Does the president have too much power?

[Al Swearegen]

Ah, the penny is starting to drop. "Society needs to negotiate". Regressives resist change, progressives promote change, society meets somewhere in the middle. And then the middle becomes the new baseline for social progress, the line that the regressives think is far enough, and that the progressives think is not nearly far enough, and the negotiation for a compromise continues.

//edit: just to add, that is how it normally works. Certain regressive political leaders can turn the clock back decades.

Cute.

Progressives with any power tend towards Authoritarianism.....and insanity.
Now the Progressives are progressive. They do not progress society in any reasonable way. The do attempt to change things certainly and all without negotiation or exporation. They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists". They embody and prach at the altar of Progressivism which is ever bad idea taken to ridiculous extremes and the perversion of every decent idea.

The problem was that in the past the Left was full of strong Liberal. Moderate critical thinking folks that wanted to introduce reasonable and rational ideas into society. Conservatives did not particularly like them because they prefer traditions and status quo. But Liberals could address reasoned positions and defend values allow the words and deeds to be shown as principled.

They were open to change and tolerant of difference and pretty accepting. The screeching crazy radicals were an insubstantial minority and seen as a joke.

Then the Progressives suddenly were not insubstantial and took over the Left and discourse. I have no idea what is even seen as "radical left"? What is disavowing radical leftism?

The Progressives do not allow negotiation and the Liberals cannot moderate them as THEY are in the minority and have to rely on their ideological counterparts of years gone, Conservatives to try to counter balance or moderate their extremism

[Tequila]

The conservatives are now the liberals of old, the liberals are supine and the progressives are extremists.

[Al Swearegen]

The conservatives are now the liberals of old, the liberals are supine and the progressives are extremists.

Yes the Liberals, Libertarians and moderate right of Centres are evermore being push to embrace Conservativism.

I think it is absolutely true that Conservative are more reasoned and reasonable..............now.
But it won't be forever. In time Progressives will hopefully lose their power and the Conservatives will gain real power. Then what?

Conservatives won't be so reasonable and Liberal of old will build on the other side. I will back Liberals then

[Walkie]

They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".

I'm sure I'll regret jumping in here, but can we can one thing straight?
Nobody wants to call themself  a "Cultural Marxist"" because there's no such thing.   So far as I can gather, it's just an alternative  term of abuse for an SJW. We all know you hate SJW's , Al.  Doesn't everybody ? But please stop palming them off on the political left. We don't want them any more than you do.
SJWs are just the modern equivalalent of the smug, self-righteous   Victorian do-gooder. Except they're uglier and doing much less good.

Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition.  Somebody who's absolutely  fine with Capitalism, just so long  as  the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.

Wikipedia has a pretty good definition...

Marxism is a theory and method of working-class self-emancipation. As a theory, it relies on a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation...

...According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies, class conflict arises due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed and exploited proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extracts its wealth through appropriation of the surplus product produced by the proletariat in the form of profit.

Now I surely don't expect you to agree with that philosophy  Al. But do you honestly think that your average SJW would agree with it? 

[sg1008]

They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".

Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition.  Somebody who's absolutely  fine with Capitalism, just so long  as  the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.

Yep.

Also......what is an SJW?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".

Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition.  Somebody who's absolutely  fine with Capitalism, just so long  as  the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.

Yep.

Also......what is an SJW?

SJW is one of those useful expressions that lets you know that whoever used it unironically, thinking it's a real thing, is drinking the right wing kool aid and not worth taking any notice of. (Obviously not including my fellow SJW Walkie in that assessment).

Nominally it means "social justice warrior". It is a sneer term.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".

I'm sure I'll regret jumping in here, but can we can one thing straight?
Nobody wants to call themself  a "Cultural Marxist"" because there's no such thing.   So far as I can gather, it's just an alternative  term of abuse for an SJW. We all know you hate SJW's , Al.  Doesn't everybody ? But please stop palming them off on the political left. We don't want them any more than you do.
SJWs are just the modern equivalalent of the smug, self-righteous   Victorian do-gooder. Except they're uglier and doing much less good.

Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition.  Somebody who's absolutely  fine with Capitalism, just so long  as  the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.

Wikipedia has a pretty good definition...

Marxism is a theory and method of working-class self-emancipation. As a theory, it relies on a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation...

...According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies, class conflict arises due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed and exploited proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extracts its wealth through appropriation of the surplus product produced by the proletariat in the form of profit.

Now I surely don't expect you to agree with that philosophy  Al. But do you honestly think that your average SJW would agree with it? 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

Cultural Marxism explained. It's a hoot.

Normally before one goes on a rant about cultural Marxism one should preface one's rant with "I know this is gonna sound crazy but....".

[Al Swearegen]

They call themselves Progressives because it sounds a lot nicer than "Cultural Marxists".

I'm sure I'll regret jumping in here, but can we can one thing straight?
Nobody wants to call themself  a "Cultural Marxist"" because there's no such thing.   So far as I can gather, it's just an alternative  term of abuse for an SJW. We all know you hate SJW's , Al.  Doesn't everybody ? But please stop palming them off on the political left. We don't want them any more than you do.
SJWs are just the modern equivalalent of the smug, self-righteous   Victorian do-gooder. Except they're uglier and doing much less good.

Marxism , on the other hand, is anti- capitalist by definition.  Somebody who's absolutely  fine with Capitalism, just so long  as  the back lesbian Muslim gets her turn at cracking the whip is not a Marxist, no sort of Marxist at all.

Wikipedia has a pretty good definition...

Marxism is a theory and method of working-class self-emancipation. As a theory, it relies on a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation...

...According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies, class conflict arises due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed and exploited proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extracts its wealth through appropriation of the surplus product produced by the proletariat in the form of profit.

Now I surely don't expect you to agree with that philosophy  Al. But do you honestly think that your average SJW would agree with it? 

It is the problem with soundbye definitions. What did Marxists think of Capitalism? What did they think of they people that benefited from Capitalism? What did they think of workers?

The virtous and noble struggling working class were oppressed by evil lazy oppressive business owners. The business owners were hording the means of production and keeping the working class in thrall. If you were a worker you were the noble victim. And if you were a business owner you were an immoral slaver.

Now from here you can associate all members of society into one of these positions the struggling artist for example would be noble. The aristocrat a lazy immoral degenerate benefiting on the misery of millions. Now you have divide a society AND promoted your want for workers to own the means of production.

But where else do we find a whole group of people painted as the victim and the other as the oppressor? Where the mere being in that group defines you as oppressed or oppressor irrespective of anything you have done or said or believe?

Feminism. To be an oppressor you have only to be a man. If you are a man you are necessarily part of the Patriarchy, and probably better just shut up and check your privilege. You did not think Feminism was simply the movement for men and women to be equal did you? Dammit mansplaining...

Progressive created the Progressive Stack and this drive their actions not the guise of help or progresive society or pretending they just want inclusivity and equality.

The Progressive Stack is Marxist divisiveness on steroids. How many ways CAN you (in the guise of wanting equality and inclusiveness) divide and polarise a society?

Now it is not at all to say that there should not be inclusiveness or equality or any of these kind of things but can we at least admit that the Progressivism movement that seeks to silence voice different to their own, call anyone who disagrees with them some kind of bigot and unperson them if they are able to, is interested only in equality of outcome not equality of opportunity, and all with a seeks to cast people as either oppressed or oppressors based only on broad collectivist assumptions nor specific to any one person but speaking generally on all based on a stupid ideology and dishonest narratives that underpin it?

[Walkie]

It is the problem with soundbye definitions.

Yeah, there are a heckova lot of problems with soundbyte definititions.  I dont think you've quite managed to nail one  of them down yet though.

