The Trans Movement Just Hit Home.......

[Dill]

(05-04-2023, 11:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And 50 years ago did progressives support all the things you support now?

No. And I didn't either.

 Why?

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2023, 11:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes and the people, or most of them, who argued women have a right to vote would have argued being gay harms children families and society.

True, but gay marriage wasn't legal until over 90 years after women having the right to vote.  I try to be progressive, but even I can't tell you what's going to become nationally legalized in 2113.  If I'm against it now, I'm sorry!  I'm going to predict it is marriage between a man or woman and a gaseous lifeform from the 17th moon of Ibreon XII.

Or we could become so regressive following a societal collapse that we completely reboot things and in 2113 being left-handed is scandalous yet again.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-04-2023, 11:19 PM)Dill Wrote: No. And I didn't either.

 Why?

Because it demonstrates what I’m saying to that crazy dog.

[Dill]

(05-04-2023, 11:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: True, but gay marriage wasn't legal until over 90 years after women having the right to vote.  I try to be progressive, but even I can't tell you what's going to become nationally legalized in 2113.  If I'm against it now, I'm sorry!  I'm going to predict it is marriage between a man or woman and a gaseous lifeform from the 17th moon of Ibreon XII.

Sorry doesn't cut it, buster! 

It was people like you who sanctioned the complete condensation of gaseous life forms on 14th moon in 2099. 

[*michaelsean*]

(05-04-2023, 11:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: True, but gay marriage wasn't legal until over 90 years after women having the right to vote.  I try to be progressive, but even I can't tell you what's going to become nationally legalized in 2113.  If I'm against it now, I'm sorry!  I'm going to predict it is marriage between a man or woman and a gaseous lifeform from the 17th moon of Ibreon XII.

Or we could become so regressive following a societal collapse that we completely reboot things and in 2113 being left-handed is scandalous yet again.

So all I’m saying is we can’t compare todays progressives or conservatives and act like they are false because of previous generations versions. I have no problem saying what I was once against and am now for. I don’t pretend I’ve been in favor of gay marriage all along

[Dill]

(05-04-2023, 11:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So all I’m saying is we can’t compare todays progressives or conservatives and act like they are false because of previous generations versions. I have no problem saying what I was once against and am now for. I don’t pretend I’ve been in favor of gay marriage all along

Just for the record, I compare today's progressives/conservatives with yesterday's to understand political/historical change occurs, not to finger
someone as "false."  If I were born in 1900, I have no idea if I'd have supported women's rights in 1919 or not. I'm not personally "better" than any person of that time who debated these issues because I am "smarter" in the 21st century.

I don't think liberal democracies can work without a conservative party, as I've argued before. I don't understand how they can work with only liberals.

That said, though, I think it a good thing to understand how conservativism has had a peculiar difficulty standing on "the right side of history,"
given its eventual acceptance of the values it opposes. Why were "liberals" getting it right the first time around? 

There were conservatives who claimed to oppose segregation in the 1960s, but when push came to shove, always sided with police and racists against those who demonstrated against it. Order over justice. What about conservatism led to that choice? Why the current difficulty condemning Trump, who is NOT a conservative--at least not in the tradition which runs from Burke to Buckley jr.? 

[CJD]

(05-04-2023, 10:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That’s not conservatism. Conservatism is about stability.  And you are acting like it’s the same people. I have a lot of conservative in me, and I don’t pretend I think women have the right to vote. I’m not the people who thought they didn’t. Just like you aren’t the liberal of the early  twentieth century who thought women had the right to vote but likely thought being gay was a sin.  Or opposed abortion or thought black people were second class citizens.

As generations turn, it obviously is different people, but within a generation you'll see the same people drop item A and go after item B. In 2015 (honestly, I cannot believe it was that recently, Jesus), Republicans were virulently against gay marriage. Now? The same general group of politicians have just...dropped that talking point and moved onto trans people. Maybe they, in the back of their heads, still oppose it. But it's not really a viable talking point nowadays, so they probably just don't bring it up at all.

There obviously was some turnover, but many of the stalwarts remained. Hell, of the 4 judges that voted against Obergefell v. Hodges, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are still on the Supreme Court. Scalia died shortly after, but it's not like this was decades ago. It wasn't even a single decade ago.

