P
- Status
B
Bill_B_NY
Guest
Perpetual revolution must necessarily kill anything that attempts to hold on to a position.
Feminism was a revolutionary movement. Now, Rowlings attempts to hold to those antiquated values and is shunned for it. She has become a traditionalist (in that sense) and can either join the revolution or suffer for her truths and be outcast. But why suffer for feminism which is an artificial construct - arbitrary and unnecessary? She thinks it is true but really has no basis for that.
Feminism was a revolutionary movement. Now, Rowlings attempts to hold to those antiquated values and is shunned for it. She has become a traditionalist (in that sense) and can either join the revolution or suffer for her truths and be outcast. But why suffer for feminism which is an artificial construct - arbitrary and unnecessary? She thinks it is true but really has no basis for that.
T
Tommy999
Guest
The speaker makes a lot of good points, in my opinion.
Just curious… Does he represent the official Church position or just his own personal perspective?
I remember as a little boy hearing Martin Luther King say that people should be judged by the content of their character - and not by the color of their skin. I agreed with him then and agree with him today, but it seems like for some, the color of one’s skin is about all that matters.
Just curious… Does he represent the official Church position or just his own personal perspective?
I remember as a little boy hearing Martin Luther King say that people should be judged by the content of their character - and not by the color of their skin. I agreed with him then and agree with him today, but it seems like for some, the color of one’s skin is about all that matters.
blackforest
Well-known member
I’m unable to play the video (yet), but is this really unique to progressives? https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/30/cancel-culture-trump-mcenany/
B
Bill_B_NY
Guest
What he is saying is consistent with Church teaching, but it is more philosophical than religious and the Church has not said anything about this, specifically. But the Church does have teachings about social revolution and how they work and what ends up happening - just as in this case with Ms. Rowlings. She is attacked by her own people, so to speak, because they continue the revolution and she wants to stand still.
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Progressives become Traditionalist, once they have achieved their goals. To continually progress is a revolutionary function that doesn’t end.
Have we lost the ability to understand why progress is required in the first place? Yes to change, but into what? Does progress not see the goal properly? or is there no specific goal to progress?
Positive change could be one, but we should be clear as to what we want to change into
Have we lost the ability to understand why progress is required in the first place? Yes to change, but into what? Does progress not see the goal properly? or is there no specific goal to progress?
Positive change could be one, but we should be clear as to what we want to change into
Last edited:
C
CTBcin
Guest
Demagogues always try to silence/punish those who criticize them. That’s nothing new.
G
GodIsPerfection
Guest
If we adopt the Biblical perspective of inheriting a forever fallen world from Adam and Eve, the very notion of “social progress” may be a myth. It is the same old world of human lies, duplicity, stealing, murder, fornication, adultery, coveting, non-belief, fratricide, patricide, war, disease, famine, idolatry, etc., etc., which the Bible describes, and which we observe in every generation. If we accept this model as reality, we will be better adapted to life in this present world, as we know it.
Progressivism, on the other hand, is a carrot-on-the-stick lie, of a utopia, ever held before us, that is never actually fulfilled. This religious faith (which is what the spirit of progressivism really is) will not tolerate scrutiny or objective comment. To do so is to be branded a heretic and be “cancelled.”
Progressivism historically has taken odious, murderous, forms, including Nazism, Communism, and Socialism. This is because “the end justifies the means.” Once we reach utopia, all of the murders, political repression, and police state tactics required will clearly have been justified. Everyone will understand when utopia is reached!
“Cancel culture” today means being branded, ostracized, and deprived of your livelihood. Soon it may mean political round-ups, camps, and exterminations.
The constructive, and realistic alternative to the lie of progressivism, is to re-embrace the Biblical world view of a fallen world in which all of us are sinners in need of forgiveness and redemption. In this world view, aggression is turned inward toward killing one’s own demons and sins through prayer and religious observance. When we grasp our own sinfulness, we will not be so hasty to “cancel” or “terminate” or “liquidate” other people.
The world has changed technologically, but those changes, too are at a price. Humanity, in his social relations to one another has changed little, if at all.
Progressivism, on the other hand, is a carrot-on-the-stick lie, of a utopia, ever held before us, that is never actually fulfilled. This religious faith (which is what the spirit of progressivism really is) will not tolerate scrutiny or objective comment. To do so is to be branded a heretic and be “cancelled.”
Progressivism historically has taken odious, murderous, forms, including Nazism, Communism, and Socialism. This is because “the end justifies the means.” Once we reach utopia, all of the murders, political repression, and police state tactics required will clearly have been justified. Everyone will understand when utopia is reached!
“Cancel culture” today means being branded, ostracized, and deprived of your livelihood. Soon it may mean political round-ups, camps, and exterminations.
The constructive, and realistic alternative to the lie of progressivism, is to re-embrace the Biblical world view of a fallen world in which all of us are sinners in need of forgiveness and redemption. In this world view, aggression is turned inward toward killing one’s own demons and sins through prayer and religious observance. When we grasp our own sinfulness, we will not be so hasty to “cancel” or “terminate” or “liquidate” other people.