What did Marxists think of Capitalism?
The virtous and noble struggling working class were oppressed by evil lazy oppressive business owners. The business owners were hording the means of production and keeping the working class in thrall. If you were a worker you were the noble victim. And if you were a business owner you were an immoral slaver.

Er...you've heard of the Straw Man Fallacy, I'm sure. And you think it's OK to use low-down debating tactics, so long as you're in the right? Or do you  honestly believe that twaddle and can't be arsed with referring to actual sources?

That sentimentalised, moralising  narrative (in the quote abiove)  bears about the same relationship to Marxism that  "hating the sinner but loving the sin "bears to Christianity.

To extend that analogy, an actual Marxist (as opposed to the caricature Marxist who lives inside inside your head) would say that we're all in the thrall of Capitalism, in much the same way that the Material World is in the thrall of an evil god called Satan, according to Christian mythology).   The  difference betwen the Marxist and the Christan is that  a Marxist frames the problem (and the solution)  in materialistic, mechanistic terms , rather than quasi-spiritual terms .

Anyone who thinks that a better solution to the evils of this world is to name , shame and castigate the all-too-human  so-called evildoers  is neither Marxist, Christian , nor even altogether sane.

Now from here you can associate all members of society into one of these positions the struggling artist for example would be noble. The aristocrat a lazy immoral degenerate benefiting on the misery of millions. Now you have divide a society AND promoted your want for workers to own the means of production.

will you please stop fleshing out that cartoon figure in your head and arguing with him? He's not worth wasting your breath on.

But where else do we find a whole group of people painted as the victim and the other as the oppressor? Where the mere being in that group defines you as oppressed or oppressor irrespective of anything you have done or said or believe?

Feminism. To be an oppressor you have only to be a man. If you are a man you are necessarily part of the Patriarchy, and probably better just shut up and check your privilege. You did not think Feminism was simply the movement for men and women to be equal did you?

Nope. To admit a shameful truth to you,  I used to  be almost as pissed off with Feminism as you are, Al, because I judged it by it's loudest, brashest , stupidest so-called  exponents,  same as you.  Besides which I smugly asssumed  that men and women were equal already, and that anyone who thought otherwise was a brainless dinosaur.  Besides which,  my vapid,  utterly self-centred, blonde-haired  bimbo of a girfriend liked to call herself a Feminist, which didn't help. ( I was going though a bit of  funny phase, and loved her precisely because she wasn't my type, not even my usual gender-preference,  in case you wonder)

Then I  was forced  to read a teeny bit of Feminist psychology as part of a course i was doing, and it sounded remarkably intelligent and thought-provoking.  And then I (entirely volutarily)  read a whole book on Feninist Psychotherapy (by a man) and it blew my brains out, and forced me to reconstruct my ideas about Feminism  from scratch ....

Well, well, well, we can all be stupid , even me. 

How many ways CAN you (in the guise of wanting equality and inclusiveness) divide and polarise a society?

 Yep, that's a very pertinent question which I very often wonder about myself.   It's truly scary. But I'm taking this out of context , I know.  What youseem to be doing is mindlessly lampooning a bunch of  crazed cultural figureheads , without ever seriously asking where they're really  coming from , and who or what might be pulling their strings?  which, to my way of thinking. would be to swallow the exact same bait that their disciples swallow, to no better effect.

The Progressive Stack is Marxist divisiveness on steroids.

Here we go. Just countering one brand of  twaddle with a different brand of twaddle. Marxism is anything but  divisive.  So the moment you insert  a phrase like  ""Marxist divisiveness" into it, your argument serves no purpose whatsoever, except to reinforce a prejudice (in this case, against the political left)

Now it is not at all to say that there should not be inclusiveness or equality or any of these kind of things but can we at least admit that the Progressivism movement that seeks to silence voice different to their own, call anyone who disagrees with them some kind of bigot and unperson them if they are able to, is interested only in equality of outcome not equality of opportunity, and all with a seeks to cast people as either oppressed or oppressors based only on broad collectivist assumptions nor specific to any one person but speaking generally on all based on a stupid ideology and dishonest narratives that underpin it?

