When have progressive ideas actually caused harm?

[wellwisher]

The biggest example of harm done by Progressive thought and ideas can be seen in the snow flake generation. Their stressed out nature is not healthy and shows signs of long term abuse and battle fatigue. Long term exposure to progressive ideas, and its enforcement, appears to cause psychological harm. You do not see the same level of battle fatigue in Conservative children.

For example, the constant drum beat of doom and gloom over global warming keeps a child in a state of fear and stress las though they are in an imaginary battle for life, day after day. I understand the goal is to use fear to manipulate people to act. But this stress appears to be having a negative impact on children.

It is similar to the soldier at war who hear bombs and gun fire each day until one day he can't cope. In civilian life, any loud sound can awakens his old wound. The snow flakes cannot handle any extra stimulus, without triggering the war inside, that as placed there by Progressive programming.

The progressives have insistent on Trump Russian collusion. This has lasted two years, without being in touch with reality. This was not a healthy time for progressive children. Losing touch with reality can cause psychological damage, even if this is the easiest way to program young people to be obedient pawns.

 

[Jumi]

Conservatives are competent at running things but not creative whereas liberals are creative but not competent at running things. They need each other. But both can take it too far.

Sometimes keeping things running as they are is worse than changing gears. "Conservative" folks like to drive on a gear that "liberal" folks see as damaging the engine and wasting the gasoline.

As to Peterson, do you think his meat only diet claims make sense? It seems quite extreme.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The Nazis were progressive, as were the Marxists as they were in favour of social and governmental change.

The Nazis sought radical change in social and governmental institutions in a form of millenarianism ending in a 'thousand year reich'. Te Italian fascists were likewise progressive, although in a different manner.

Even more so, the Marxists, at least normatively, believed in worldwide socialist revolution, the eradication of religion the end of all forms of oppression, and ultimately the end of the state itself. I'm not sure you can get any more progressive than that.

The problem with these issues is too many modern centre right/left people, particularly in America, want use these in childish point scoring exercises against the other. This means discussions get poisoned by ideological imperatives.

They were progressive though, but not in a manner that bears any resemblance to modern (big P) Progressivism.



Here we get into the realm of tautology where progressives can't cause any harm because anything that causes harm isn't progressive.

Theses were Enlightenment Men of Reason who believed they were creating a brave new world by destroying the old one.

Unless we want to strip the word of any semblance of meaning, this is (small p) progressive.



The idea that a very broad category like 'progressive' would not have had both good and bad impacts is quite fanciful.

Eugenics were popular among educated progressives.
Urban Guerrillas , like the Red Army Fraction
Pan-Arabism and later Ba'athism that led to dictatorships across the Middle East.
Maoism
etc.

Also, when people got independence from multi-ethnic Empires (Ottoman, Habsburg, etc.) you often saw ethnic conflict resulting. What had been stable under a monarchical system which protected the rights of diverse communities became fault-lines in democratic or other political systems.

Also there are things which are beneficial, or at least not intrinsically harmful, yet have been taken too far resulting in:

Extreme moral relativism
Uber-progressive "SJW" type activism
Intersection grievance politics
'Cultural appropriation'
etc.

Small c conservatism and small p progressivism both have strengths and weaknesses as you would expect.

The main strengths of progressivism lie on improving aspects of the social and political order which led to advances in rights and social fairness among others.

Its main weakness is that, by its nature, it falls prey to whatever is intellectually fashionable at a given time. Time is what sorts out the good ideas from the bad, and many progressive ideas are new and thus 'untested'.

Whenever you try new things, some will bring benefits and others will cause harms, as you find with progressive ideologies.

Excellent post @Augustus , thank you.
There is much in your post that I would agree with. Marxism in particular: though while a whole global hand-holding Kumbayaa would be a wondrous thing theoretically, it ain't gonna happen.
You and I will have to disagree about the Nazis, Change is NOT always progressive. With the Nazis, their "change" and "thousand year reich" were not progressive change, they were conservative change, trying to fall back to the old ways. Purging the outsiders from what had once been their land alone, back in "the Glory Days". The KKK in the US wants change too; but that doesn't make their intentions progressive.

