Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[pErvinalia]

I believe in Seth!

[JimC]

I believe in Seth!

The Sethians were a Gnostic sect during the Roman era. Alongside Valentinianism, Sethianism was one of the main currents of Gnosticism during the 2nd to 3rd centuries. Their thinking, though it is predominantly Judaic in foundation, is arguably strongly influenced by Platonism. Sethianism attributed its gnosis to Seth, third son of Adam and Eve and Norea, wife of Noah (who also plays a role in Mandeanism and Manicheanism).

[Svartalf]

Neocons have always been Republican as far as Merkin politics are concerned, that is, the far right.

You are absolutely wrong.

Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's domestic and especially foreign policy.

Hmm, fair enough.

Interesting, the first thing I saw on that page was a big red Elephant and the fact it was part of a series of articles on Conservatism in the US.

Neocons may originally have come from disenchanted Dems, but it's obvious they went to the other side, and thus, are effectively Republicans.

[Svartalf]

And why the fuck are we discussing this in the "dis ratskep thread"??

because it's 100 page long and got derailed long ago?

[pErvinalia]

How bout those Ratskep cunts, hey!

[Svartalf]

No idea, I never felt at ease there, so I don't go and have no idea what's going on there.

[pErvinalia]

They're all cunts. I was a member there, so it must be true.

[Brian Peacock]

It's all gone 'members' and 'cunts' again. I love Rationalia because you're never more that two posts away from a bawdy double entendre.

[pErvinalia]

Cunts need members. For the foreseeable future, at least...

[laklak]

Don't forget assholes. Members, cunts, and assholes. Pretty much sums up the modern world.

[rachelbean]

Don't forget assholes. Members, cunts, and assholes. Pretty much sums up the modern world.

Which extra bits did the old world have?

[pErvinalia]

Donkeys

[Forty Two]

Neocons grew out of the left-wing of politics. That's how come they advocate top-down regime change. The idea that you can alter things from the top downwards is plucked straight from Marxian doctrine.

that's a simplistic view. Authoritarianism isn't solely a left or right thing. It infects both sides. Arguably, it's more of a rightist concept as it gels nicely with the respect for hierarchies and disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in conservatism.

Indeed, and inherent in Progressivism and other collectivist ideals. Marxist socialism, communism, etc. are inherently authoritarian, by their very principles. Modern progressives tend to be sympathetic to communist and marxist ideals, and also quite collectivist and anti-individualist. They tend to support notions of Identity Politics, which eschews the individual in favor of a Marxist "class" based view of racial and cultural identity -- they lump races/sexes into "classes" and then pit them against the bourgeois classes (whites, males, CIS). Progressive Feminism is about the collective liberation of women as a social class. Feminism is not about personal choice. It's not about individual liberty. It's about class.

This is why a lot of Progressives these days view things like "freedom of speech" as "so last century." http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/free ... mfortable/

But, there is a way to measure your right-authoritarianism level -- back in the 1940s, they did the F-Scale test to test your fascist propensities. http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm - my results were "liberal airhead," LOL.

[pErvinalia]

Neocons grew out of the left-wing of politics. That's how come they advocate top-down regime change. The idea that you can alter things from the top downwards is plucked straight from Marxian doctrine.

that's a simplistic view. Authoritarianism isn't solely a left or right thing. It infects both sides. Arguably, it's more of a rightist concept as it gels nicely with the respect for hierarchies and disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in conservatism.

Indeed, and inherent in Progressivism and other collectivist ideals.

What a load of shit. Progressivism doesn't worship hierarchy. That's one of the prime defining features of conservatism. And progressives believe strongly in individual rights free of government interference regarding things of a natural nature - eg. race, sexual orientation, and gender etc. They also believe in protecting individuals from power imbalances such as employer-employee relations, and state vs individual justice representation.

You are basically trying to argue that progressivism is conservatism. Which is nonsensical.

Modern progressives tend to be sympathetic to communist and marxist ideals,

Absolute bollocks. What, are you a Seth clone now??

This is why a lot of Progressives these days view things like "freedom of speech" as "so last century." http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/free ... mfortable/

Freedom has NEVER meant total freedom. Neither side of politics believes this. So this point that you and other conservatives keep raising is disingenuous.

