George Carlin's Final Words To The World

[Toontown]

You're a partisan hack, a fanatic. You can't even see the idiocy of using the term 'Neo-Progressive'. So I suppose you prefer the 'Old-Progressives' to their contemporary counterparts.


Who does make up the Old Guard of Progressives, by the way.

What is "neoprogressivism", you wonder?

http://www.telospress.com/main/index.ph ... cle_id=288

"Bernard-Henri Lévy's new book is annoying as a memoir but, when carefully read and pieced together, devastating as an indictment. Getting there will require the reader's determination. Take the time to get past stylistic self-indulgence, forgive some hyperbole, patch up a few logical gaps, and what's left is still essential reading. It uncloaks the most disturbing political trend of our time: the rise of a new absolutist ideology, one that is global, anti-liberal, anti-American, anti-Semitic, and pro-Islamofascist, and despite being irreligious is also—and this will require explanation—anti-secular."

Don't even bother trying to tell me these assholes are a figment of Levy's and my imaginagions. I've seen them by the thousands, haunting the leftist/atheist forums. They often try to clumsily conceal their ideology, while simultaneously proclaiming it for all to see, often pretending to be providing "context" or "skepticism" or "objectivity" or what-not with their invariably neoproggish screeds.

[Trolldor]

And, once again, you prove my point. You think with ideology.

[sandinista]

I would also like to point out the hypocrisy in refusing to vote, but complaining about those in power.

hypocrisy my ass. Are you reading from some liberal democratic centrist bible? Talk about being a partisan hack. How is it hypocritical. Because I am offered 2 or 3 "leaders" to "vote" for and I choose "none of the above" that makes me a hypocrite. fuckin hell.

Toontown

Don't tell me, let me guess. You assume you know how I vote because I despise neoprogs. Well, I also despise various other kinds of fanatics. Same disease, different fixations.

Seems Hatter likes to play the same old "centrist (read: liberal democratic capitalist)" game of labeling ANYONE outside his given ideology an "extremist", "fanatic", "militant" blah blah fucking blah. And Seraph it IS blaming the victim.

the rise of a new absolutist ideology, one that is global, anti-liberal, anti-American, anti-Semitic, and pro-Islamofascist, and despite being irreligious is also—and this will require explanation—anti-secular

Guess that would depend on what "liberal" means. "pro-Islamofascist AND irreligious also—and this will require explanation—anti-secular"? that certainly WOULD require explanation.!

[Hermit]

Oh?
And yet there are millions of individuals, all who express the same sentiments.
And yet, when the time comes to vote, the same people are placed in power again and again.
They buy iphones and shop at woolworths and then complain about corporate monopoly.

I'm willing to blame the victim because I've yet to see any substantive evidence that demonstrates a populous is so uneducated and isolated as to be incapable of making an informed decision.

That just doesn't make sense. Millions of voters vote for parties that advocate the status quo precisely because they approve of it, and they approve of it precisely because they 1. aspire to finish up at the top of the heap, 2. think that this is a realistic aspiration and either 3a. don't see the contradiction between their aspiration and the fact that the majority of the population (the segment they are trying to rise from) must remain where it is if there is to be a very wealthy and powerful peak at the top of the pyramid or 3b. realise that only a few can be up there, but they (as individuals) can be there at the expense of most everyone else.

If that was not so, the Socialist Alliance in Australia and its equivalent counterparts in other countries would have become much more important political forces by now. They haven't because the electorate at large agrees with the tenets of conservative and right wing liberal ideologies that the dominant parties advocate.

[Toontown]

And, once again, you prove my point. You think with ideology.

I tend to say "ideology" when I mean "belief system". That's a literal mistake, given the classical definition of "ideology".

You're literally saying I think with the study of ideas. I will await your clarification as to what you mean by "ideology" before commenting on the unfortunate series of electrochemical events that might have led to your misbegotten conclusion.

I would prefer to say that I have seen the enemy, and many of the more irritating and despicable ones are neoprogs. But perhaps not as despicable as Islamic radicals.

[Trolldor]

Are you reading from some liberal democratic centrist bible?

And, once again, my point. Religiously dedicated to it being so clear cut, so well defined. You need a label to rage against so your own little dogma is perfectly curled up and harbored saftely in the lap of ignorance.

The last time I claimed to be centrist I also believed myself to be a nihilistic anarchist, but I outgrew that phase.

They haven't because the electorate at large agrees with the tenets of conservative and right wing liberal ideologies that the dominant parties advocate.

Precisely. They agree with the tenets. They consciously choose it, but they aren't confined to ignorantly accepting it.
So, the public is at fault for it's position.

[sandinista]

Are you reading from some liberal democratic centrist bible?