Conservatism is about stability. The stability of the rights and freedoms as they exist at any given time. They want as few changes to the status quo as possible. It was conservatives who were against the abolition of slavery. It was conservatives who were against women's right to vote. It was conservatives who were against the right for black people to vote etc. They aren't the SAME conservatives. They weren't all "republicans" and, perhaps, we didn't even call them conservatives (nor did we call the other side progressives or liberals). Words change over time, but for each of these items, there were those who fought for more freedoms and rights for a given oppressed group, and there were those who fought against more freedoms and rights for a given oppressed group. 

If you were to bring an abolitionist back from the dead and a civil war general back from the dead, who do you think would most likely identify with the progressives of today and who do you think would most likely identify with the conservatives of today (granted, the civil war general would think both parties were WAY too lenient towards the "inferior race" but would certainly enjoy hearing about the southern strategy that Republicans employed for so long).

[CJD]

(05-04-2023, 11:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Just as a historical sidebar, this is not really true. Especially if you are using current (liberal) definitions of "progressive."

E.g., in 20th century Europe, Fascist regimes worked deliberately to oppose progressive gender and race politics, pushed women
out of the professions and back into the home, etc.

I'm not sure how the term "progressive" would apply to the ancient Mediterranean world at any point--maybe Athens between 600 and 340 BCE? Rome for the first 250 years of the Republic? If we follow the Old Testament prophets, each seems to think his generation is less godly than the previous--maybe "less godly" is what we'd call "progressive"?  

Looking at Asian civilizations, there are periods we Westerners approve of--Asoka's reign in India, Baghdad under the Abbasids--but whatever
we thought "progressive" about them wasn't carried forward by succeeding generations.  

Anyway, I think you are on to something in the sense that, in the U.S. there has always been a dialectical movement from liberal to conservative and back again, but as decades and centuries pass it seems "progressive" values increasingly win out and become permanent. Conservatives eventually identify with them too. What conservatives previously opposed become what conservatives have always supported. 50 years from now I would not be surprised if conservatives were arguing that conservatism always supported trans surgery because it always supported "choice" and "freedom." 

Admittedly, I don't have a lot of experience in ancient culture and how their politics shifted over time. I will say that things like fascism were "blips" on the graph. Like, if you can imagine a line graph where the X axis is time and the Y axis is "progressiveness," you may see it go up, up, up, up, up, then take a sharp turn down for a certain period of time before continuing to ascend back up. If you zoom in onto that downward turn, it may appear as though progressivism did not continue indefinitely but, if you zoom out far enough, it once again becomes a straight line sloped upward.

[CJD]

(05-04-2023, 11:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, in practice that is what conservatism does. 

Although it should be said that this shift from opposing A to embracing it rarely occurs in individuals.

Rather it occurs between generations. Conservatives in the 50s hated rock music. It's a staple on Fox now as theme music.
Except for Ann Coulter, most conservatives nowadays think women should be allowed to vote.

This paradox, or contradiction, has been explicitly recognized in political philosophy since the early 50s. 

In some cases, yes that is true. The individuals may not embrace the acceptance of A, but they at the very least are, more or less, forced to stop talking about it. It's not until the next generation of conservatives who followed in the previous generation's footsteps that disavow the previous generation's missteps. But they'd still align themselves with the general stance.

Ronald Reagan is considered the best president in US history to many republicans to this day. The same guy who let the AIDs crisis run rampant because, if he was being honest, he probably just didn't really care about gay people. Or, at the very least, did not think it was as big of an issue as it ended up being until it was very late because...perhaps for some innocuous reason, who's to say? Regardless, today's republicans may say they accept gay people (or maybe not, because it was a super hot topic less than a decade ago, which many of today's Republicans ended up on the wrong side of - again), but their beliefs still stem from Reagan in one way or another.

Do you know what I mean?

[*michaelsean*]

(05-04-2023, 11:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Just for the record, I compare today's progressives/conservatives with yesterday's to understand political/historical change occurs, not to finger
someone as "false."  If I were born in 1900, I have no idea if I'd have supported women's rights in 1919 or not. I'm not personally "better" than any person of that time who debated these issues because I am "smarter" in the 21st century.

I don't think liberal democracies can work without a conservative party, as I've argued before. I don't understand how they can work with only liberals.

