in the argument. You merely restated his argument against Progressives. So if anything you support what he said in the article.

You are blinkered . . . your limitations, which apparently are considerable, are self-imposed by your stubbornness.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You are blinkered . . . your limitations, which apparently are considerable, are self-imposed by your stubbornness.

He argues that Progressives have given up on truly addressing items because they have become fatalistic. There is no fixing the system, it has to be torn down. Now you can agree or disagree with that assertion, but that is his argument. He goes on to say that the system does not need torn down, but that there are liberal options which would lead to beneficial solutions. So no, don't wave your hands and say "we can't save the earth because people won't let us do X". He says that there is a Y and Z that have worked for others that we could do here. However they would take a little less ideological rigidity. Same with the drug argument. His argument is that they need treatment, not a safe space to get high.

From his POV, your post was taking on what he framed as the "new-left" thought process to handling problems. "Welp, there is going to be war so why not let that next genocide occur because who are we to stop it and if we can't stop it, then why have the big military?" Would be the right wing isolationist equivalent of what he is arguing against. And the right wing position he would probably support would be to have a sufficient military that was capable of stepping into conflicts that are necessary, while developing better soft power approaches to head off conflicts where our blood interests are not as clear.

You can disagree with his argument and think he is all wet, but I still believe you misrepresented his argument.

(I am choosing to ignore the cheap shot...pretty sad that even the slightest bit of give and take goes to that.)

 

[TommyCracker]

Whenever someone starts an essay with ""I was once a progressive or conservative" my instincts tell me I am in for explanation of why a particular label no longer is viable to the person writing the essay. It doesn't mean that having been one then makes the person more qualified to pass judgement on his former tribe.

Furthermore why should either a progressive or conservative who has changed his stripes speak kindly of the ideology from which he no longer accepts?

By the way, Yes We Can and Make America Great Again are merely slogans just like Lucky Strikes Taste Good Like a Cigarette Should. They are meaningless as descriptions about what a party or person intends to do if elected..

When I see that at the beginning of a post I think of a dumb Twitter con where one side of the party lies about who they are to try to gain a sympathetic ear.

It's a Russian trick. Start in the middle, build a following and then slowly get more extreme.

Jet on this board tried that con. The 'I'm a blue blood democrat but.....' while engaging and strongly agreeing with practically all of the Trumpican logic, views and attacks.

 

[hoot1]

He is still a liberal though. He just said that he does not ascribe to neo-progressivism and laid out an argument why. Some of you guys get pissed off when we point to AOC or Cori Bush as representative of the Democrats and then turn around and poo-poo a guy who is a liberal and is pointing out where they go wrong. So are the people he describes in his article really "the left" now, or are they something different? If they are different, then I would assume you would have criticism of them as well. This guy is not arguing he changed, he is saying the radicals are grasping control of the party.

So I guess we put you down for saying the Cori Bush/AOC wing of the Democrats are actually representative of the opinion of the majority of Democrats? That may be the case for this board, but I don't think it is reality...at least not yet.

Craze, as you may know, I am not big on labeling. If Shellenberger chooses to call himself a liberal or a progressive, so be it. If this gives him more credibility in disputing liberals and progressives concerned about climate change, so be it.

My problem with Shellenberger is more about his focus on climate change as if he were a scientist. Let us face it, as a former public relations guy now practicing as an author and journalist, Shellenberger can take a positive view (We Can Do It) about climate change along with saying progressives are wrong with their pessimistic outlook. But does he know what he is talking about when he enters into the realm of science?

 

[IUCrazy2]

When I see that at the beginning of a post I think of a dumb Twitter con where one side of the party lies about who they are to try to gain a sympathetic ear.

It's a Russian trick. Start in the middle, build a following and then slowly get more extreme.

Jet on this board tried that con. The 'I'm a blue blood democrat but.....' while engaging and strongly agreeing with practically all of the Trumpican logic, views and attacks.

