Defining Progressivism

[Gunnar]

However, there is a catch. In this thread, I will outline my perspective on what progressivism represents and identify the true leaders of the progressive movement. And that's where I'll begin, with identifying the true leaders of the progressive movement.

I recently inquired of A.I. about the leaders of the progressive movement, and it informed me that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are prominent figures in this movement due to the impactful rallies they are organizing together. Do you concur with that evaluation?

Definitely!

Who do you view as the leaders of the progressive movement? If you believe that Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are among the leading figures in the progressive movement, do you also think that they both identify as socialists?

Certainly, they are among the leading figures of the progressive movement, and I have great admiration and respect for them. At least Bernie and probably both of them self-identify as democratic socialists. So what? I see nothing wrong with that. I am convinced that the efforts of their more "mainstream" corporate influenced fellow Democrats to marginalize them and others like them and push them aside is one of the main reasons the Democrat Party has lost popularity in recent years. I am also quite sure that if Bernie Sanders had been won the support and nomination of the party for President instead of Hillary Clinton, he would most likely have won. I would delightedly vote for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez if she became the Nominee for President in 2028, unless Sheldon Whitehouse were in the running.

Gunnar, There are undoubtedly various movements present within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Is this image representative of a movement associated with progressivism?

What do you think? I can't really tell anything about them from that image alone. I certainly favor their admonition to Dump Trump, though!

[Gunnar]

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.

In my carefully considered observations and opinion, "woke" has basically become just a euphemistic substitute for the "N" word or similarly offensive appellations used against progressives, or anyone else with whom they disagree.

[Gunnar]

Brianna Wu is a Zionist pig. What's progressivism again? I'm starting to think it just means "a different opinion than my own." Your barely coherent rants are sounding more and more like projection. And I find it interesting that you've described the existence of trans people as a walking advertisement for why Republicans should win, but as soon as you find someone who agrees with anything conservative, you've started using correct pronouns and talking about trans people with respect. I don't know guys, HoH might be full of it, lol.

Yes, I have previously noted in another thread that at least some of HoH's arguments seem very much like classic examples of projection.

[canpakes]

Most youth entering the voting ranks are pretty concerned with the way the American Dream is slipping away from them, as well as how climate issues are worsening. They’re not seeing WalMart cashiering leading to being CEO of the company as a believable life strategy. Republicans are presently seen as exacerbating those situations.

That's how I read the current situation too.

Jersey Girl points out this perception problem for Republicans, in one of her own threads:

Look at this. From Schiff's YouTube community post section. He's putting the Republicans' stuff in the street.

Sen. Adam Schiff
1 hour ago
It's midnight in Washington, and in case you're catching up...

So far tonight, Republicans have blocked amendments that would:

– Remove tariffs hurting families
– Protect disaster response and recovery
- Secure Social Security benefits
- Preserve federal lands
- Raise wages for working Americans
- Ensure caregivers aren't cut
- Rein in the national debt
- Protect Medicaid
- Keep Social Security offices open
- Support families on food assistance
- Secure the right to organize
- Block tax cuts for billionaires
- Stand with Ukraine
- Secure veterans' health care

They're stealing from the working class, giving to the rich, and destroying your benefits in the process.

And the night is still young.

Meanwhile, Hound is celebrating the elimination of initiatives that seek to engage and employ veterans and women. He calls such a thing ‘racist’, not that he can explain why. It might be time to buy Hound a dictionary … and soon, at that, as they’re going up in price next week. : D

Unless Republicans start doing things that they can at least lie somewhat convincingly about that might appear to be lowering prices, they’re not going to have much to run on in two years. They’ll have to depend on trying to keep young voters from voting, which is also very much on brand with them.

[Gunnar]

.
OK, Hound hasn’t started the Parade of Random Internet Videos from Internet Randos yet, so I’ll get things going and will drop something into the thread, to shine a light on … Evil Woke Science..!

OU biologists: Science does not support rejection of transgender or nonbinary people

A. Bentz, A. Berkowitz, E. Bridge, C. Gordon, H. Ketchum, and K. Willis
April 24, 2022

There’s been a considerable amount of news lately over the question of what defines a woman. Sen. James Lankford and others have indicated that the answer to this question is simple, with the implication that anyone who hesitates to define “woman” is either undereducated or delusional.

Well, we are faculty members at the University of Oklahoma who teach anatomy and physiology. We hope we are offering a perspective that is both educated and grounded in reality when we state that a single, simple definition for “woman” is not tenable.

