I saw a social media post from a friend of mine where they'd picked up on something they didn't like that a legislature was debating. Their response was to complain because they thought we'd progressed beyond whatever offended them.
The specifics of this aren't important. What is important is how the left looks at the word progress.
One of the best things the political left ever did was to brand themselves as progressive. This branding allows them to frame everything they do as being progress. The subtle message being sent is that progress is always good, and anything that impedes or rolls back progress is always bad.
Yet, I suspect that people on all sides of the political spectrum could point to examples of progress that wasn't good.
Like I said, I don't know what the specific debate was, or care. I just think that the presumption that whatever progress was being debated was automatically good just because it was progress is kind of a ridiculous way to look at the world. It certainly ignores the law of unintended consequences.
30 comments:
What's more, much of what is referred to as "progress" is not progress at all, but a reversion to very old human foibles, such as the sexual immorality those like Dan defends and enables. There's nothing at all progressive about tolerating bad behaviors, but it's routine for the left to do so under that banner.
I just think that the presumption that whatever progress was being debated was automatically good just because it was progress is kind of a ridiculous way to look at the world.
Of course, in the real world of progressives, no one much really makes the claim that all new notions and policies and technology are "progress." If you knew any liberals/progressives, you'd know that we regularly warn about all manner of new policies and activities. Using petroleum to allow us to drive personal vehicles everywhere and having that the model for transportation is NOT a progressive idea. Of course. Using petrochemicals to produce more vegetables or having mass farms of cows in numbers not possible in the past is not really progress.
Sometimes, progress is recognizing the best parts of our past while condemning and moving away from the worst parts of our past. As Wendell Berry notes (he who would not willingly take the title of "liberal" but who is often hated by conservatives)...
"Our model citizen is a sophisticate who, before puberty, understands how to produce a baby, but who at the age of thirty will not know how to produce a potato."
Progressives advocate for simple lifestyles, small farms and healthy farming communities, much like (in many ways) the Amish and other "old folk ways" have been done for centuries.
On the other hand, a world that has progressed/is progressing to note the rights of women and people of color and LGBTQ folks as citizens deserving of human rights IS making positive progress. Because of course it is.
Progress is that which brings us to a better/further along state. Not just that which is new and replacing the old.
Ask any progressive. We'll tell you.
"Progressives advocate for simple lifestyles, small farms and healthy farming communities,"
Strange, I live in one of the most progressive cities, in one of the most progressive counties in the country, and there is no one advocating for a focus on this bullshit. They're focused on cramming more people into limited urban space, wasting billions on public transit which no one uses, and subsidizing the wealthy.
The problem is that I listen to progressives regularly, none of them sound remotely like you. Yet you want to speak as if you represent them.
Well, Craig...Dan perverts all kinds of things. Why not "progressive-ism", too?
Craig...
I live in one of the most progressive cities, in one of the most progressive counties in the country, and there is no one advocating for a focus on this bullshit.
1. You think that "simple lifestyles, small farms and healthy farming communities..." are bullshit??
2. That you are unaware of it doesn't mean it's reality. I've certainly written of this for all the years you've read my blog. I've cited the Wendell Berry's, the Thoreaus, the Harlan and Anna Hubbards, the Robin Wall Kimmerers, the Edward Abbeys, etc, etc over the years. My personal urban community includes multiple rural agrarians, small farmers, food co-ops, farmers markets... it's an EXTREMELY common thread in modern progressivism. Would you like some reading material? It's extremely lovely, life-affirming, beautiful writing that makes exceedingly wisecommon sense.
3. And to be sure, it's not ALL we are concerned about. We're generally concerned with healthy, holistic communities, so we are also concerned about urban brownfields, pollution, quality public transportation, affordable housing, urban sprawl, being inclusive, safe communities, healthy work environments and policies, etc, etc.
But I'm just surprised you're not aware of liberal interest in healthy rural farming communities.
1. No. Most of my family were or are farmers. But, I see what you did there. You tried to take what I actually said, and pretend like I really said something else.