I think I am an open book as far as my political leanings. I don't like the Democrat Party...at all. I view the "Progressive" (I feel that is a misnomer) wing of said party even more harshly. From where I sit, there is not much I can compromise with the latter. I wish to see them isolated and sidelined. I think that, even though I am not a fan of the party as a whole, there are Democrats that could be worked with to reach mutually beneficial compromises on a positive way forward for this country.

So just like the past 4 years of being treated to the next Republican who has left because Trump (always posted by people saying they wanted a return to the good ol GOP) I am offering, not even a turncoat but merely a critic, of the part of the Democrat Party that I view like you and many others viewed Donald Trump.

Now this guy, can't vouch for him, but he has a blog full of writing that doesn't appear to be really conservative to me. But I guess your mileage may vary on that.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Craze, as you may know, I am not big on labeling. If Shellenberger chooses to call himself a liberal or a progressive, so be it. If this gives him more credibility in disputing liberals and progressives concerned about climate change, so be it.

My problem with Shellenberger is more about his focus on climate change as if he were a scientist. Let us face it, as a former public relations guy now practicing as an author and journalist, Shellenberger can take a positive view (We Can Do It) about climate change along with saying progressives are wrong with their pessimistic outlook. But does he know what he is talking about when he enters into the realm of science?

On the science side, he can share his opinion based on the "facts" he provided and push his policy position based on those. (I put facts in quotes because I did not take the time to fact check those specifics, I was more interested in his view of the movement as opposed to the specifics related to climate change.)

I think he takes aim at their pessimistic outlook about everything...and that is where he differentiates his POV from theirs.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

As mentioned in the past, I tend to find critiques from those who are part of the group being examined, as generally more interesting than those from outsiders. We could get a group of right leaning posters together and write a scathing report of the left (or vice versa) but that is easy to dismiss. Additionally, I don't believe that we are usually willing to give our political opponents the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations...or sometimes the view from the outside looking in is not as clear as we think it is (for instance I think this author misses the mark on his critique of the right...in fact he completely misstates the viewpoint on at least one topic.)

Oh well, either way, this guy is not a fan of the "new left".

Why I Am Not A Progressive

And Why, From Climate Change to Homelessness, Liberal People Are Giving Up

michaelshellenberger.substack.com

The reason progressives believe that “No one is safe,” when it comes to climate change, and that the drug death “homelessness” crisis is unsolvable, is because they are in the grip of a victim ideology characterized by safetyism, learned helplessness, and disempowerment. This isn’t really that new. Since the 1960s, the New Left has argued that we can’t solve any of our major problems until we overthrow our racist, sexist, and capitalistic system. But for most of my life, up through the election of Obama, there was still a New Deal, “Yes we can!,” and “We can do it!” optimism that sat side-by-side with the New Left’s fundamentally disempowering critique of the system.

That’s all gone. On climate change, drug deaths, and cultural issues like racism, the message from progressives is that we are doomed unless we dismantle the institutions responsible for our oppressive, racist system. Those of us in Generation X who were raised to believe that racism was something we could overcome have been told in no uncertain terms that we were wrong. Racism is baked into our cultural DNA.

never conflate an economic progressive with a social progressive, as the media so wants you to do, as they have zero relationship to each other.

that said, the "woke" and race crazies give actual social progressives a bad name.

probably not by accident.

the money that has bought the DNC is the same money that bought the RNC long before that, and still wants Pubs to win far more than they want Dems to.

don't confuse what appears as political insanity beyond belief on the part of the DNC, with what's far more likely as sabotage.

 

[Stuffshot]

Whenever someone starts an essay with ""I was once a progressive or conservative" my instincts tell me I am in for explanation of why a particular label no longer is viable to the person writing the essay. It doesn't mean that having been one then makes the person more qualified to pass judgement on his former tribe.

Furthermore why should either a progressive or conservative who has changed his stripes speak kindly of the ideology from which he no longer accepts?

