Endgame of modern progressivism

[Simpletruther]

There seems to be this idea and push that government should be involved in whatever they can be, if it benefits the good of society.

So, a religious person expressing certain convictions about homosexuality <as an example> would be damaging to society and should outlawed (as hate speach).

I have seen this suggested here many times.

But logically, this same idea would apply to literally any idea that contradicts literally any progressive idea. Those ideas would be bad for society and government should step in and restrict them.

And so the logical endgame would to to silence all opposition at the point of a gun.

It is such a grand epic irony that these same people see their opposition as fascists.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Can someone translate this ^ word salad into coherent English?

 

[Mach]

Can someone translate this ^ word salad into coherent English?

Progressive bad!!

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Progressive bad!!

Thanks.

 

[Phys251]

There seems to be this idea and push that government should be involved in whatever they can be, if it benefits the good of society.
So, a religious person expressing certain convictions about homosexuality <as an example> would be damaging to society and should outlawed (as hate speach).

I have seen this suggested here many times.

But logically, this same idea would apply to literally any idea that contradicts literally any progressive idea. Those ideas would be bad for society and government should step in.

And so the logical endgame would to to silence all opposition at the point of a gun.

It is such a grand epic irony that these same people see their opposition as fascists.

Since you need things in very simple terms, let me provide you with an old meme that explains what liberals want.

 

[Simpletruther]

Can someone translate this ^ word salad into coherent English?

I think the typical fairly well read literate person can understand the argument in the OP, even if it's not grammatically emaculate <to say the least>


So I doubt you gave it much effort.

 

[tshade]

There seems to be this idea and push that government should be involved in whatever they can be, if it benefits the good of society.

So, a religious person expressing certain convictions about homosexuality <as an example> would be damaging to society and should outlawed (as hate speach).

I have seen this suggested here many times.

But logically, this same idea would apply to literally any idea that contradicts literally any progressive idea. Those ideas would be bad for society and government should step in and restrict them.

And so the logical endgame would to to silence all opposition at the point of a gun.

It is such a grand epic irony that these same people see their opposition as fascists.

I think the "liberal" mindset is very American in many cases,. Here they are just protecting the minority. Let me know of a case you believe is just plain wrong from the liberal side, and i will counter it, no problem...

 

[Simpletruther]

Since you need things in very simple terms, let me provide you with an old meme that explains what liberals want.

The OP was not about liberals.

And how is that picture different from today?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

So, a religious person expressing certain convictions about homosexuality <as an example> would be damaging to society and should outlawed (as hate speach).

Moron phony "christians" can say whatever they want about homos, and the gays can say whatever they want about asshole preachers and religious people.

None of that is outlawed.

 

[Phys251]

The OP was not about liberals.

Congratulations, you understand that liberals and progressives are not entirely the same. Would you like a cookie?

And how is that picture different from today?

Tolerance for Muslims and drag queens with good mass transit? You tell me, since you started this shitty thread.

 

[HIP56948]

"expressing certain convictions about homosexuality"
You can express your convictions all you want, but come on..Face It..you want to outlaw anything that you just happen to not like
because 2000 year old semi-illiterate people are telling you what to think.
I'll give you a clue.>> Most people 2000 years ago didn't know shit about most anything and most everything.
The truth is> People made up a bunch of Bull Shit just in case that perhaps some people may think that they can have a Do-Over. (Heaven)

 

[Mach]

Uh oh, you might get more affordable health insurance and better health outcomes. Better hide from those progressives!

I love how a conservative tries to match guns with being progressive. Like, you do realize how backwards that is, right?

The leading cause of death right now in American for children is firearm related deaths.
But it's progressives holding you at gunpoint in imagination-land, that is the issue....? How silly. Better go after the drag queens...the leading cause of...errr...nothing.

 

[Simpletruther]

I think the "liberal" mindset is very American in many cases,. Here they are just protecting the minority. Let me know of a case you believe is just plain wrong from the liberal side, and i will counter it, no problem...

I was not referencing liberals. Though I get there is overlap and semantic range there.

But as to your point, it's irrelvant that they are protecting a minority group.

 

[Simpletruther]

"expressing certain convictions about homosexuality"
You can express your convictions all you want, but come on..Face It..you want to outlaw anything that you just happen to not like

Well you say that right now. But many progressives are hinting at outlawing that kind of speech. The very thing you are concerned with in the opposite direction.

 

[Mach]

Here's a glimpse of the reality from 2021:

The People's Agenda: A Progressive Roadmap for Congress in 2021 | Congressional Progressive Caucus

progressives.house.gov

• Provide COVID Relief that Meets the Scale of the Crisis and Addresses the Disproportionate Harm to Black, Indigenous, People of Color and Other Vulnerable Communities
• Put People Back to Work, Give Workers More Power, and Transform to a Clean Renewable Energy Economy.
• Ensure Health Care for Everyone
• Defend and Expand Voting Rights, Strengthen Democracy and End Corruption
• Dismantle Racism, White Supremacy and Inequality in All Institutions
• End Endless Wars and Invest in Diplomacy and Peace
• End Corporate Greed and Corporate Monopolies

Wow, scary stuff!! Voting!?! Healthcare?!! Renewable energy?!