That said, though, I think it a good thing to understand how conservativism has had a peculiar difficulty standing on "the right side of history,"
given its eventual acceptance of the values it opposes. Why were "liberals" getting it right the first time around? 

There were conservatives who claimed to oppose segregation in the 1960s, but when push came to shove, always sided with police and racists against those who demonstrated against it. Order over justice. What about conservatism led to that choice? Why the current difficulty condemning Trump, who is NOT a conservative--at least not in the tradition which runs from Burke to Buckley jr.? 

Liberals weren’t getting it right the first time. The first time would have been 1789. It happened 130 years later. At one point in time we got it right, and we refer to the people who led the charge as liberal or progressive. The minute I supported gay marriage I became progressive. By definition. That’s why change is always accomplished by progressives. The movement defines them. If you supported women’s rights and opposed equal rights for black people are you the conservative or the liberal of the times?

[*michaelsean*]

(05-04-2023, 11:57 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: As generations turn, it obviously is different people, but within a generation you'll see the same people drop item A and go after item B. In 2015 (honestly, I cannot believe it was that recently, Jesus), Republicans were virulently against gay marriage. Now? The same general group of politicians have just...dropped that talking point and moved onto trans people. Maybe they, in the back of their heads, still oppose it. But it's not really a viable talking point nowadays, so they probably just don't bring it up at all.

There obviously was some turnover, but many of the stalwarts remained. Hell, of the 4 judges that voted against Obergefell v. Hodges, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are still on the Supreme Court. Scalia died shortly after, but it's not like this was decades ago. It wasn't even a single decade ago.

Conservatism is about stability. The stability of the rights and freedoms as they exist at any given time. They want as few changes to the status quo as possible. It was conservatives who were against the abolition of slavery. It was conservatives who were against women's right to vote. It was conservatives who were against the right for black people to vote etc. They aren't the SAME conservatives. They weren't all "republicans" and, perhaps, we didn't even call them conservatives (nor did we call the other side progressives or liberals). Words change over time, but for each of these items, there were those who fought for more freedoms and rights for a given oppressed group, and there were those who fought against more freedoms and rights for a given oppressed group. 

If you were to bring an abolitionist back from the dead and a civil war general back from the dead, who do you think would most likely identify with the progressives of today and who do you think would most likely identify with the conservatives of today (granted, the civil war general would think both parties were WAY too lenient towards the "inferior race" but would certainly enjoy hearing about the southern strategy that Republicans employed for so long).

But the same person could very well have been in favor on one and opposed to another. So are they they the progressives or the conservatives? An abolitionist during the Civil War would almost certainly identify with the religious right. The whole abolitionist movement was based on religion and the Second Great Awakening

[CJD]

(05-05-2023, 12:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But the same person could very well have been in favor on one and opposed to another. So are they they the progressives or the conservatives?  An abolitionist during the Civil War would almost certainly identify with the religious right.  The whole abolitionist movement was based on religion and the Second Great Awakening

Progressive or conservative can only be judged relative to the time and culture. In the Civil War times, there were relatively few people who would not identify as religious in some way simply because that was the norm of the time. But abolitionists were unambiguously progressive (a person working towards implementing some sort of social reform, generally aimed toward equity among different groups of people) in the very least in regards to the topic of slavery.

Progressives in the civil rights era were likely just as homophobic as the conservatives in that same era. The people are flawed, but the momentum of society, at least in America and similar first world countries, has generally been shifting left for hundreds of years.

[guyofthetiger]

I'm personally tired of people identifying with a group of people like them. I was verbally abused as a child so does that mean I identify with abused people? Just live a life under God and it will be fine. If you do things against the Word of God, expect consequences.

[KillerGoose]

(05-05-2023, 03:17 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: I'm personally tired of people identifying with a group of people like them. I was verbally abused as a child so does that mean I identify with abused people? Just live a life under God and it will be fine. If you do things against the Word of God, expect consequences.

This doesn't connect with the non-religious/non-Abrahamic worshippers. I do not believe in your god, nor anyone else's god. What you say at the end of your post doesn't do anything for me. Living a life under "God" is going to mean something different for everyone as there is no universally accepted god.  