By the way, Yes We Can and Make America Great Again are merely slogans just like Lucky Strikes Taste Good Like a Cigarette Should. They are meaningless as descriptions about what a party or person intends to do if elected..

Get those slogans right.

L.S.M.F.T. = Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco.

Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.

 

[Stuffshot]

He is still a liberal though. He just said that he does not ascribe to neo-progressivism and laid out an argument why. Some of you guys get pissed off when we point to AOC or Cori Bush as representative of the Democrats and then turn around and poo-poo a guy who is a liberal and is pointing out where they go wrong. So are the people he describes in his article really "the left" now, or are they something different? If they are different, then I would assume you would have criticism of them as well. This guy is not arguing he changed, he is saying the radicals are grasping control of the party.

So I guess we put you down for saying the Cori Bush/AOC wing of the Democrats are actually representative of the opinion of the majority of Democrats? That may be the case for this board, but I don't think it is reality...at least not yet.

Why do you claim to be surprised that you caught flack for arbitrarily picking Cori Bush and AOC "as representative of the Democrats"? You could have picked someone like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Klobuchar, Durbin, Manchin, or some other Democrat "as representative of the Democrats", but you intentionally chose not to.

Duh. Do you really have no clue why you draw fire after claiming Cori Bush and AOC are "representative of the Democrats."

Maybe Dennis Hastert and Larry Craig are representative of the Republican "moral" majority after all.

Dennis Hastert - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Larry Craig scandal - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[IUCrazy2]

Why do you claim to be surprised that you caught flack for arbitrarily picking Cori Bush and AOC "as representative of the Democrats"? You could have picked someone like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Klobuchar, Durbin, Manchin, or some other Democrat "as representative of the Democrats", but you intentionally chose not to.

Duh. Do you really have no clue why you draw fire after claiming Cori Bush and AOC are "representative of the Democrats."

Maybe Dennis Hastert and Larry Craig are representative of the Republican "moral" majority after all.

Dennis Hastert - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Larry Craig scandal - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I give up.

Go team red. Boo team blue. It appears that is the highest level of discourse we are going to get here.

Edit: One last ditch effort. You apparently agree that AOC minded Democrats are not driving the left narrative (I disagree, but we can bypass that) so what about her do you disagree with and does any of what this guy is saying about the part of the party I think she represents ring true? I mean, there is apparently something about her and Cori Bush you don't want to be tied to. If it isn't what this guy is putting forth, what is it?

 

[Stuffshot]

I give up.

Go team red. Boo team blue. It appears that is the highest level of discourse we are going to get here.

Edit: One last ditch effort. You apparently agree that AOC minded Democrats are not driving the left narrative (I disagree, but we can bypass that) so what about her do you disagree with and does any of what this guy is saying about the part of the party I think she represents ring true? I mean, there is apparently something about her and Cori Bush you don't want to be tied to. If it isn't what this guy is putting forth, what is it?

No. That's not the way it works.

If you're serious, you should patch up whatever you can in your Post No. 12 above however you can (delete, modify, whatever).

What you propose now is not the discussion you started. Have a good evening. Find some good TV or streaming (and liquids).

 

[jet812]

When I see that at the beginning of a post I think of a dumb Twitter con where one side of the party lies about who they are to try to gain a sympathetic ear.

It's a Russian trick. Start in the middle, build a following and then slowly get more extreme.

Jet on this board tried that con. The 'I'm a blue blood democrat but.....' while engaging and strongly agreeing with practically all of the Trumpican logic, views and attacks.

Never claimed to be a blue blood Dem. . Taking a stance against the far left on this board does not mean I am standing with Trumpers. That you lie about me & mischaracterize my stances should tell everyone all they need to know about you & your character.

 

[jet812]

Why do you claim to be surprised that you caught flack for arbitrarily picking Cori Bush and AOC "as representative of the Democrats"? You could have picked someone like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Klobuchar, Durbin, Manchin, or some other Democrat "as representative of the Democrats", but you intentionally chose not to.