Um, yeah, this begins to sound like sort of genuine and reasonable argument at last. But I can't asess it, because, frankly,  ins 5.48 am  here in Britain, and you just did my brain in, Al.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Walkie, I know it looked very tiny and insignificant in between all those massive walls of text, but did you see the link that I provided to the rationalwiki page on Cultural Marxism? The TLDR version is that it doesn't exist, that it's a batshit crazy conspiracy theory. But I'm assuming that you already guessed that.

I've only ever known one full-blown Marxist in meatspace. If he is still alive he would be more than 100 years old now. He was very wealthy and also highly unethical when it came to financial dealings, and when called out on his financial dishonesty he would simply say that he was doing what you are supposed to do in a capitalist system (make as much money as you can). He had traveled around Soviet Russia with a KGB agent assigned to keep an eye on him (in case he was a double agent).

He told me stories about the days when Stalin was still alive, how the Sydney communists would get hold of the English transcripts of his speeches shortly after he gave them and then call a secret meeting where the speech would be read out. At the end of the speech they would give a standing ovation for 20 minutes or so, until someone rang a bell to signal them to stop.

Interesting character but dementia had started to set in by the time he wrote his book (you can look it up, "Looking Ahead" by David Rydstrand, and you can still buy it. I remember when he had it published, he only managed to sell 6 copies out of the 5,000 that he had printed. Those were the copies that he sold at full retail price to his own children, who wanted copies for his grandchildren).

Anyway, he was the most misogynistic prick I ever met. Despised any woman who wouldn't make him a cup of coffee without having to be asked. Thought women were unproductive workers and should be paid a lot less than they were. Used to say that beaten wives were evidence of how annoying women are. So when people try to draw connections between Marxism and feminism and other forms of social progressiveness, I find it quite amusing.

[odeon]

Not sure if I ever met an actual Marxist. Commies, sure, but Marxists, I don't think so.

[Walkie]

Walkie, I know it looked very tiny and insignificant in between all those massive walls of text, but did you see the link that I provided to the rationalwiki page on Cultural Marxism? The TLDR version is that it doesn't exist, that it's a batshit crazy conspiracy theory. But I'm assuming that you already guessed that.

Yep, saw the link, pretty much guessed the content, and plussed you for the accompanying comment 

Normally before one goes on a rant about cultural Marxism one should preface one's rant with "I know this is gonna sound crazy but....".

  Haven't read it yet, but intend to, next time i need a good laugh.

Found another funny web page I was gonna post back at ya, but when  I hunted through my overloaded browser for it, seized instead on a  supermarket page for ""Liberto Organic & Vegan Pate"  which instantly humbled me, like it would 

[Walkie]

Not sure if I ever met an actual Marxist. Commies, sure, but Marxists, I don't think so.

Wow. Well maybe there's not such a pressing need for Marxism in your neck of the woods. When you live in the post-industrial North and Midlands of England, the all-to-real consequences of social inequality are costantly in your face .

In my city , we have three competing Marxist parties ( at least one of which is actually  thriving ) as well as one lone Communist who bravely sets up stall in the City Centre whenever the sun shines. I've inadvertently hung around Marxists all my adult life.  I mean, I was staunchly attempting to completely  ignore Politics, but most of the people to whom  I've been naturally drawn (purely on grounds of intelligence, creativity,  character etc ) turned out to be Marxist on closer inspection. No getting away from the buggers. 

And you never met a single one? wow!

[Al Swearegen]

It is the problem with soundbye definitions.

Yeah, there are a heckova lot of problems with soundbyte definititions.  I dont think you've quite managed to nail one  of them down yet though.