Along that line of thought, I see that there are and have been many many thoughts and ideologies which arise that may well be peaceful unto themselves, yet the means are usually far too draconian and destructive, and do not justify the end (many religions leap to mind).

Sometimes keeping things running as they are is worse than changing gears. "Conservative" folks like to drive on a gear that "liberal" folks see as damaging the engine and wasting the gasoline.

As to Peterson, do you think his meat only diet claims make sense? It seems quite extreme.

Two things.
First, that line, ""Conservative" folks like to drive on a gear that "liberal" folks see as damaging the engine and wasting the gasoline. Nice. I especially like that you point out that the liberals see it as wasteful and damaging to the vehicle, rather than being the impulsive kids in the back seat yelling "faster! Faster!"

and Second: I didn't really know anything about this Peterson fellow, other than looking him up as some Canadian psychologist.
But he promotes an "all meat diet"? He's a fruitcake. That method has been tried before. The creators of those diets are all dead now. Young and dead. Perhaps Mr. Jordan Peterson will be next.

 

[Augustus]

You and I will have to disagree about the Nazis, Change is NOT always progressive. With the Nazis, their "change" and "thousand year reich" were not progressive change, they were conservative change, trying to fall back to the old ways. Purging the outsiders from what had once been their land alone, back in "the Glory Days". The KKK in the US wants change too; but that doesn't make their intentions progressive.

I'd say that to be conservative it requires a reversion to a previous state of affairs.

The Nazis were not trying to roll back the clock, it's just that their progressive ideologies was rooted in aspects of a mythical past. The society they wanted to create was nothing like anything that had previously existed. A radically innovative society can't be conservative in my opinion.

No idea what their ideology is beyond racism, but if the KKK wanted to bring back the society of the antebellum South, then you could make the case that this is conservative as it harks back to an actual former state.

Along that line of thought, I see that there are and have been many many thoughts and ideologies which arise that may well be peaceful unto themselves, yet the means are usually far too draconian and destructive, and do not justify the end (many religions leap to mind).

That society can be purified, or that progress can be boosted through redemptive violence spans all kinds of ideologies from across the belief and political spectra.

To paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember: "Is there any evil you would not commit in order to rid the world of all evil?"

 

[Jumi]

and Second: I didn't really know anything about this Peterson fellow, other than looking him up as some Canadian psychologist.
But he promotes an "all meat diet"? He's a fruitcake. That method has been tried before. The creators of those diets are all dead now. Young and dead. Perhaps Mr. Jordan Peterson will be next.

I don't know too much about him either, really. His diet has started to become a bit famous though. He believes a meat and salt only diet can cure depression, arthritis, anxiety disorders, stomach ailments and lose weight.

Though he promotes it, his daughter is the real "inventor" of the diet. Update April 8 2018 - Jordan Peterson's Diet - Zero Carb - Don't Eat That

 

[Jumi]

I'd say that to be conservative it requires a reversion to a previous state of affairs.

I think that fits best with reactionary conservatives who see the modern world as having gone too far. Some conservatives are perfectly happy with what they have today, they just want more of it.

 

[Earthling]

Sometimes keeping things running as they are is worse than changing gears. "Conservative" folks like to drive on a gear that "liberal" folks see as damaging the engine and wasting the gasoline.

As to Peterson, do you think his meat only diet claims make sense? It seems quite extreme.

I don't know, I haven't given it much thought, but stranger things have happened, I suppose.

 

[columbus]

This thread makes one thing clear.

A big problem with this conversation is the squishy meaning of the word "progressive". I tend to see conservative as "Mostly stay the course, with only minor changes". Progressive is "We need sweeping changes, and I will provide them".

Towards the end of the 2016 primary season there were 5 candidates in the running. I saw the 2 conservatives as Kasich and Clinton. Sanders and Trump were progressives. Cruz didn't really fit either category, more of a theocrat.