Duh. Do you really have no clue why you draw fire after claiming Cori Bush and AOC are "representative of the Democrats."

Maybe Dennis Hastert and Larry Craig are representative of the Republican "moral" majority after all.

Dennis Hastert - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Larry Craig scandal - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So you name two guys that haven’t been in office for over 10 years? Dumb…

 

[TommyCracker]

Never claimed to be a blue blood Dem. . Taking a stance against the far left on this board does not mean I am standing with Trumpers. That you lie about me & mischaracterize my stances should tell everyone all they need to know about you & your character.

All one needs is your posting history and your likes and liked to know what you represent.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with ones party, but you like the other Trumpers post nothing but left grievance while applauding the most extreme Trumpican....all under the guide of 'I'm a loyal democrat but I'm just concerned about how the party. I'm concerned about Biden's dementia and Hunter's business dealings. I don't like how my party desires to be a socialist state and how they want to get everyone vaccinated when it has microchips that they can then use to track us....'.

That's a common tactic used by frauds on social media to manipulate.

The person builds trust with the opposition claiming to be one and then tries to move them over to their true position.

 

[jet812]

All one needs is your posting history and your likes and liked to know what you represent.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with ones party, but you like the other Trumpers post nothing but left grievance while applauding the most extreme Trumpican....all under the guide of 'I'm a loyal democrat but I'm just concerned about how the party. I'm concerned about Biden's dementia and Hunter's business dealings. I don't like how my party desires to be a socialist state and how they want to get everyone vaccinated when it has microchips that they can then use to track us....'.

That's a common tactic used by frauds on social media to manipulate.

The person builds trust with the opposition claiming to be one and then tries to move them over to their true position.

Making up lies & putting words in my mouth based on conjecture is an even more common tactic.😂😂

 

[Stuffshot]

Get those slogans right.

L.S.M.F.T. = Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco.

Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.

Here you go, hoot.

This commercial will probably inspire you to buy a hookah, or something.

So you name two guys that haven’t been in office for over 10 years? Dumb…

So you name two guys that haven’t been in office for over 10 years? Dumb…

No, your very own Post 12 was dumb. Are you going to fix that?

 

[Stuffshot]

So you name two guys that haven’t been in office for over 10 years? Dumb…

No, your Post 12 was dumb. Are you going to fix that?

 

[hoot1]

Here you go, hoot.

This commercial will probably inspire you to buy a hookah, or something.

View embedded media

Thanks SS,

Remember the ad in my youth.

Wasn't into legs then.

Actually appreciate the ad more in my current twilight years as my tastes have changed.

 

[IUclover]

As mentioned in the past, I tend to find critiques from those who are part of the group being examined, as generally more interesting than those from outsiders. We could get a group of right leaning posters together and write a scathing report of the left (or vice versa) but that is easy to dismiss. Additionally, I don't believe that we are usually willing to give our political opponents the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations...or sometimes the view from the outside looking in is not as clear as we think it is (for instance I think this author misses the mark on his critique of the right...in fact he completely misstates the viewpoint on at least one topic.)

Oh well, either way, this guy is not a fan of the "new left".

Why I Am Not A Progressive

And Why, From Climate Change to Homelessness, Liberal People Are Giving Up

michaelshellenberger.substack.com

The reason progressives believe that “No one is safe,” when it comes to climate change, and that the drug death “homelessness” crisis is unsolvable, is because they are in the grip of a victim ideology characterized by safetyism, learned helplessness, and disempowerment. This isn’t really that new. Since the 1960s, the New Left has argued that we can’t solve any of our major problems until we overthrow our racist, sexist, and capitalistic system. But for most of my life, up through the election of Obama, there was still a New Deal, “Yes we can!,” and “We can do it!” optimism that sat side-by-side with the New Left’s fundamentally disempowering critique of the system.

That’s all gone. On climate change, drug deaths, and cultural issues like racism, the message from progressives is that we are doomed unless we dismantle the institutions responsible for our oppressive, racist system. Those of us in Generation X who were raised to believe that racism was something we could overcome have been told in no uncertain terms that we were wrong. Racism is baked into our cultural DNA.