What did Marxists think of Capitalism?
The virtous and noble struggling working class were oppressed by evil lazy oppressive business owners. The business owners were hording the means of production and keeping the working class in thrall. If you were a worker you were the noble victim. And if you were a business owner you were an immoral slaver.

Er...you've heard of the Straw Man Fallacy, I'm sure. And you think it's OK to use low-down debating tactics, so long as you're in the right? Or do you  honestly believe that twaddle and can't be arsed with referring to actual sources?

That sentimentalised, moralising  narrative (in the quote abiove)  bears about the same relationship to Marxism that  "hating the sinner but loving the sin "bears to Christianity.

To extend that analogy, an actual Marxist (as opposed to the caricature Marxist who lives inside inside your head) would say that we're all in the thrall of Capitalism, in much the same way that the Material World is in the thrall of an evil god called Satan, according to Christian mythology).   The  difference betwen the Marxist and the Christan is that  a Marxist frames the problem (and the solution)  in materialistic, mechanistic terms , rather than quasi-spiritual terms .

Anyone who thinks that a better solution to the evils of this world is to name , shame and castigate the all-too-human  so-called evildoers  is neither Marxist, Christian , nor even altogether sane.

Now from here you can associate all members of society into one of these positions the struggling artist for example would be noble. The aristocrat a lazy immoral degenerate benefiting on the misery of millions. Now you have divide a society AND promoted your want for workers to own the means of production.

will you please stop fleshing out that cartoon figure in your head and arguing with him? He's not worth wasting your breath on.

But where else do we find a whole group of people painted as the victim and the other as the oppressor? Where the mere being in that group defines you as oppressed or oppressor irrespective of anything you have done or said or believe?

Feminism. To be an oppressor you have only to be a man. If you are a man you are necessarily part of the Patriarchy, and probably better just shut up and check your privilege. You did not think Feminism was simply the movement for men and women to be equal did you?

Nope. To admit a shameful truth to you,  I used to  be almost as pissed off with Feminism as you are, Al, because I judged it by it's loudest, brashest , stupidest so-called  exponents,  same as you.  Besides which I smugly asssumed  that men and women were equal already, and that anyone who thought otherwise was a brainless dinosaur.  Besides which,  my vapid,  utterly self-centred, blonde-haired  bimbo of a girfriend liked to call herself a Feminist, which didn't help. ( I was going though a bit of  funny phase, and loved her precisely because she wasn't my type, not even my usual gender-preference,  in case you wonder)

Then I  was forced  to read a teeny bit of Feminist psychology as part of a course i was doing, and it sounded remarkably intelligent and thought-provoking.  And then I (entirely volutarily)  read a whole book on Feninist Psychotherapy (by a man) and it blew my brains out, and forced me to reconstruct my ideas about Feminism  from scratch ....

Well, well, well, we can all be stupid , even me. 

How many ways CAN you (in the guise of wanting equality and inclusiveness) divide and polarise a society?

 Yep, that's a very pertinent question which I very often wonder about myself.   It's truly scary. But I'm taking this out of context , I know.  What youseem to be doing is mindlessly lampooning a bunch of  crazed cultural figureheads , without ever seriously asking where they're really  coming from , and who or what might be pulling their strings?  which, to my way of thinking. would be to swallow the exact same bait that their disciples swallow, to no better effect.

The Progressive Stack is Marxist divisiveness on steroids.

Here we go. Just countering one brand of  twaddle with a different brand of twaddle. Marxism is anything but  divisive.  So the moment you insert  a phrase like  ""Marxist divisiveness" into it, your argument serves no purpose whatsoever, except to reinforce a prejudice (in this case, against the political left)

Now it is not at all to say that there should not be inclusiveness or equality or any of these kind of things but can we at least admit that the Progressivism movement that seeks to silence voice different to their own, call anyone who disagrees with them some kind of bigot and unperson them if they are able to, is interested only in equality of outcome not equality of opportunity, and all with a seeks to cast people as either oppressed or oppressors based only on broad collectivist assumptions nor specific to any one person but speaking generally on all based on a stupid ideology and dishonest narratives that underpin it?