2. What an interesting idea. You regularly dismiss all sorts of things because you and your small, insular, group of friends don't see or believe something. You're literally suggesting here that I should believe you and that you speak accurately for some small group of people over what I see with my own eyes. Over what the progressive controlled state government is in the process of enacting into law.
3. Again, Dan presumes to speak for progressives" and to define what they ("We") believe, despite the evidence to the contrary that is readily available.
I'm not suggesting that progressives have zero interest in "healthy rural farming communities". I am suggesting that in a state which is one of the most progressive in the US, the rural farming communities are swinging away from the progressive agenda because they are getting screwed at the expense of urban communities. But, why would I believe my own eyes and ears, when I have you to tell me what progressives believe. The notion that the progressive movement has been anything but an urban focused movement since the 40's is simply absurd. Just one more example of you imposing your rose colored, Pollyana, spectacles on reality to see an idealized view of reality.
Oh Look. Dan chooses to post a list of a bunch of liberals who he believes share his vision of what it means to be progressive. Obviously this list is cherry picked to "prove" his claim. Obviously this doesn't prove his claim. But it is what we expect from him.
I have to note that this is one more of the things that Dan claims liberals (which seems to imply all liberals) believe, which he chooses not to live out. Now, he'll claim that he lives "as simply as he can", and other excuses, but the reality is that he chooses not to live on a rural self sustaining farm.
I also have to note that Dan has chosen not to place his screed here, in the comment thread that inspired his rant, but at his blog where he has complete control.
Not surprising at all.
Well, you see, Craig...Dan doesn't like to support his claims, or explain why citing any number of people stands in as support when none is available. If he ran that stuff here, he'd be pressed to provide such support and explanations, would beat about the bush and tap dance like Gregory Hines but never give what's requested. As you say, no control and controlling the narrative is essential for leftists in forcing their opinions upon others.
Art,
I beg to slightly differ. In this case Dan made a blanket statement that cannot ever be proven (Progressives advocate for simple lifestyles, small farms and healthy farming communities) because he's literally saying/implying that all "progressives" believe what he's said. What he's done in this case (and in other cases) is to offer a cherry picked selection of "progressives/liberals" who seem to advocate something similar to what he's claimed. The problem is that this selective cherry picking doesn't actually prove the actual claim that he made. Because he frequently will speak for every member of a specific group, and then "prove" his claim by showing that some people in that group agree with him.
You'll notice that he ignored my point about what policies an actual state governed by progressives is actually advocating and legislating for.
It's basically him trying to argue that because some progressives believe(d) something, that all progressives believe the same thing. He's tried to make the same argument about pacifism. He's repeatedly claimed that strict pacifism is a foundational tenet of liberal/progressive dogma, that is universally embraced. Yet a simple look at the news tells us that the statement can't be true. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and various other progressive/liberal presidents engaged in violence on a massive scale. Hell, look at cities like Chicago, San Francisco, Baltimore, Minneapolis, and other cities where the population and local government are overwhelmingly liberal/progressive and tell me that progressives are pacifists.
I think it's almost entirely about the ability to control the narrative, delete at will for capricious reasons, and then cast the deleted comments in ways that serve his agenda. Control is clearly a powerful thing.
I don't have the time to do the research, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people Dan cites as representing modern progressive/liberal dogma haven't written anything in at least the last 50 years.
What's interesting is that Dan has Thomas Jefferson in his pantheon of Progressive/liberal sages. I guess it's OK to cherry pick one aspect of Jefferson's philosophy (his agrarian leanings) and claim that that one part is liberal/progressive dogma, while ignoring the rest of Jefferson's actions and beliefs. Of course, one could hardly call Jefferson's two plantations "simple' by any definition of the word. I can't imagine that Jefferson's vision of agrarian utopia probably looked a lot like what he saw as he walked through Monticello. Certainly not Dan's Amishesque vision of what progressive/liberals strive for.
What at joke.