Can one overthrow the government if they’re actively participating and representing their constituents?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

As mentioned in the past, I tend to find critiques from those who are part of the group being examined, as generally more interesting than those from outsiders. We could get a group of right leaning posters together and write a scathing report of the left (or vice versa) but that is easy to dismiss. Additionally, I don't believe that we are usually willing to give our political opponents the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations...or sometimes the view from the outside looking in is not as clear as we think it is (for instance I think this author misses the mark on his critique of the right...in fact he completely misstates the viewpoint on at least one topic.)

Oh well, either way, this guy is not a fan of the "new left".

Why I Am Not A Progressive

And Why, From Climate Change to Homelessness, Liberal People Are Giving Up

michaelshellenberger.substack.com

The reason progressives believe that “No one is safe,” when it comes to climate change, and that the drug death “homelessness” crisis is unsolvable, is because they are in the grip of a victim ideology characterized by safetyism, learned helplessness, and disempowerment. This isn’t really that new. Since the 1960s, the New Left has argued that we can’t solve any of our major problems until we overthrow our racist, sexist, and capitalistic system. But for most of my life, up through the election of Obama, there was still a New Deal, “Yes we can!,” and “We can do it!” optimism that sat side-by-side with the New Left’s fundamentally disempowering critique of the system.

That’s all gone. On climate change, drug deaths, and cultural issues like racism, the message from progressives is that we are doomed unless we dismantle the institutions responsible for our oppressive, racist system. Those of us in Generation X who were raised to believe that racism was something we could overcome have been told in no uncertain terms that we were wrong. Racism is baked into our cultural DNA.

My main criticism of the essay is that, when you look at it in detail, "No, we can't" really looks a lot more like, "That won't work." In other words, he's simply taking areas where progressives disagree with him about policy (because progressives think his policy is bad), and complaining that this represents some kind of fatalism. It doesn't. It simply represents that the people he's complaining about think his preferred policies are bad ideas.

 

[stollcpa]

Nice try @IUCrazy2. It’s not possible.

 

[IUclover]

Nice try @IUCrazy2. It’s not possible.

Pretty obvious what’s going on here. I wish you two better luck tomorrow night.

I’d recommend DMs for this sort of thing.

 

[stollcpa]

Pretty obvious what’s going on here. I wish you two better luck tomorrow night.

I’d recommend DMs for this sort of thing.

Must be some crazy left wing conspiracy theory. @IUCrazy2 😂

 

[IUCrazy2]

My main criticism of the essay is that, when you look at it in detail, "No, we can't" really looks a lot more like, "That won't work." In other words, he's simply taking areas where progressives disagree with him about policy (because progressives think his policy is bad), and complaining that this represents some kind of fatalism. It doesn't. It simply represents that the people he's complaining about think his preferred policies are bad ideas.

That's a fair criticism, particularly on the climate change front.

Do you think there is a difference between the Progressive wing of the party and how the Democrats are currently trying to govern? If you do think there is a difference, what would it be.

For instance, in my opinion the spending Bill's that are currently being discussed are almost completely driven by the AOC wing of the party. They threatened to shut the whole thing down if they did not get their way and Pelosi is dutifully going along. Like it or not, their views on the police have also been tied to the party mainly because dissenters have failed to make the point that the Democrats are not a defund party, so in perception, they become one by default. (There is a similar argument made for the GOP on the Trump side.)

So in your opinion (or anyone else's) what is the main difference between a Cori Bush or an AOC and how they would like to govern and the policies being put forth by the Democrats currently? From where I sit, much of it appears to be one and the same. However, people on the forum usually take umbrage in being put in the same category as a Bush. Is it because she has verbal diarrhea and says stupid stuff or is it because of her policies?

@Sope Creek had mentioned earlier that he was not a Progressive. I am just trying to flesh out what you all feel the difference would be.