The world has changed technologically, but those changes, too are at a price. Humanity, in his social relations to one another has changed little, if at all.
Last edited:
M
Mister_Friscus
Guest
I think it goes far beyond the line you draw. As far as difference in ideologies, I don’t wish to cancel them, I desire to reference them as why they are wrong/immoral/etc. This is about ruining livelihoods, punishing people for the wrong opinions, not just ignoring things. Making people in large fields afraid to hold certain non-violent, ideological, formerly-mainstream perspectives, such as Conservatism, Pro-life, Pro-Traditional Marriage, etc.
If the totalitarian movement can intimidate and ruin enough people, they control what the next generation is taught and skilled. They chop off a large segment of the ideological scale. Such injustice shouldn’t just be ignored and told “Meh… just get off your phone and it’ll be fine!”
A Conservative college professor can not have any social media, and be ostracized and afraid to speak his opinions even casually for fear of his job and livelihood, all the while his colleagues openly proclaim their opinions and it’s accepted or even celebrated.
These power plays and double standards shouldn’t be minimized.
If the totalitarian movement can intimidate and ruin enough people, they control what the next generation is taught and skilled. They chop off a large segment of the ideological scale. Such injustice shouldn’t just be ignored and told “Meh… just get off your phone and it’ll be fine!”
A Conservative college professor can not have any social media, and be ostracized and afraid to speak his opinions even casually for fear of his job and livelihood, all the while his colleagues openly proclaim their opinions and it’s accepted or even celebrated.
These power plays and double standards shouldn’t be minimized.
B
Bill_B_NY
Guest
Interesting questions to think about.
When there is no God, then the goal of life is not heaven, but it is “the future”. So, the aim is at making progress on earth for various reasons, not even comfort and satisfaction but just “because we can do it” (like space travel).
That is different than making earth a better place for the journey to heaven - making it better for God’s presence to dwell. In that life, technological progress is not necessarily required. In fact, a community can stay pretty much the same for centuries and continue to improve sanctity - producing more saints and souls for heaven.
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Absolutely right, I totally agree with you. However I do ponder what it might mean for those that don’t apply religion the way we do.True, as history has shown & proven. There still are many small indigenous groups that have largely remained untouched by the modern world & seem much better off without it. They have managed to enhance & strengthen their ideals of family, community & distribution of their resources.
The notion of progress with no goal, other than just “future” is a direction with no cause. Whenever we progress we should always try to understand what we are progressing towards, otherwise it seems useless.
Last edited:
B
Bill_B_NY
Guest
I ponder that also. I think they are seeking some kind of goodness, in a general sense. They don’t like various things and want a world without. That is good as it stands. But living by “nature” alone will always drag the person down to earthly goals, and those end up sort of animalistic. Not always, but it can happen,
Great point. I’ve been reading a lot about our Catholic missionaries of the past in America and so many of them were amazed to see the goodness in indigenous Indian groups that had remained stable for centuries. There were evils also. Fr. Diomedi, for example, in Eastern Washington kept a lot of Indian culture - and the tribes flourished when they added the Catholic Faith, which they were very devoted to. But they kept a simple lifestyle.
I think people just run towards the future sometimes, to escape the present and even the past. The future always has a promise, even if they don’t really try to achieve it. They miss the present day, always thinking that some dream will come true. If they would pray for it, then yes. But just running ahead with no real plan or goal - is what we see very often. People want to remake society, but they have all kinds of jumbled ideas on it.
P
pearleaf
Guest
Does that mean that it is a bad thing to work to end poverty, war, and famine, and limit the spread of disease? Can’t we try to both reach out to preach Christ to the world and to support policies that limit human suffering?
I’ll grant the communism and socialism part, but under what definition of the word were the Nazis progressive? I may not be a modern history scholar, but from what I’ve read, the Nazis were far-right.
I don’t know of many progressives who advocate for a utopia. The ones I know of want to try and make the world a bit more equitable. Some “cancelling” does become ridiculous or misguided, true, but other times it is because what is being cancelled, whether a form of media or a person, is perceived as harming other people, or influencing others to harm other people.
??? That’s a bit hyperbolic, considering most actual progressive thinkers today are anti-violence.
G
GodIsPerfection
Guest
The National Socialists (Nazis) were progressives (oriented toward a future utopian State that would last a thousand years). To get there required only that you round up enemies of the State (including deformed and mentally handicapped people, and certain racial and ethnic groups who didn’t fit the utopian, futuristic, picture) and sterilize or liquidate them.
**
The very word “progressive” shows that these people share a faith about where the future is going, and directionally the "change" is viewed as positive. The extrapolated endpoint of constant positive progress in human affairs is an eventual utopia, whether progressives will say it or not. The stars are glittering in their deluded eyes. This is where Karl Marx’ “Dialectic Materialism” leads.
??? That’s a bit hyperbolic, considering most actual progressive thinkers today are anti-violence.
