This is a follow on from my post on progression For those who like definitions . From Wikipedia
"Progressivism holds that it is possible to improve human societies through political action.
Can I ask why the word political is even in this definition as politics is so confrontational ? Founding fathers (and mothers ) of EVERY country never expect such a bad situation as we have now. Most Kings and Queen could not even countenance a bad word against themselves . Authoritarian leaders do not even care.
Confrontation is NOT the only way forward
Getting really useful facts for and to everyone has not really been tried yet except in a few " shangrila's ( is that the word ? Is it Shangri-Las ? I do not mean the Pop group. Even those mysterious lands like Shangrila have disappeared or were only imagined.
Let us think on an alternative, better than trumps 'Popularism' [which did not work by reason but were carried forward by lies.]
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
That is because that is a bad definition of progressivism. Although it also has to be said that you are not really using a very good definition of politics either, which should embrace all of human relations including family and business, as long as they are within the body politic, which means everyone not living alone on a desert island.
Fernapple
Level 9
Mar 20, 2023
1
It's not necessary for him to define "politics" because the topic under discussion is a political ideology. Yesterday, we were working without a definition of "progressivism" which led to problems so I proposed the one from Wikipedia as the most useful for these purposes. It would be more helpful if you proposed an alternative rather than just criticizing the one accepted on Wikipedia. If anyone thinks we need to define "politics", yours is going to take some work to be useful in this discussion.
I understand his fundamental point to be a search for a way to bridge the divide in American politics. He thinks it is getting facts to the other side, but the other side would say the same thing, that we don't have proper facts. The research says facts are not the issue and won't solve the problem. I don't think there is a way to bridge the divide but I'm willing to consider anything.
I agree that it is a bad definition as most people choose their own measure of progress that agrees with their original thinking.
My own definition of how to define below It is really a series of processes
a) Try your best to define
b) Try out [as many as possible] , possible collection of words that would fit that definition
c) keep improving your definition hopefully it will get you to a workable progressive version
d) keep looking for new definitions and see if they fit yours.
e) keep thinking about the battle between two . One of them has to go .}
Who says?]
f) the one that should win is the one that fits both old an new test cases( collections of words.
If you can get to simplify the above you are a genious. I only think that is how science works.
Will you try a definition of politics that will fit most agnostics? . I asked first. Only joking
What is certain is that before you start to discuss with 'an adversary', if you do not harmonise your definitions then you are wasting 'both your times '
@LovinLarge Maybe it is the sheer acceptance of facts that everyone would agree with { example We are all human) that is the problem .
I wish you were correct. I wish conquering the divide was as simple as presenting facts to conservatives, but there is lots of research that shows that facts don't alter their beliefs. Many people don't understand what evidence is or how facts are established. Hell, a lot of them think they won the Civil War! Here is an interesting article along those lines.
If we view this website as a microcosm of society, we see how the conservatives have insulated themselves in their own private group that they ban everyone who isn't a conservative from. I personally was banned eithout ever having set foot in that group. And when members of that exclusive group post in the general feed, they refuse to support their factual claims with credible evidence and all of their posts and comments are confrontational. I am unaware of any way to effectively communicate with this type of people.
The word "political" is in the definition of "progressivism" because progressivism is a political ideology, like liberalism and conservatism. I think of politics as how the government constitutes an extension of the people necessary to organize 330 million people. But conservatives and liberals are fundamentally different kinds of people and here is an article that discusses that.
I agree that it would be easier to move forward if we could find a way to work together, but I don't know what it would be or even if it is possible because moving forward is antithetical to conservative ideology. They fear the unknown and anything and anyone different and they use hate and exclusion to apply their fear. The conservative side of any argument always relies on an us vs. them scenario. And I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I will never subscribe to their exclusive, hierarchical way of positioning themselves above other people.
LovinLarge
Level 8
Mar 20, 2023
2
A good posting. Praising politics in war time is not a good idea because reason goes out the window.
Lets have a new agnostic ideology??? May be not, as there are too many others around.
@Mcfluwster Thank you. And I like all of your ideas, especially your main idea of bridging the divide. And I think you may be onto something in terms of breaking down the big problem into smaller goals like agreeing on definitions, for starters. I like your ambitious attempts to address the political divide when so many of us have thrown up our hands in despair. People like yourself who are willing to try are the ones who are going to get us through this dilemma, short of another civil war or a national divorce.
If we ignore the grandstanders, there are more reasonable Republicans who also want to bridge the divide. I think Trump is the most divisive figure of all, calling for violence over his made up arrest this very day. It would be a lot easier to bridge the divide if he would go ahead and have a fatal heart attack or something similar. I doubt he will ever endorse bridging the divide because he knows we will never sacrifice our democracy for the dictatorship he craves.
I like your ideas because they are hopeful and if we give up hope we are sunk. I have a cousin by marriage who is a stanch Republican and a pretty strict Catholic. We believe in very opposite things. I could not stand him, but when I got to know him better I found that he loves and adores my cousin and worships the ground she walks on, and I like that about him. He has a very demanding job and he has a very strong work ethic, and I like that about him. He is very handy and he helps a lot of people who don't have anyone else to help them, and I like that about him. Turns out I do quite like him even respect him even though I don't agree with his beliefs. So if we can figure out how to apply this situation on a national basis, perhaps there is a way to bridge the divide after all.
Politics relates to the allocation of limited or scarce resources. Ordinarily, those who have the gold make the rules. Those rules frequently work to maintain an unfair distribution of assets. Political systems of non-fascist governments allow (supposedly) the participation of representatives, even the disenfranchised. Unfortunately, it is still an uphill battle until violence is threatened. And even then, the benefits may be short-lived (i.e. Voting Rights legislation).
racocn8
Level 9
Mar 20, 2023
1
We (individuals) always make the decision either to oppose or co-operate and many do not know how to do that.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.