[Forty Two]

Neocons grew out of the left-wing of politics. That's how come they advocate top-down regime change. The idea that you can alter things from the top downwards is plucked straight from Marxian doctrine.

that's a simplistic view. Authoritarianism isn't solely a left or right thing. It infects both sides. Arguably, it's more of a rightist concept as it gels nicely with the respect for hierarchies and disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in conservatism.

Indeed, and inherent in Progressivism and other collectivist ideals.

What a load of shit. Progressivism doesn't worship hierarchy.

of course it does. It worships the hierarchy of identity politics.

That's one of the prime defining features of conservatism. And progressives believe strongly in individual rights free of government interference regarding things of a natural nature - eg. race, sexual orientation, and gender etc.

Not individual rights -- collective rights. Group rights. Individual rights relate to autonomy of the individual. But, Progressives tend to want to limit individual autonomy, because individual liberty results in oppression, so they say. You shouldn't have freedom of speech and I'll sign that petition to repeal the American First Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion and Petition), because individual liberty in that regard can be offensive and hurtful to some "groups." And, privileged groups should be limited, and marginalized groups should be advantaged. It's not about individual rights at all. If it were, you wouldn't have Progressives today advancing the same position regarding media, movies, music, video games, etc., that douchebag conservatives advanced in the 80s and 90s.

They also believe in protecting individuals from power imbalances such as employer-employee relations, and state vs individual justice representation.

Always in terms of groups, though, and not in terms of "individuals." That's why Progressives tend to hold the position that blacks can't be racist, and women can't be sexist, etc. They view these things in terms of identity politics and they redefine individual rights into group rights. No longer is racism and sexism the discrimination against or hatred of an individual because of race or sex. To them, it's hatred/discrimination based on race/sex PLUS membership in a privileged group. So, Bahar Mustafa cannot be sexist against men or racist against whites. She's a minority woman, so she can't be sexist or racist.

You are basically trying to argue that progressivism is conservatism. Which is nonsensical.

Not at all - not in today's screwed up world, where avowed Progressives hold insanely reactionary positions. Progressives hold basically the same position today as the Parents Music Resource Center (Tipper Gore's outfit in the 1980s) held. Progressives are now on the side the the reviled Jack Thompson, arch-conservative, once held.

I get where you are coming from -- you want to be progressive, because progressive is supposed to standfor change and progress and moving forward, and making things better for people. Conservatism is supposed to be backwards and holding society back and preserving the status quo instead of making things better. But, today, Progressivism is highly reactionary, and is highly autocratic, and is not liberal when it comes to individual rights and liberties.

That's why you get Progressive students in universities coming out en masse demanding things of their university administrations -- and what do they demand? Censorship. Control. Protection from offense. Rules. They are asking for the administration to exercise authority. Progressives are the ones who were asking for major universities to exercise control over Halloween Costumes.

Modern progressives tend to be sympathetic to communist and marxist ideals,

Absolute bollocks. What, are you a Seth clone now??

No, it's just an accurate depiction. They utilize Marxist class-based thinking in connection with their platform of Identity Politics. Race and Sex are "classes" now and women are a disfavored "class" against the bourgeois males, and blacks are a class against the bourgeois whites.

They are highly supportive of socialist principles and ideas. Socialism itself is a pillar of modern progressivism. Major progressives rail against free market capitalism, and oppose it. Feminists often view free market capitalism as anti-feminist.

This is why a lot of Progressives these days view things like "freedom of speech" as "so last century." http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/free ... mfortable/

Freedom has NEVER meant total freedom. Neither side of politics believes this. So this point that you and other conservatives keep raising is disingenuous.

I'm not conservative, I'm liberal. I'm just not progressive, because today progressive is not very liberal.

I never said freedom meant total freedom. But being liberal is supposed to mean that one tends to favor individual liberty and the rights and freedoms of the individual, together with equal treatment under the law for each individual. Modern progressives are not liberal. A progressive works towards goals from within a democratic socialist worldview. Bernie Sanders is a progressive. A liberal is someone who works towards human rights, justice, and fairness from within a liberal, free market economic worldview.

Some good points on the distinction between modern progressivism and liberalism --