1. Jefferson as a liberal: The Jefferson Bible, Supporter of public education, his agrarian notions, his opposition to slavery. Jefferson as a conservative: His hypocrisy on slavery and de facto support of slavery. His oppression of indigenous people. Jefferson somewhere in the middle: His fiscal views.
I was quite clear that the labels were tricky for some of the people I cite. This is especially true in older times, as modern notions of progressive and conservative are largely absent or apples and oranges comparisons prior to 60-75+ years ago.
It goes without saying that modern white evangelicals would/do consider Jefferson a raging godless liberal on his views on Christianity at the least.
Do you seriously doubt this?
2. Craig...
Dan made a blanket statement that cannot ever be proven (Progressives advocate for simple lifestyles, small farms and healthy farming communities) because he's literally saying/implying that all "progressives" believe what he's said.
Nope. NOT what I said. Read for understanding, not partisan attacks.
I never one time in all of recorded history in all the world or any planets or dimensions here or otherwise EVER said ANYTHING like "all progressives believe in simple living and healthy agrarianism." NOT. ONE. TIME.
Do you understand that reality?
What I stated was that progressives have long been advocates of clean rural living, simplicity, healthy farms. And that's a cold stone fact. What I was asking was the simple question: Are you all completely unaware of that fact? Given your hyper-emotional and irrational responses, the answer appears to be a resounding, "Yes, we are completely ignorant of it and are SO ENTIRELY DAMNED ignorant of that reality that we are shocked you would even say such a thing."
Again, start reading the sources I've provided. This is a COMMON theme in progressive thinking - NOT something that all progressives support but an exceedingly common set of values in progressivism.
How do I know this to be a fact? Because I'm well-read on the topic.
Maybe it's expecting too much that you all would not be ignorant of it. Maybe it's just that I'm so familiar with it, I thought everyone would know this reality. I just thought everyone recognized this very common subset of philosophies within progressivism.
Educate yourself, fellas.
The National Parks Department. Agrarianism. Indigenous philosophies, here and abroad. Wendell Berry, Rachel Carson, John Muir, Jimmy Blessed Carter, Gandhi, etc, etc, for crying out loud!
Craig...
It's basically him trying to argue that because some progressives believe(d) something, that all progressives believe the same thing.
Nope. Never said that. Not one time in all the history of reality and, you know, real shit.
He's tried to make the same argument about pacifism. He's repeatedly claimed that strict pacifism is a foundational tenet of liberal/progressive dogma, that is universally embraced.
Nope. Never said that. Not one time in all the history of reality and, you know, real shit.
Craig...
e majority of the people Dan cites as representing modern progressive/liberal dogma haven't written anything in at least the last 50 years.
You'd lose that bet, given the point I was making.
For one thing, I deliberately chose a wide range of writers throughout the last 200 years. So, that a list that was reasonably divided amongst thinkers from the last 200 years only contains about 1/3 (or more) in the last 50 years is to be expected. I could give a much greater list of modern writers that are more explicitly talking about what I'm talking about, but I didn't expect you'd know them. I was trying to make an easier list for consumption for those who might not be well-read on the topic.
I mean, it's absolutely true that Thomas Jefferson hasn't written anything in the last 50 years, but that's meaningless since he's been dead for nigh unto 200 years! OF COURSE, he hasn't written anything in the last 50 years. The same is true for 2/3 of my list. You can't seriously cite dead people not writing in the last 50 years as any kind of proof of anything.
On the other hand, the living people I cited HAVE and continue to write their progressive notions of simple-living, living off the land, living healthy and promoting rural health.
Berry, Leopold, Wall-Kimmerer, etc, etc.
Again, I ask you: Is it the case that you are ignorant of the fact that I could cite, I don't know, 200 more modern writers (many/most whom you don't know) on this line of thinking?
There's no shame in admitting ignorance.