 

[Simpletruther]

But it's progressives holding you at gunpoint in imagination-land, that is the issue....? How silly.

No more silly than progressive fears of a handmaids tale. I would argue far far less silly.

 

[Mach]

No more silly than progressive fears of a handmaids tale. I would argue far far less silly.

So your argument is that your post is as silly as a fictional story written for entertainment?
Self-own accepted!

That's why I posted an excerpt from an actual progressive-labeled political agenda...so you could come out of the closet and into the light.

 

[Simpletruther]

Congratulations, you understand that liberals and progressives are not entirely the same. Would you like a cookie?



Tolerance for Muslims and drag queens with good mass transit? You tell me, since you started this shitty thread.

Conservatives want those things too. It's not relevant to the thread.

You do want to discuss this it seems. Just troll with your shitty post becasue you like be an obnoxious blanking blank I guess.

 

[Ishm]

There seems to be this idea and push that government should be involved in whatever they can be, if it benefits the good of society.

So, a religious person expressing certain convictions about homosexuality <as an example> would be damaging to society and should outlawed (as hate speach).

I have seen this suggested here many times.

But logically, this same idea would apply to literally any idea that contradicts literally any progressive idea. Those ideas would be bad for society and government should step in and restrict them.

And so the logical endgame would to to silence all opposition at the point of a gun.

It is such a grand epic irony that these same people see their opposition as fascists.

The US is still far to the right of say the Scandinavian countries (those happiest in the world type countries) and they seem to have achieved those 'leftist ideals' without becoming authoritarian dictatorships like you are suggesting. Many countries have virtually banned 'hate speech' against religious, cultural, ethnic, and sexual identity groupings. None of them are using guns to 'silence the opposition'. Banning 'hate speech' doesn't ban 'facts speech'. It bans people expressing their prejudices, their personal religious beliefs, and often their misconceptions in such a way as to deliberately harm others. Why would me pulling out a gun and threatening (say) a middle aged white bible carrying male be any different than that same white male saying that all gay people should be killed etc? Both are equally abhorrent, especially in todays social media word where a hate statement might get widely spread and eventually inspire someone of limited intelligence to commit a crime.

Saying that the scary liberals are going to take control of your life and take away your liberties has been standard GOP dogma for years now. So long now that through mere repetition even some of the sane, moderate conservatives seem to have stopped arguing how false that is.

 

[Simpletruther]

Moron phony "christians" can say whatever they want about homos, and the gays can say whatever they want about asshole preachers and religious people.

None of that is outlawed.

Um, the OP already accepts that as part of the premise. You have added nothing.

 

[Phys251]

Conservatives want those things too. It's not relevant to the thread.

No they don't. They hate drag queens, Muslims, and mass transit.

You do want to discuss this it seems. Just troll with your shitty post becasue you like be an obnoxious blanking blank I guess.

Straight to the ad homs. Good job.

 

[reflechissez]

Well you say that right now. But many progressives are hinting at outlawing that kind of speech. The very thing you are concerned with in the opposite direction.

Sounds specific.

 

[Redress]

There seems to be this idea and push that government should be involved in whatever they can be, if it benefits the good of society.

So, a religious person expressing certain convictions about homosexuality <as an example> would be damaging to society and should outlawed (as hate speach).

I have seen this suggested here many times.

But logically, this same idea would apply to literally any idea that contradicts literally any progressive idea. Those ideas would be bad for society and government should step in and restrict them.

And so the logical endgame would to to silence all opposition at the point of a gun.

It is such a grand epic irony that these same people see their opposition as fascists.

Literally every word you wrote here is wrong.

 

[Simpletruther]

The US is still far to the right of say the Scandinavian countries (those happiest in the world type countries) and they seem to have achieved those 'leftist ideals' without becoming authoritarian dictatorships like you are suggesting. Many countries have virtually banned 'hate speech' against religious, cultural, ethnic, and sexual identity groupings. None of them are using guns to 'silence the opposition'. Banning 'hate speech' doesn't ban 'facts speech'. It bans people expressing their prejudices, their personal religious beliefs, and often their misconceptions in such a way as to deliberately harm others. Why would me pulling out a gun and threatening (say) a middle aged white bible carrying male be any different than that same white male saying that all gay people should be killed etc? Both are equally abhorrent, especially in todays social media word where a hate statement might get widely spread and eventually inspire someone of limited intelligence to commit a crime.

Saying that the scary liberals are going to take control of your life and take away your liberties has been standard GOP dogma for years now. So long now that through mere repetition even some of the sane, moderate conservatives seem to have stopped arguing how false that is.

Is it not true that in some EU countries you can run afoul of the law for hate speech and be punished by government?

 

[reflechissez]

Thread: splat