Part of the reason I supported Clinton is that I thought her basically conservative, but better able to get some of Sanders' progressive ideas under way than Sanders himself. Without going overboard and creating a disaster, like I think Sanders would have done. But had it been a choice between Sanders and Kasich I would have voted Kasich.
Tom

 

[Willamena]

Au contraire. Privatization is the holy grail of the conservative (more money for the rich) government official. Diverting more tax monies from such items as the military or supporting "private" schools, over to social security checks, as well as disability and unemployment checks are the progressive ideas.

In Alberta, we have (had) The Progressive Conservative Party.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe that you have been fed straw-man ideas about what exactly progressives want.

As it seems you've been fed strawman ideas about what conservatives want.

- Open borders - Nobody is asking for that. At least nobody outside of a yurt. The current more progressive party (the Dems) laid out and passed more than 4 times the funds that Trump wanted for a wall, solely for border security improvements. But it was nixed.

So the government is currently shutdown because?

- "Entitlements" as expressed by conservative media, don't really exist. People work and pay taxes, and social security, etc... That money has been set aside and is well managed financially since its creation in the 1940's. However, many a politician has tapped into that cookie jar for their own pet projects (pork). People asking for their share when they need social security or medicare, etc... are only getting "entitlements" in the sense that they are in fact entitled to get their money back. Now; better protecting that money-pot, and recalculating input based upon modern life-expectancy, etc... are all in order. But that is for politicians to squabble over. I'm not aware of any Democratic politicians asking for more than what has been set out decades ago.

Well we agree here, politicians are the problem. They should have from the beginning been managing public funds better. When they run into a deficit it easier for them to find a way to raise taxes and fees than to fix their spending issues.

- "Socialism" - ooooh. The right-wing media's boogey-man! It's so terrible to give us Americans things like our socialized police force. Our socialized fire departments. Our highway system. Our power grids. Airports and harbors. Our socialistic military. Our socialized TSA and Border Patrol. etc....etc.....etc..... Conservatives don't like those things?

I don't know what you mean by socialized polices force etc... Government provided services is not socialism. We have a capitalist system which funds the government.

 

[Nakosis]

But I'm sure you love your social security right?

Actually I wish the government would be better at handling our money. I don't even mind taxes if there is seen a real benefit to the people.

There was a time when Australia provided health care, education, welfare and was able to balance the budget. For some reason, the US government system seems incapable of this.

 

[Audie]

Put aside your party affiliations. I’m not talking about Republican versus Democrat, but rather progressive versus conservative.
I have often heard conservatives say that without a conservative leash on progressive ideas we would be dragged down a slippery slope into a hellacious world.
However from looking at history, I cannot see any occasions when open-mindedness and progressive values, and particularly new progressive ideas have caused any harm to the United States or any other country. - Freeing slaves - equal rights regardless of color - equal rights for both sexes - equal rights for people of different sexual orientation - accepting and encouraging scientific findings over traditions or religious dogma. - focusing on education and infrastructure. - marriage for love rather than duty or reproduction. - acceptance of people from different religions and cultures.....even - doing away with tank battalions and multicannoned battleships in favor of more modern mobile, air/satellite-supported troops and drones.

When have such things, in your opinion, made our country or even our species weaker?



Current progressive ideas that are (for a little while) being tethered by conservative thinking include:
- focusing on renewable and clean energy jobs and training to curb ongoing global warming, while yielding increased employment with more training in tech.

- modernizing border security to avoid medieval walls that get washed away, climbed over, or dug under.

- holding leadership of police and military forces accountable for use of excessive force.

- holding financial leaders accountable for their excesses, and curbing their runaway unregulated salaries (see Iceland).

- considering the words of the US Constitution preamble “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, to mean ALL of these words, and not just “the common defense” snippet. Especially the “promote the general Welfare” part, to include healthcare as a right, like in the rest of the modern world.

- actually enforcing some checks on the sanity and competency of gun buyers, before allowing them to take ownership of weapons.