And I didn't cite the larger list of progressives writing on healthy agrarianism here because I thought you'd consider that off-topic and because, well, it's just reality and there wasn't anything to discuss about it. I was just shocked and a bit ashamed of myself that after reading my blog for all these many years, you two were ignorant about this segment of progressive philosophy. Clearly, I have not been educating as much as I need to, which is another reason I posted my starter list on my blog.
I mean...HIPPIES? You all are unaware of HIPPIES? How is that possible, given your age??!
I mean... I mean...
Arlo Guthrie? Woody Guthrie?? John Freakin' Denver? Willie Nelson? John Prine?
Did you not know they were flaming liberals? That they were flaming naturalists?
"Blow up your TV
Throw away your paper
Go to the country
Build you a home
Plant a little garden
Eat a lot of peaches
Try an' find Jesus on your own"
Old Crow Medicine Show??
"Sun beatin' down, my legs can't seem to stand
There's a boss man at a turnrow with a rifle in his hand
I've got nine children, nothin' in the pan
My wife she died hungry while I was plowin' land
Take 'em away, take 'em away, Lord
Take away these chains from me
My heart is broken 'cause my spirit's not free
Lord take away these chains from me"
Johnny Cash??!
I mean, I don't expect you two to necessarily be familiar with modern (including since the 50s, but also and especially in the last 10-20 years) folk music, but you could do worse than to listen to some...
Edward Sharpe
Avett Brothers
Old Crow
Nickel Creek
Alison Krauss
Rhiannon Giddens
Tracy Chapman
The New Agrarians (a band)
Kate Campbell!
I could go on and on and on but I'll stop there.
I think we're saying the same thing, though my expression of it might be more on the snarky side. I haven't researched any of Dan's list, either, as I've spent so much time looking at his stuff only to find I've been had once again by hoping he was providing something substantive, only to find he didn't. Maybe later, but I have no doubt only a few might resemble what he's saying. In any case, it's true...Dan will cite whomever he can and pretend THAT person...who's done really nothing more than saying the same thing Dan has...is evidence of the truth of his claim. A second or third person with the same opinion isn't evidence supporting a premise...except to Dan.
I have to say that as I look more into the concept of agrarianism, it has a blatant flaw...there's only so much farm-able land and way too many people for each to have land to farm.
Also, among those on Dan's list who are from a couple hundred years ago or more (founding fathers, for example), they pushed a notion well before the industrial age. Farming was the most common way of life simply because it needed to be, not out of pure preference.
And of course, Dan speaks as one benefiting from all that industry provides...inventions to make farming easier and more productive, as an obvious example, are not the result of "simple living", but of all that urban and industrial life provides. Then of course there are other labor and life saving tools, implements, devices and machinery which require all that Dan pretends is rationally rejected. What Dan wants is for all the good things our modern life affords to continually be provided so that he and his pseudo-simple living people can go on in their utopia. It's kind of like fossil fuels being essential for wind and solar power. In the same way, Dan can't have his fantasy if what he rejects doesn't also thrive.
1. The fact that you are citing Jefferson at all simply reinforces my point that you are digging for anyone who you can shoehorn into your idealized version of an agrarian utopia.
It's amusing when you say crap like, "It goes without saying..." then spew some made up bullshit with no apparent basis in fact.
"Nope. NOT what I said."
I did, I actually copy pasted the quote. The problem is that you say things like "progressives" believe... without any qualifiers. When you say "progressives", what else could you mean other that "all progressives", or at least a significant majority of progressives. If you claim that you really mean some small subset of progressives, then simply be specific. Of course, if you mean some small subset of progressives, then your attempt to argue from numbers fails.
"Do you understand that reality?"
Yes, I understand what you said.
"What I stated was that progressives have long been advocates of clean rural living, simplicity, healthy farms."
Yes, that's what you said. The question is what do you mean when you use the term "progressives" in that context? Do you mean all progressives? The vast majority of progressives? Some subset of progressives? Please make yourself clear.
"Again, start reading the sources I've provided."
What sources, you've provided a random, cherry picked, list of names as if you expect me to dig through everything they've ever written and tease out the support for this simple agrarian lifestyle you claim is there. A lifestyle you don't actually live.