And, once again, my point. Religiously dedicated to it being so clear cut, so well defined. You need a label to rage against so your own little dogma is perfectly curled up and harbored saftely in the lap of ignorance.

The last time I claimed to be centrist I also believed myself to be a nihilistic anarchist, but I outgrew that phase.

...and again...you can keep repeating the same thing, doesn't make it true. You have used more labels than anyone else I've read lately on this board.

[Hermit]

They haven't because the electorate at large agrees with the tenets of conservative and right wing liberal ideologies that the dominant parties advocate.

Precisely. They agree with the tenets. They consciously choose it, but they aren't confined to ignorantly accepting it.

WTF? Once they no longer ignorantly accept the tenets of conservative and right wing liberal ideologies that the dominant parties advocate, they will ipso facto vote for a party that does not advocate them. Isn't it pretty fucking obvious that voters direct their votes to a party whose policies and ideology they prefer over those of others? If not, what brilliant idea have you that explains why they don't?

[Trolldor]

There's nothing ignorant about their vote. They know full well who and what they're voting for. They keep voting for them because don't want things to change, they're comfortable with how things are. The only real reason Howard lost the election was because of Work Choices, because things were changed and they didn't like it.

...and again...you can keep repeating the same thing, doesn't make it true. You have used more labels than anyone else I've read lately on this board.

Stop behaving like a posterboy then.

[Hermit]

There's nothing ignorant about their vote. They know full well who and what they're voting for. They keep voting for them because don't want things to change, they're comfortable with how things are.

Precisely. Now compare this to what you have said elsewhere in this thread, please.

[Trolldor]

And it's perfectly consistent with what I've been saying.
Consciously deciding that they like things a certain way isn't uneducated ignorance.

[Hermit]

Consciously deciding that they like things a certain way isn't uneducated ignorance.

I can't see a consistency between saying "Consciously deciding that they like things a certain way isn't uneducated ignorance" and "They keep voting for them because don't want things to change, they're comfortable with how things are" on the one hand and "they aren't confined to ignorantly accepting it". If they were not confined to ignorantly accept it, what exactly stops them from such acceptance?

[Robert_S]

You're a partisan hack, a fanatic. You can't even see the idiocy of using the term 'Neo-Progressive'. So I suppose you prefer the 'Old-Progressives' to their contemporary counterparts.


Who does make up the Old Guard of Progressives, by the way.

What is "neoprogressivism", you wonder?

http://www.telospress.com/main/index.ph ... cle_id=288

"Bernard-Henri Lévy's new book is annoying as a memoir but, when carefully read and pieced together, devastating as an indictment. Getting there will require the reader's determination. Take the time to get past stylistic self-indulgence, forgive some hyperbole, patch up a few logical gaps, and what's left is still essential reading. It uncloaks the most disturbing political trend of our time: the rise of a new absolutist ideology, one that is global, anti-liberal, anti-American, anti-Semitic, and pro-Islamofascist, and despite being irreligious is also—and this will require explanation—anti-secular."

Don't even bother trying to tell me these assholes are a figment of Levy's and my imaginagions. I've seen them by the thousands, haunting the leftist/atheist forums. They often try to clumsily conceal their ideology, while simultaneously proclaiming it for all to see, often pretending to be providing "context" or "skepticism" or "objectivity" or what-not with their invariably neoproggish screeds.

In other words, "neoprog "is just an epithet for all things leftish. You have no fucking grasp of whatever passes for the concept here or else you would have no need for this lame copypasta.

[Animavore]

The only definition of the term neoprog I accept is this one, the standard accepted definition of the word.

Neo-progressive rock is a sub-genre of progressive rock, developed in the UK and popular in the 1980s, although it lives on today

Neo-progressive rock is characterized by deeply emotional content, often delivered via dramatic lyrics and a generous use of imagery and theatricality on-stage. The music is mostly the product of careful composition, relying less heavily on improvised jamming. The subgenre relies very much on clean, melodic & emotional electric guitar solos, combined with keyboards. The main musical influences on the neo-prog genre are Genesis, Yes, Camel, and Pink Floyd.

Which make Toon's posts completely nonsensical

[Animavore]

Example...

And, once again, you prove my point. You think with ideology.

I tend to say "ideology" when I mean "belief system". That's a literal mistake, given the classical definition of "ideology".

You're literally saying I think with the study of ideas. I will await your clarification as to what you mean by "ideology" before commenting on the unfortunate series of electrochemical events that might have led to your misbegotten conclusion.

I would prefer to say that I have seen the enemy, and many of the more irritating and despicable ones are neoprogs. But perhaps not as despicable as Islamic radicals.

According to this neoprogs are irritating and despicable Almost as despicable as Islamic radicals! For listening to Pink Floyd!