[Stewy]

(05-05-2023, 10:09 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: This doesn't connect with the non-religious/non-Abrahamic worshippers. I do not believe in your god, nor anyone else's god. What you say at the end of your post doesn't do anything for me. Living a life under "God" is going to mean something different for everyone as there is no universally accepted god.  

Notice how he started with "I'm personally".  He's speaking of himself and how he handles things.

He wasn't speaking to you, nor anyone else really about what they should do or how they should handle it.  He was telling you how HE handles it and perhaps giving advice to those like him.  As I am the same faith as he and have the same attitude, it might be good to know that this stance from a Christian is rather rare as many prefer to "get in your face" especially on the internet.  My stance is to lead by example, live a life for God and if others choose a different path that is their choice.

[KillerGoose]

(05-05-2023, 10:27 AM)Stewy Wrote: Notice how he started with "I'm personally".  He's speaking of himself and how he handles things.

He wasn't speaking to you, nor anyone else really about what they should do or how they should handle it.  He was telling you how HE handles it and perhaps giving advice to those like him.  As I am the same faith as he and have the same attitude, it might be good to know that this stance from a Christian is rather rare as many prefer to "get in your face" especially on the internet.  My stance is to lead by example, live a life for God and if others choose a different path that is their choice.

Is he not speaking to the general audience when he says "If you do things against the Word of God, expect consequences"? Or, hell, even beyond that - just posts on a public forum. Perhaps you have a different interpretation and that's fine, but this is also a person who has a history of being "in your face" about faith on this very forum, telling at least one poster that he will be going to Hell. He has told another poster that when Satan became a fallen angel, he took many other angels with him including "several of them just like you." 

Forgive me if I don't give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his messaging. Even aside from that, I just generally reject the idea that he is only speaking in an isolated box. 

[Dill]

(05-05-2023, 12:11 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Liberals weren’t getting it right the first time. The first time would have been 1789. It happened 130 years later.   At one point in time we got it right, and we refer to the people who led the charge as liberal or progressive. The minute I supported gay marriage I became progressive. By definition. That’s why change is always accomplished by progressives. The movement defines  them. If you supported women’s rights and opposed equal rights for black people are you the conservative or the liberal of the times?

Why wasn't 1776 "the first time"? Or maybe I am missing the significance of 1789--the French revolution? 

Or do you mean liberals would have stood up for women's rights in 1789 in the U.S. Constitution? If that's what you mean then no, I don't agree that liberals "got it wrong" by not enfranchising women. That was not yet on the table.

What liberals "got right" then was popular sovereignty and a democratic government of checks and balances--for white males with property. That started in 1776. The "conservatives" of that period would have been those who opposed the Revolution and still thought the British king was ordained by God to rule.
Radical liberals were those like Paine who wanted to end slavery, but didn't prevail. Women's equality was envisioned very few feminists, like
Mary Wollenstonecraft in England and Olympe de Gouges in France. No one argued about that during the constitutional convention.

Time frame is important. "Progressives" supported women's rights in 1919. Not "conservatives."  Such support is not necessarily a progressive position now, if we are just talking about voting. Maternity leave and the right to abortion are the front line now.

In the 19th century, some black males supported suffrage for themselves but not women. I would say they were "progressive" until
those rights are normalized, no longer legally contestable. After that point they would no longer be progressive.  A black male with those
views in 1985 would not be progressive. Nor a black woman. 

A woman who supported equal rights for women in 1919 would be a progressive even if she did not support the same rights for blacks, yes. 
A woman in 2023 who supported the right of both women and blacks to vote would not automatically thereby be "progressive"--not in a society
where these have already been normalized for decades, and certainly not if she opposed a woman's right to choose or denied the reality of
systemic racism.  

[Dill]

(05-05-2023, 10:27 AM)Stewy Wrote: Notice how he started with "I'm personally".  He's speaking of himself and how he handles things.

He wasn't speaking to you, nor anyone else really about what they should do or how they should handle it.  He was telling you how HE handles it and perhaps giving advice to those like him.  As I am the same faith as he and have the same attitude, it might be good to know that this stance from a Christian is rather rare as many prefer to "get in your face" especially on the internet.  My stance is to lead by example, live a life for God and if others choose a different path that is their choice.

I agree with KillerG here. Sure Guy was "personally" tired of how some behave.