"This is a COMMON theme in progressive thinking - NOT something that all progressives support but an exceedingly common set of values in progressivism."
Ahhhhhh, now the goal posts get moved, although this is still unproven.
"How do I know this to be a fact? Because I'm well-read on the topic."
Ahhhhhhhh, the "Dan is an expert and he has proclaimed that which is True and must be accepted without question."
"Maybe it's expecting too much that you all would not be ignorant of it. Maybe it's just that I'm so familiar with it, I thought everyone would know this reality. I just thought everyone recognized this very common subset of philosophies within progressivism."
Interesting, you made assumptions and acted as if those assumptions were True with no regard for reality. It's also interesting that we've gone from "Progressives" (implying all or most), to "some progressives", to " a subset of philosophies within progressivism".
"Educate yourself, fellas."
Why, you've made your proclamation of The truth according to Dan. The problem is that if I was to invest the time to read every word from all these cherry picked "sources" , I'm likely to find that you've overstated things, and multiple contradictions between your sources.
"only contains about 1/3 (or more) in the last 50 years is to be expected."
Yes, as I pointed out, a MAJORITY of you list hasn't written anything in the last 50 years. 2/3 is the MAJORITY.
"I could give a much greater list of modern writers that are more explicitly talking about what I'm talking about, but I didn't expect you'd know them. I was trying to make an easier list for consumption for those who might not be well-read on the topic."
But you didn't.
And with that I'm done responding to that comment.
Next comment. Yada, yada, yada, self serving attempt at self aggrandizement.
Next comment. Yada, yada, yada, "Hippies". As if the existence of a relatively small group of "Hippes" in the 60's/early 70's is evidence of some massive agrarian movement. Hell, how many of the Hippies ended up as part of what they allegedly were rebelling against?
Another random list of cherry picked names with virtually no actual evidence that makes Dan's point.
Dan, don't be confused. I have no desire for you to provide any actual evidence. I have no intention of digging through this list of random names and searching everything they ever wrote for some nuggets that might support your claims. It would be a waste of my time. The reality is that there is a significant element of modern progressivism that is based in and advocates for urban areas and residents. Your subset (how many of whom don't actually live out their convictions) probably exists, but to say that it speaks for "Progressives" in any significant sense is just not supported by the evidence.
Art,
My experience is that anytime Dan offers or cites anything specific, it's likely that his "source" will not demonstrate what he claims it will. I suspect that the majority of the people on his list don't actually live the lifestyle that Dan claims they advocate for. To use Jefferson as an example, it's patently absurd to think that he lived anything close to a "simple" lifestyle. His agrarian utopia was built on slave labor, and vast tracts of land.
Absolutely. Dan wants to live in an urban/suburban area, pedal his bike into the urban core to do good deeds, have his computers and smart phones to write his blogs, while claiming that a "simple. rural, agrarian" lifestyle is the best way to live. What's amusing is that if the US could suddenly be transformed into an agrarian nation, we wouldn't be able to afford all of the "benefits" liberal politicians have bestowed on us since the New Deal. We'd also likely have been conquered buy The Axis during WW2 or the Soviets in the Cold War. Millions more people would have been exterminated because the "Arsenal of Democracy' wouldn't have existed.
Just like the environmentalists who live in huge mansions, and own multiple private jets and yachts, I refuse to take seriously anyone who is so hypocritical that they won't live the lifestyle that advocate for others.
I said...
"What I stated was that progressives have long been advocates of clean rural living, simplicity, healthy farms."
Craig responded...
Yes, that's what you said. The question is what do you mean when you use the term "progressives" in that context? Do you mean all progressives? The vast majority of progressives? Some subset of progressives?
Concern for nature and simple living and healthy rural communities is a common theme amongst progressives.
That does NOT mean that all progressives want to live in the country.
That does NOT mean that I or any of us are suggesting that THE ONE RIGHT way to live is simply and in a rural setting, as with the Amish.
