Gunnar, I kindly request your patience as I take the next 10 to 20 pages of this thread to carefully outline modern day progressivism and explain why I believe it is detrimental to the Democrat party.
I will share links to articles and videos featuring white individuals, black individuals, gay individuals, transgender individuals, liberals, and conservatives. Each will contribute to defining modern day progressivism and will discuss why progressivism may not aid the Democratic Party in securing future electoral victories.
I ask for your patience because as I begin to present my evidence regarding progressivism's detrimental impact on the Democrat party, individuals like Molok, Canpakes, Schmo, and Kishkumen are likely to react with strong disapproval, criticizing the evidence, attacking me, and rejecting anything I offer that does not align with their favorable view of progressivism.
Actually, spamming the forum with link after link to random people saying random things is (1) spamming the forum, and (2) avoiding the question.
Either you can define what progressivism is, or you end up posting lots of garbage links in an ineffective campaign to build a crappy straw man to hold up.
Is this task beyond your intellectual capabilities?
Perhaps we should pray for the well being of Canpakes as this thread continues to gather evidence and clarify the extremism present within the ideology known as progressivism.
Prayers? lol. Send something useful, like pizza or chocolate. : D
Do Trump fans think that they can convince others that progress is evil, and that progressive minded people will stop having those views on the off chance it will help them with an election? How stupid do you have to be to believe that?
I have no illusions that I can talk Trump fans out of being stupid, which is why I don't try. Trump fans think they can convince non-idiots to be as dumb as they are.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
Do Trump fans think that they can convince others that progress is evil, and that progressive minded people will stop having those views on the off chance it will help them with an election? How stupid do you have to be to believe that?
I have no illusions that I can talk Trump fans out of being stupid, which is why I don't try. Trump fans think they can convince non-idiots to be as dumb as they are.
Trump fans believe that locating several dozen random YouTube videos - out of over 5,100,000,000 that currently exist - will somehow prove that their irrational fears, obsessions and propaganda are justified.
For every video of random people saying random ‘progressive’ things, it would be just as easy to pair it to a video from random people saying random ‘conservative’ things that could be claimed to represent all of MAGA and all Trump fans.
This is apparently where MAGA has landed. Bereft of arguing intellectually or honestly, it hides behind straw men while demonstrating its fear of everything that it cannot reason through.
Greetings Dr. Shades, Check out what your favorite moderator is attempting to prevent me from posting in my own thread. It seems that Canpakes now views my posts containing information and links about progressivism as spam, simply because Canpakesdoes not find them helpful.
As per your moderator's guidance, I must define progressivism in a manner that aligns with Canpakes' perspective rather than my own chosen definition. I believe this is going to be thrilling!
For months, progressives have requested that I define progressivism. Now that I've initiated a thread to do just that, I'm only one page in and already facing complaints about my chosen definition. As I mentioned, they are likely to have a complete breakdown over the content being shared, as is typical for progressives.
Let's observe how Canpakes, the moderator, responds to my sharing of information that I consider essential for defining progressivism in the thread I initiated. It will be intriguing to observe whether Canpakes can resist the temptation to moderate my post due to differing opinions on the content being shared.
Is anyone interested in wagering on which page of this thread Canpakes will misuse the moderation powers that Dr. Shades has entrusted to Canpakes?
me wrote:This is apparently where MAGA has landed. Bereft of arguing intellectually or honestly, it hides behind straw men while demonstrating its fear of everything that it cannot reason through.
Greetings Dr. Shades, Check out what your favorite moderator is attempting to prevent me from posting in my own thread. It seems that Canpakes now views my posts containing information and links about progressivism as spam, simply because Canpakesdoes not find them helpful.
As per your moderator's guidance, I must define progressivism in a manner that aligns with Canpakes' perspective rather than my own chosen definition. I believe this is going to be thrilling!
For months, progressives have requested that I define progressivism. Now that I've initiated a thread to do just that, I'm only one page in and already facing complaints about my chosen definition. As I mentioned, they are likely to have a complete breakdown over the content being shared, as is typical for progressives.
Let's observe how Canpakes, the moderator, responds to my sharing of information that I consider essential for defining progressivism in the thread I initiated. It will be intriguing to observe whether Canpakes can resist the temptation to moderate my post due to differing opinions on the content being shared.
Is anyone interested in wagering on which page of this thread Canpakes will misuse the moderation powers that Dr. Shades has entrusted to Canpakes?
By all means, proceed to ‘define’ what progressivism is. This will make a great megathread for random YouTube links and odd postings by other people. : )
Greetings Dr. Shades, Check out what your favorite moderator is attempting to prevent me from posting in my own thread. It seems that Canpakes now views my posts containing information and links about progressivism as spam, simply because Canpakesdoes not find them helpful.
As per your moderator's guidance, I must define progressivism in a manner that aligns with Canpakes' perspective rather than my own chosen definition. I believe this is going to be thrilling!
For months, progressives have requested that I define progressivism. Now that I've initiated a thread to do just that, I'm only one page in and already facing complaints about my chosen definition. As I mentioned, they are likely to have a complete breakdown over the content being shared, as is typical for progressives.
Let's observe how Canpakes, the moderator, responds to my sharing of information that I consider essential for defining progressivism in the thread I initiated. It will be intriguing to observe whether Canpakes can resist the temptation to moderate my post due to differing opinions on the content being shared.
Is anyone interested in wagering on which page of this thread Canpakes will misuse the moderation powers that Dr. Shades has entrusted to Canpakes?
Are you going to keep whining, or do the thing you claimed the thread was for? (rhetorical question, obviously)
.......... It seems that Canpakes now views my posts containing information and links about progressivism as spam, simply because Canpakesdoes not find them helpful.
As per your moderator's guidance, I must define progressivism in a manner that aligns with Canpakes' perspective rather than my own chosen definition. I believe this is going to be thrilling!
For months, progressives have requested that I define progressivism. Now that I've initiated a thread to do just that, I'm only one page in and already facing complaints about my chosen definition. As I mentioned, they are likely to have a complete breakdown over the content being sha
Let's observe how Canpakes, the moderator, responds to my sharing of information that I consider essential for defining progressivism in the thread I initiated. It will be intriguing to observe whether Canpakes can resist the temptation to moderate my post due to differing opinions on the content being shared.
Is anyone interested in wagering on which page of this thread Canpakes will misuse the moderation powers that Dr. Shades has entrusted to Canpakes?
Hound, I don't think anybody can whine about your definition of progressivism because they do not know what you think it is.
I haven't read the OP, but if he asked who the leaders are to answer the question what progressivism is, then I note that he's continuing his agenda of full circularity without revealing a single thing about what his beliefs actually are (beliefs outside of Trump idolatry that we can get from 3 other participants on this board). It's in part my fault, after boycotting a previous thread because he wouldn't break the circle, it would be akin to Trump lowering a tariff or Putin ending the war for him to do any substance at all.
It really is a waste of time to follow this chatbot, but it can be oddly intriguing to see that consistent circularity string along.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
This reminds me of the push to get people to define "woke" a little while back. How dare people get Trump fans to actually think through their opinions?
I don't think they want to define their terms because A) they don't want to be pinned down by a definition, and B) they haven't really articulated the definition for themselves. It's more of an irrational gut feeling they can't put into words.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