For extra credit, please cite any instances when conservative thinking was helpful to the world.

I suppose the things that fall under those labels
varies some.

In the event as a general answer, social engineering
under any label is the frequent source of tremendous harm,
sometimes intended, sometimes unanticipated
consequences.

As a noted American philosopher put it-

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.


oh,just one little item from your list of "progressive"


- modernizing border security to avoid medieval walls that get washed away, climbed over, or dug under.

You might want to explain how all this will be so terrif
at any of several federal prisons, or, if you care to travel
further, inspect the foolish fences at Calais, and along
Israeli borders. Tell them how they dont need any of it.

I mean, really. Stone wall, with crenelations? Arquebuses
and crossbows? What are they thinking!!

ETA

we note some of that tres amusant that you counsel everyone
else to put aside their political bias and just consider your factoids.

 

[Audie]

Its the duty of us all especially the wealthy to give back to a society that made them wealthy in the first place. You quoted the very thing in the Constitution that nobody likes to hear.

I yack, when those richies complain about giving back. Its ungrateful, and arrogant.
Aint it obvious that they only want to build their empires without any regards to laws and regulations.

I am a progressive.

And I kind of cringe at this kind of stereotyping.
It is unfair,unkind, and ignorant.
Hoping you do not represent a very large
percent of those who call themselves progressives.

 

[Audie]

Here we get into the realm of tautology where progressives can't cause any harm because anything that causes harm isn't progressive.



The idea that a very broad category like 'progressive' would not have had both good and bad impacts is quite fanciful.


.

Putting these in bold in the hopes that at least
these concepts would get thru to the wild eyed
among our "progressives".

 

[osgart]

And I kind of cringe at this kind of stereotyping.
It is unfair,unkind, and ignorant.
Hoping you do not represent a very large
percent of those who call themselves progressives.

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

I am aware of wealth inequality.

I likely know a lot more about it than
you do.

Your response has zero (0) to do with what I
said.

But lets not be contentious.
Its the duty of us all especially the wealthy to give back to a society

I would not disagree with this, though it might be well to get
into fine points on the "especially".

Even if not a duty, it is plain common sense and self preservation for
the rich to share the booty. I wont toot my horn, but ...

You might possibly like to read a book by one of my favourite
authors, Amy Chua. She has some very interesting things to say
on wealth, welfare, capitalism, democracy.

Review: World on Fire by Amy Chua

 

[osgart]

I am aware of wealth inequality.

I likely know a lot more about it than
you do.

Your response has zero (0) to do with what I
said.

But lets not be contentious.
Its the duty of us all especially the wealthy to give back to a society

I would not disagree with this, though it might be well to get
into fine points on the "especially".

Even if not a duty, it is plain common sense and self preservation for
the rich to share the booty. I wont toot my horn, but ...

You might possibly like to read a book by one of my favourite
authors, Amy Chua. She has some very interesting things to say
on wealth, welfare, capitalism, democracy.

Review: World on Fire by Amy Chua

Where do you stand in all of this?

 

[Audie]

Where do you stand in all of this?

Um, in what sense...can you be more specific?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think he seen that as a harmful delusion to the individual (transgender) and a dangerous free speech issue in which a legislation attempted to dictate what words he had to use.

I don't recall him saying he thinks transgender people are delusional (science and medicine do not agree with that position), but rather he had a bad understanding of the law and insisted it would work and be enforced in a way that the bill does not bring up. He really made an *** of himself when he did, and it was such a lame move I cut him out as a Right-winged source after that.

 

[Earthling]

I don't recall him saying he thinks transgender people are delusional (science and medicine do not agree with that position), but rather he had a bad understanding of the law and insisted it would work and be enforced in a way that the bill does not bring up. He really made an *** of himself when he did, and it was such a lame move I cut him out as a Right-winged source after that.

You may be right on that, I may have mistaken him for Ben Shapiro, who I know has said it is delusional. Anyway, I disagree with you on Peterson, I don't think he misunderstood the law at all or made an *** of himself.