It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Communism was Conservative? Where does it end?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Some progressives, perhaps. The ones that adhere to the ideology in the strictest sense possible. But ignoring the fact that some also call for safe spaces and want hate speech laws to include ideas they don't approve of is kind of silly. But one would probably not call them progressive, no? But they would, because they believe their idea is to the betterment of all.

Not everybody is born with the same level of intelligence. Or physical ability. Or reasoning skills. Or any number of other distinctly human traits. Pass all the "fair" tax laws you want, there will still be people smart enough to take advantage of something that other people didn't think of. Somebody more capable of running a business than somebody else who doesn't even want to.

Confusing progressiveness with communism is a disservice to what progressiveness is, at its core. But progressives often seem to not realize that in order for things to be fair for all, somebody will inevitably be handicapped for others' benefit, and thus things are never really fair.




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Not an unexpected side effect of the intentions of the real power in American politics, that doesn't wear a Red or Blue hat.


Yeah for sure. & still, one of the best 6 months in American politics for a long time. People will remember Bernie.
Fondly I hope.


It's like the Brexit vote has hit all sides like a tornado.


It's a clusterf*ck fella. I mean, I'm glad we voted leave, but there's been some nasty side effects to that.
Things people aren't hearing about in the news.

Hopefully the dust settles and we actually become more United, as was the initial intention of us leavers.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

I've thought for some time that history may think the fact that the two major powers of the last Anglo-Empire were called "United States" and "United Kingdom" was quite ironic.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You're trying to get me to invoke the no true Scotsman fallacy, aren't you Shamrock.



It is not for me to say who is progressive just like it's not for me to say who is Muslim.
It's best left for the opponents to decide in my book, whether they consider true progressives an enemy, due to guilt by (flimsy) association..
Or if they can accept that we shun these safe space types too.


But they would, because they believe their idea is to the betterment of all.


Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder, but back to my original point, is it progress or change they're looking for.

Because personally I see no progress in safe spaces, I see a hell of a lot of change though.


But progressives often seem to not realize that in order for things to be fair for all, somebody will inevitably be handicapped for others' benefit, and thus things are never really fair.


Is that true though... Currently it is 100%.
And that's the system.

You can't currently "leave no child behind" because the system doesn't allow for it.


Now hear me out, I won't go on and on...
What if education was based on ability and not the stringent set of rules in academia at the moment...

The piano players learn the piano, the sportsmen do their sports, the cheerleaders do the entertainment business...
Etc.

What good is English literature to a dyslexic, or even someone who as you say, isn't cut out for that...


Currently we have no choice in the matter...
But progress to me is based on abilities.

Utopian, for sure, but whose ideal world isn't at its bare bones.


edit on 12-10-2016 by Hazardous1408 because: Fixed tags.

edit on 12-10-2016 by Hazardous1408 because: Spelling.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Hazardous1408

I've thought for some time that history may think the fact that the two major powers of the last Anglo-Empire were called "United States" and "United Kingdom" was quite ironic.


lol it's so true.
Division couldn't be more widespread than it is right now.

Considering the way two election seasons have gone/been going.

Didn't Trump call this candidacy "our Brexit"...
Shudder.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Because that seems to be the only way that things get changed--by adding even MORE laws.

I wish that every year that a census occurred, all legislative bodies from cities up to the federal government would have to review all laws on the books and make motions to strike outdated or poorly written ones from said book.

We have too many laws anymore that a person can't even keep track of them all--freedom doesn't come with an overabundance of laws, it comes from having the bare minimum of them, and even then, they should only protect freedoms, not create trivial reasons to taken them away.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Progress, by very definition, is a positive noun or adjective.

What you're alluding to, isn't progress.
It is change.

There is a major difference between progress & change.


Last I checked with ol' Merriam-Webster (which was literally right before typing this response), the main definitions of "progress" are:


Full Definition of progress

1: (irrelevant to this conversation)

2: a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal): advance (THIS is the context in which I used the word)

3: gradual betterment; especially: the progressive development of humankind (THIS is the definition which you are using, which changes the discussion into something that I did not intend--and makes me want to remind you that the word "positive" is subjective, not objective)

Obviously the bolded insertions are my own. Please note the difference in what you are noting and what I said. My comment was correct in its intended context.

But, I understand your point: All progress is change, but not all change is progress (in the definition that you are using it and thought I meant). That's a fair point, but like I said, not all progress (definition 3) is positive to everyone, which is something that really is a consideration that needs pointed out.

ETA: And this is a reminder as why one should never cast a vote based on hope and change--not all change is good, and hope accomplishes little-to-nothing in the real world.
edit on 12-10-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
No. Progressives are not communists.

Marxism is one type of communism.


Yeah. Sigh. It can be challenging to not mix up progressives with liberals. They do tend to go hand in hand. They do tend to want more socialism. Bet, if we handed them full socialized healthcare, whatever other examples they have on the punchlist at the moment, within weeks they'd have some new facet of it to be outraged about its lack there of. Ad Infinitum until Total.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join