Um, yeah, this begins to sound like sort of genuine and reasonable argument at last. But I can't asess it, because, frankly,  ins 5.48 am  here in Britain, and you just did my brain in, Al.

No, "at last" about it, but your disagreeing does not bother me in the least. Perhaps trying to parse it out at dawn was not advised.

The reason why the last section makes sense is because of the context of the early arguments. If I convinced you that men COLLECTIVELY were oppressing you and trying to raise themselves up at your expense and that you were a victim of this gendered tyranny, do you think this would still fall under equality and inclusiveness and tolerance? Do you think you would easily accept the concept of Patriarchy? Privilege? Mansplaining, Manspreading, Bro-terruptions, Manslamming? Do you think that when faced with the reality that men and women on average earn a different year income? Would you readily endorse that as oppression without considering that not only do women choose (on average) lower paid work than men do on average and are less likely to do STEM degrees, specialised degrees, or work with a remote allowance, danger money or excessive overtime. IF they do this then on average they will get paid less BUT if you were convinced this was injustice due to male oppression and Patriarchy, right?

If you were thinking these things as a natural extension of this oppressor/oppressed polarised gender model, did this come out of.....Humanism which is about equality of everyone or egalitarianism with is about everyone being equal? Was it perhaps coming out of Feminism? Being that these concept are not only derived from Feminist ideology but is ingrained in Feminist theory and academia, it is hardly surprising that this motivates people to operate out of a righteous indignation of the oppressed. A male does not need to do anything to be "Part of the Patriarchy" or to be considered to have "privilege" or be "Oppressive". This is an original sin. A taint ascribed to him by virtue not of what he has said or done by because of his genital and/or chromosomes. Yet the people who will devalue if not demonise men thusly are often believing doing this is benefiting women and society. They believe this is in the name of equality and inclusiveness and tolerance. All whilst doing this shit.

So you will forgive me if I do not meekly submit to the whole Feminism is simply the want of equality of the genders bullshit and that the crazy Feminists are the only ones who submit to the crazed notions about Patriarchy et al. Soundbyte definitions are not worth shit.

The reason why we have the rape culture, pay gap, safe space, privilege, manspreading, hate speech, outrage culture bullshit is due to the Progressives. Only precisely NONE of that is Progressive nor inclusive nor equalising.

Have you looked at the Progressive Stack? Look at it not within the definition it claims of itself but with the polarisation of the Us vs Them, with each "competing group". View it with the oppressor/oppressed binary. Its a trainwreck.

In respect to the "only loud voices", what you mean the talking heads? The Academics, the Media, the Hollywood celebs, the Political powerhouses and every Feminist figure with a platform? If you do not mean these people but you know some perfectly nice people that call themselves Feminists....I do not much care. If you say that they live perfectly decent lives and do not espouse the kind insanity I described above, I again don't care. THEY do not change the world for the worse. They can call themselves whatever they like.

As to your comments about religion? I do not much care about religion either. If you wanted to make the point about ideology and zealots and such, yes, it is in religion too. Ideological conformity and Authoritarianism and the like does exist in religion and religious practice as does the concept of original sin and the righteous conviction and want of some to display to all their righteous purity.

I am actually not a fan of religion and wonder if that is a point you wanted me to agree to or not.

[Tequila]

Wow. Well maybe there's not such a pressing need for Marxism in your neck of the woods. When you live in the post-industrial North and Midlands of England, the all-to-real consequences of social inequality are costantly in your face.

Shut up Ken Loach. Where I'm from in the North most of us are Tories. Labourites haven't got a cat in hell's chance of getting in. My MP is a Brexiteer. It'x a far cry from Benefit Street Labour only a few miles down the road. The people who vote Labour here are fucking the candidate and sending her a sympathy vote.