That does NOT mean that all progressives are informed about or even care about simple living or healthy rural settings.
All it means is that when you are in progressive circles (as I am, as most of my friends now are, as many of my family are, as is true in the extended circles of people I know and read and admire and am connected to), it is common to hear concern for
a. simple living over and against extravagant or hyper-consumptive living
b. healthy farm practices
c. vegetarianism or some form of less-consumptive meat eating
d. simpler, cleaner transportation options like walking, biking, cleaner vs dirtier cars, ride sharing, mass transit - whether one is in the city or rural settings
e. cleaner energy - whether one is in the city or in rural settings
f. more sustainable farming practices, smaller farming operations, more farming and less agribusiness done by outsiders
g. increased connections between rural farmers and city consumers, talks of "fork to table," CSAs, Farmers Markets, etc
These are part and parcel of progressive talks. And even when we're talking about more urban and urbane progressives (many black people and LGBTQ people haven't felt safe in rural settings for a while), they may not be as familiar - or familiar at all - with the Wendell Berrys and John Muirs, but they STILL get the importance of healthy farm/city connections and greener, healthier lives for all of us, including healthy food options, which means closer connections to farming, gardening and farmers.
Maybe part of the problem is when you see a progressive type advocating for "greener living" or more wholesome farming/rural connections, that you think we're a monolith and ALL speaking specifically of those particular topics regularly. But in all the progressive circles I'm familiar with (here and around the US and around the world), we LOVE our
* urban social workers who are concerned for police abuse might be one priority and
* we recognize that promoting affordable housing might be Marie's priority, and
* keeping people off drugs might be Jameel's priority and
* getting farm food access to urban food deserts might be Jackson's priority and
* improving transportation options might be Pat's priority and
* promoting LGBTQ rights might be Leslie's priority
and solar power
and wind energy
and access to libraries
and inclusion for the disabled
etc, etc, etc
We are GLAD that we have these wide range of concerns and efforts underway and while I may not be actively involved or even especially familiar with animal rights, I'm glad to hear about it and support those who are chasing those efforts and THEY tend to be glad to hear about and support those areas where I'm working.
It's not one thing or a few small subset of things... it's the work for a healthier, cleaner, more just, more accepting world and community. And there's just huge cross-over support on any effort that's seeking that kind of progressive.
So, no, I'm not saying ALL progressives are actively informed about and advocating simple living and closer farm/city connections. I'm saying, rather, that progressives support progressive actions to improve the world and stop oppression and that can look like a lot of things.
To return to my initial point and more directly the point of your post, we might look at two different definitions of progress.
There is the simple, directional definition of progress:
to move forward : proceed : to move forward towards a specific definition.
That is NOT the progress we are speaking about in progressivism. In those circles, we're talking about something closer to the second common definition:
to develop to a higher,
better, or
more advanced stage.
So, progress can be just towards ANY goal. "We've made a lot of progress in wiping out and subduing the native peoples in this land so that we can take their land and make our rules override theirs..." That is progress, but it's not progressive.
Progressives are shooting for improved conditions for humanity and the world and the systems therein, not just ANY progress. As I originally stated.
From wikipedia:
In the context of progressivism, it refers to the proposition that advancements in technology, science, and social organization have resulted, and by extension will continue to result, in an improved human condition.
Not just ANY technology (everyone owning and driving hyper dirty automobiles that defile the air, land and water), but technology that continues to improve the human and planetary condition. Better days. Good news for the poor and marginalized.
Which all reflects back to the comment I made just before this, if you post it (not saying you won't).
I get that simple living today might include...include might likely be essential...items which do not by themselves denote "simplicity". This could be computers, cellphones, certain pharmaceuticals and a host of other items due to the fact we live in modern times. Still, one might consider one's lifestyle "simple living" because it remains, even with those items, as reduced in "things" as one can reasonably be and still survive in a "civilized" world. I know people who, even if they still have a television, don't use it much or at least aren't connected to things like cable.