But after that he was also surely expressing a belief that ALL people, unbelievers included, will suffer the consequences of going against God's will.

I don't think he believes that God only punishes/rewards His believers, and leaves the rest of us alone.  

Then atheists would not go to hell for not believing.

I'm fine with him expressing his beliefs, though, and I'm always curious to hear how he explains things according to his them.

[Stewy]

(05-05-2023, 10:50 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Is he not speaking to the general audience when he says "If you do things against the Word of God, expect consequences"? Or, hell, even beyond that - just posts on a public forum. Perhaps you have a different interpretation and that's fine, but this is also a person who has a history of being "in your face" about faith on this very forum, telling at least one poster that he will be going to Hell. He has told another poster that when Satan became a fallen angel, he took many other angels with him including "several of them just like you." 

Forgive me if I don't give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his messaging. Even aside from that, I just generally reject the idea that he is only speaking in an isolated box. 

(05-05-2023, 01:55 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with KillerG here. Sure Guy was "personally" tired of how some behave.

But after that he was also surely expressing a belief that ALL people, unbelievers included, will suffer the consequences of going against God's will.

I don't think he believes that God only punishes/rewards His believers, and leaves the rest of us alone.  

Then atheists would not go to hell for not believing.

I'm fine with him expressing his beliefs, though, and I'm always curious to hear how he explains things according to his them.

Peoples Christianity is supposed to be between them and God.  As a Christian there are VERY few real rules (All the Catholic stuff comes from man, not God).  The rules are Obey, Repent, Live your Life as he (Christ) did.  The problem with much of Christian history because so much of the world didn't want to do 1 and there fore not do 2, they went to war to force 1 & 2, thus violating #3.  It is my personal belief that those who have waged war to further religion, will face the wrath of God.

Finally The Bible tells us that Jesus will preside in judgement for all, thus why Christians speak of everyone.  It's part of the belief system.

But tell me this.....if you do not believe in any God......why do you care what guy said?  Just another looney religious nut, right?  Ignore and move on.

[Dill]

(05-05-2023, 09:34 PM)Stewy Wrote: Finally The Bible tells us that Jesus will preside in judgement for all, thus why Christians speak of everyone.  It's part of the belief system.

But tell me this.....if you do not believe in any God......why do you care what guy said?  Just another looney religious nut, right?  Ignore and move on.

If you are addressing me, and talking about Jesus, then "looney" doesn't really describe my attitude.

I think Jesus was an intinerant "teacher" who distilled Essene and other Jewish teachings into an ethical code still worthy of emulation. 

In the generations after his crucifixion, he was deified in stages, first by his own followers, and then Gentiles who syncretistically mixed Hellenistic conceptions of divinity, the soul, and immortality with Jesus teachings, which kept the Jewish focus on individual responsibility and a deity with extensive interest in how humans behaved. 

These teachings also included the notion of equality in heaven, a foundation for eventually making equality on this earth a goal. So the Hellenization of Jesus' teachings in a Roman world was a crucial point in so-called "Western Civilization." 

So my attitude towards Christianity in general is not hostile. C. has been used for good and bad, and I'd be lying if said Jesus teachings were not valued by me and generally worthy of personal aspiration. But like all religions, it is adapted to whatever historical society that absorbs it.
Charlemagne set out on yearly "jihads" to convert pagans, killing them if they did not convert. I attribute that to emerging feudal organization in what would become modern France and the lowlands. Lutherinism became the established church of Nazi Germany.  That's not because Jesus teachings or Christianity are intrinsically "NAZI." When my father gave ex-convicts a chance to earn some money painting our house or my mother gave a hungry beggar a sandwich, that was more expression of Jesus teachings. (My father was a minister and a missionary, if you didn't know.)

So I guess you could say I do care about ethics and history (materialist history), and don't see Jesus as a "looney." In ethical terms, I judge Christians in my life by the same standards I judge everyone else. Some Christians may be bad and misled by politicians and bad pastors, but rarely do I see Christianity as a "cause" of that behavior. I do see Christian behavior in peacemakers. (Same for Islam, by the way.) 

Also, I am an atheist for sure, but I find many atheists lack any kind of historical understanding of religion (e.g., Bill Maher and Sam Harris), especially where they make beliefs a matter of individual psychology.