[/QUOTE]
Anti violence??? Are you talking about the organizers behind destruction in Minneapolis, Seattle, Atlanta, Washington D.C., and other American cities. Are you talking about thinkers who advocate pulling down statues, burning buildings, and hurling bricks at police officers. If this mob of progressive thinkers ever gains full control, my comments about political roundups, camps, and exterminations (based on historical models like the Russian Revolution or Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution) won’t be hyperbole. Nothing can impede their march toward utopia on earth! (if only it existed).
Last edited:
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Yes, it seems that way, but I remain skeptical, when sometimes, what is good for one, is not necessarily good for the other.
True, when taken to an extreme. But here I am a little more optimistic & would think that the toiling for the basic necessities of life, like shelter, sustenance & love, might just stop us going fully prehistoric
Absolutely, It is something we can all learn from. In a sense they seem frozen in time, but that may be because they had a clear purpose & goal for their progress. I talk to many people & in general they are in favor of progress, but not necessarily forward. Many of them say that humanity needs to progress back to a simpler time.Ah yes, it is nice to dream. Escapism gives rise to many of humanities ills, as many see life as nothing more than suffering, they want to escape it in one way or another. I assume this is the major reason, humanity is progressing to change.
Agreed that it is a jumble of ideas, on the path for change. This can be better guided with clear goals & intentions, until then there will always remain confusion. It seems many of us can see what is required for a truly loving, compassionate & united human species, but we lack the ability to bring the rest of us along for the ride.
Last edited:
P
pearleaf
Guest
Ok, ok.
I won’t comment more than this, as I can see it won’t get anywhere.
Just because a group aims for a goal does not make them progressive. It is consensus that the Nazis, a group of of fascists, were right-extremists. They hated the communists and (actual) socialists.
As for the protests, property damage is not violence against persons (though I agree that protestors should not do damage to family-owmed businesses that are not involved), and the overwhelming number of injuries sustained has been on the side of the protestors.
And when I speak of progressive thinkers, I am speaking of the people who argue for progressive policies in public and in print.
I don’t go around saying that all conservatives are wanting to kill or strip the rights of those they disagree with—or those I think their policies would materially harm—though I can argue that, in my estimation, their policies benefit only those who are already rich. I expected an equivalent treatment, instead of hyperbolic and conspiratorial nonsense unworthy of a five-year-old, let alone an adult.
I won’t comment more than this, as I can see it won’t get anywhere.
Just because a group aims for a goal does not make them progressive. It is consensus that the Nazis, a group of of fascists, were right-extremists. They hated the communists and (actual) socialists.
As for the protests, property damage is not violence against persons (though I agree that protestors should not do damage to family-owmed businesses that are not involved), and the overwhelming number of injuries sustained has been on the side of the protestors.
And when I speak of progressive thinkers, I am speaking of the people who argue for progressive policies in public and in print.
I don’t go around saying that all conservatives are wanting to kill or strip the rights of those they disagree with—or those I think their policies would materially harm—though I can argue that, in my estimation, their policies benefit only those who are already rich. I expected an equivalent treatment, instead of hyperbolic and conspiratorial nonsense unworthy of a five-year-old, let alone an adult.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Actually, the aim would best be described as “forward to the past.” It was to be a world of family farms, small shopkeepers and artisan/workshop production - the contradiction was that the route to get there relied on industrial production of the means of war on a huge scale.
There is no evidence that progressives do any of this. They surely use these terms freely, but are most likely against most of this.
Example: how many countries did the Nobel Peace Prize progressive Obama attack with bombers? Was it six or eight? No matter, he is still the symbol of peace.
Poverty: show me one example where progressive politics lead to end of poverty. Food stamps certainly don’t do it.
Famine: where is a world-wide phenomenon. It is not stopped by dropping sacks of grain on deserts. Is there a plan to end famine?
P
pearleaf
Guest
Liberals are starry-eyed about Obama (and Biden), sure. Progressives tended to be very critical of him, however. I know of several who sat out in 2012 because of the wars Obama started. There is a difference. For example: liberals oppose Medicare-for-all and prefer means-tested policies; progressives prefer Medicare-for-all and universal policies. Generally speaking, of course.
There is a lower income disparity in most of Europe than the US. Also, the (relatively) progressive FDR lead the country out of the Great Depression, whereas it is demonstrable that the Gilded Age’s (again, relatively) unregulated capitalism lead to the Depression.
Famine is a world-wide problem! Maybe we should stop supporting exploitative economic practices, stop engaging in offensive wars, and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations that are just doing their own thing while we get our own house in order.
Beautiful slogans indeed. Maybe we could have a look?
If you have a laptop, a smart phone, any clothing whatsoever, anything at all, it was probably produced in sweatshops in Asia that use child labor. So, YOU are supporting exploitative economic practices. STOP IT NOW!
Offensive wars - agreed!
Meddling in affairs of others - possible if we relocated to another planet. As it is now, there is a community of nations, competition, greed, corruption, everywhere. Burrying your head in the sand to avoid meddling results in the demise of any country. (many have vanished)
- Status