It's the agrarian thing I find total fantasy. As I said, there's only so much farm land. Progressives like Bill Gates have bought up tons of it. Haven't heard he's dividing it up for we plebeians. Don't think that's part of his plan at all. Most of those musicians he cited are or were not "living off the land" as if their careers aren't/weren't financing their ability to even pretend they are/were. It's easy to "live off the land" when one's huge recording contract and concert incomes provide. Huey Lewis lives on a big Montana ranch. I don't believe he's subletting much of it out to commoners. That's fine with me. One can spend one's fortune as one desires. But of those progressives who do, a good portion of them (see what I did there, Dan?) preach or sing one thing and live quite another. I'm a fan of some of them, a big fan of the Doobie Bros and I hear the concept mentioned quite a bit. It's a fantasy utopia and as you suggest, Craig, leaves us vulnerable.
In the meantime, other "progressives" (I should forgo the quotation marks, as the term clearly implies those who are not about progress at all. Agrarian societies a sign of "progress"? Hardly!) are clearly pushing the opposite. Biden (and the NY moron Hochul, among others) are pushing to force suburban and some rural areas to build multi-unit buildings...mostly near rail lines, but in the downtown areas...which destroys the communities to which people fled from urban areas. In short, they push the exact opposite of what Dan...until his latest comments...claimed progressives favor.
Here's the REAL deal. This isn't a partisan thing. I'm certainly no moron lefty like Dan, but I like the idea of small towns, slow pace, and I grew up in what was rural surroundings at the very beginning of what is now a vast suburban area with sizable industrial parks. I think back fondly of having been surrounded by farmland which matched the many TV shows of the time, like Lassie, Andy Griffith and of course, westerns. Indeed, my brother and I were just talking about those days! There are those among conservatives who eschew modern tech to the extent they are able, just as there are lefties...though I suspect conservatives are more likely to go all in. I have a friend who used to camp in the winter...in the snow...like a mountain man.
Dan simply likes to portray his kind as if they are somehow spiritually advanced, though he's morally bankrupt and counter-Christian. He looks at agrarianism as "look what good people we are" simply for leaving tech, industry and the protection of those like him to others, as if there's no need for it. What he promotes necessarily puts us at risk, has no true logic to it to make it work without putting people at risk and ignores all the benefits that from which he would flee provides to those in need and everyone else. "Look at how good we all are growing crops, and by the way, my child needs an organ transplant. Can you bring your non-simple-living tech to help her?"
And Dan goes to an extreme to try to redefine things so that he can self justify his original claim about (all) progressives. After a mountain of bullshit, the final answer seems to be that Dan and his small circle of progressive friends somewhat agree that some sort of "simple, rural, agrarian" lifestyle is the best choice and that Dan is willing to extrapolate this consensus out to cover a much larger pool of people.
Yet, Dan's offered "definition" of progressiveness doesn't see, particularly at odds with what I suggested in the initial post. Although, it seems clear that the definition of what progress is "good" and what progress is "bad" are likely flexible.
Art,
I agree that the fantasy of individual, small, farmers who are essentially subsistence farming is an absurd ideal. Hell, most farmers couldn't live of produce at the levels they do without all sorts of things that go beyond "simple". Hell, the notion that Jefferson was some paragon of a "simple" agrarian utopian lifestyle ideal is laughable. I think the problem is that progressives want the credit for the "good" sides of progress, without taking responsibility for the negative consequences. For example, one could argue that the progress represented by the advancements in computers that brought us the internet is "good" progress. Yet that progress also allows all sorts of vile behaviors to flourish on a scale that is beyond anything that could have been imagined 60 years ago. To some degree the pharmaceutical industry is the same thing, in that there have been all sorts of advances in medicines to cure disease, yet those advances have led to significant negative consequences as well.
The more I think about it, it boils down to one more example of the liberal double standard. they want credit for "good" progress, without blame for the negative consequences. They want to assume that their goals are automatically "good" and ignore any negative consequences that go along with progress toward or achievement of those goals.
Negative consequences are guaranteed given how common it is for those like Dan to refrain from truly thinking their ideas through to logical conclusions. They're too wrapped up in posturing.
The fake transgender issue is but one of so many examples. These sad, disordered people, think their cosmetic transformations will make them happy, never thinking of the ongoing life of medical concerns which can't help but do the opposite. I saw one doing a video holding up a basket of meds he'll have to consume for the rest of his life, and that doesn't even account for the impact on the body from the radical surgeries, which the body will respond to as injuries.
Another is the electric cars and wind farms and the serious problems with disposal of materials used in their construction...batteries, windmill blades, etc. Their "clean energy" has not proven to be any cleaner, and to regard internal combustion vehicles as "dirtier" is an outright lie, as they run cleaner than ever.
In the same way, most every "idea" of the leftist carries the same degree of negative effects they never consider or pretend aren't really of any concern. I'm not talking about mere trade-offs here...which comes with every idea to one degree or another...but outright problems intelligent, honest and thinking people readily see. We've spoken to this somewhat in this thread. They just insist if we do what they say things will be great and when things go south...as things always do when the result of their limited thinking...they blame everyone but themselves.
The worst part is the posturing and the clear implication that conservatives are the problem.
Not that it's likely to matter to people like you who know what's best for everyone else, but...
I attended a large rally last night with hundreds of LGBTQ, Drag performers, preachers, church folk, city leaders and allies.
What we heard is that the LGBTQ community is telling anyone who's listening that they're living in terror about these anti-trans, anti-drag laws being pushed by conservatives.
They told us that these laws WILL kill LGBTQ people, including children.
They told us that the pretenses of the anti-drag laws are fallacious, built upon lies not supported by reality.
In KY, for instance, the conservative religious bigots are saying they have to protect children from sexually explicit performances... but that doesn't happen at Drag Queen Story Hours. It's a lie meant to attack and demonize, which attacks actually DO cause harm.
One Drag Queen pointed out the false claims that they're "sexualizing" and "grooming " children, but as she testified - and the crowd roared in approval - she was NEVER groomed by any LGBTQ people, NEVER harmed by any LGBTQ people.
She was, however, baptized as an infant, against her will. She was sent to weekly Bible classes and told what she should believe... she was told that if she continued this transgender path she was on, she'd be burnt alive for an eternity... this is what she was told by conservative zealots.
Let's talk about who's actually grooming!
She said, she was never molested, never harmed, never groomed by LGBTQ people, no. Instead, they were there to embrace and support her in the face of the torment she received from conservative bigots. To pick her up when she'd been beat down by conservatives.
Many of the speakers talked about how they were so oppressed, demonized and reviled by conservatives, including those who said they love them - their family and church family - that they felt it would be better to just kill themselves.
As children, this is what conservative mistreatment had led them to. According to them.
Do you all really think you know their situation better than them?
"Not that it's likely to matter to people like you who know what's best for everyone else, but..."
Not that it's likely to matter to you, but the above is just one more unproven claim to add to your list.
Strangely enough Dan thinks that presenting anecdotes from people who will benefit from the repeal of these laws, is actual proof that any of these claims are True. This notion that there are people who have fears (justified or not), and that all of those fears must be ameliorated by the government is simply absurd.
The fact that some people might, possibly, theoretically do something at some unknown point in the future doesn't mean that we should engage in prior restraint.
Because as long as someone says something, whatever they say must be absolutely True and couldn't possibly be untrue.
No, I never said that I did. You just assumed that and act as if your assumption is True.
I can say that I know what's best, and that is for everyone to abide the Will of God beyond one's own predilections. That's not Dan's way. It's not the LGBTQ way. It's not the left's way. Apparently it's only the way of the "old white religious conservative". Fine. I'm among the few, the proud, the saved.
Art,
In a broad sense I agree with you. If YHWH is the Creator of everything, and if He has given us tools or rules to live by, then failing to follow that path is obviously a bad idea.
Post a Comment