Take, for example, Madison Cawthorn’s definition of a woman (“XX chromosomes, no tallywacker”). Although it scores points for simplicity, this definition would not apply well to everyone. About 1.7% of people are intersex — according to "Sexing the Body" by Anne Fausto-Sterling — which means that their genitals are in between typically male and typically female and/or they have a mismatch between their chromosomes, gonads, and/or genitals. If you would like to acquaint yourself with one of these people, check out Emily Quinn’s TED talks.

Moreover, there is now evidence (see Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, Vol 122: pg 165-175) that most people's brains have some physical features that are more typically female and others that are more typically male, regardless of whether they consider themselves women, men or nonbinary, and regardless of whether they are cisgender or transgender. If our brains largely define who we are, and our brains are not binary, then defining “woman” is a tricky proposition.

Presumably, the primary targets of the “define woman” rhetoric are people who are transgender, nonbinary or intersex — those who may be psychologically aligned with a gender that does not agree with the sex assigned to them at birth. Many seek to undermine the legitimacy of these people by claiming that their identity is somehow a rejection of the science of biology, but this claim is misguided.

As biologists we try to shed light on complexity and variation, not to limit what is socially acceptable with regard to gender roles. We think that we speak for the vast majority of experts on human biology when we say that science DOES NOT support the rejection of transgender or nonbinary people; nor does it warrant any objection to them presenting their preferred gender in our society.

In her Supreme Court justice confirmation hearing, Ketanji Brown Jackson shied away from defining “woman,” stating, “I’m not a biologist.” We want to make it clear that an adequate definition is not so easy for professional biologists either.
A. Bentz, A. Berkowitz, E. Bridge, C. Gordon, H. Ketchum and K. Willis teach anatomy and physiology at the University of Oklahoma.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion ... 356668001/

Damn those Evil Woke Scientists! with their Evil Woke Science! Why can’t science just conform to what I want it to be?

One of the most alarming things about Trump's administration is their obvious, utter contempt for science whenever it doesn't conform to what they would rather believe. I fear for the future job security of the University of Oklahoma faculty members who co-authored this report, because they dared to point out a scientific reality that contradicts what MAGA conservatives would rather believe. I suspect that even tenured professors' jobs are not secure against ignorant MAGA wrath even if they teach the most solidly established scientific facts that MAGA types would rather not believe.

[Kishkumen]

The goal of Republicans has been to get rid of tenure. In some states they have largely succeeded in doing that in the public universities.

[Gunnar]

The goal of Republicans has been to get rid of tenure. In some states they have largely succeeded in doing that in the public universities.

So, I have previously heard. So much for academic freedom!

[Moksha]

Yes, I have previously noted in another thread that at least some of HoH's arguments seem very much like classic examples of projection.

Projection works very well for Trump; it makes sense that HoH would wish to copy it as a matter of Regressiveism.

[Gunnar]

https://youtu.be/qaU7zWIv-pM?si=hEZTQ21P9CYsD4Qo

Gunnar, this video features a trans woman discussing her experience of being canceled by the progressive community, despite identifying as a progressive herself.

She is definitely a progressive in most of the things she says. She seems to hold the opinion that one of the things that hurt progressives and Democrats the most is that, if anything, they tended to be too timid in pushing and explaining their progressive policies. They should have spent more time explaining the advantages of those policies and less emphasis on demonizing the right and simply accusing them of being fascists. I agree with her on that.

Here are several points she presents in the video that I wholeheartedly support. She highlights that the extremists in the progressive movement are aligning themselves with actual terrorists.

I don't agree with that! Any who align themselves with actual terrorists don't deserve to be called progressives

She emphasizes that in the discussion surrounding trans children, the progressive stance is for parents to remain silent and heed the voices of those making decisions for trans kids.

I don't agree with that, but I do think that loving and caring parents should heed the voices of their children.

She emphasizes the importance of returning to science and reality in discussions about trans issues related to children.

A huge amen to that!

She believes that others see progressives as unlikable individuals.

Not as many as you seem to think. Those who do feel that way are basically misinformed about what progressives really stand for, just like you.

She refers to the team as progressive, but in reality, it's more like team burn everything down!

I disagree with her on that!

She claims that the radical progressive movement over the last decade has turned against Western values, white individuals, Jewish communities, and men.

Radical, extremism within any movements is never a good thing. Nevertheless, though there are a lot of admirable Western values, white individuals and men, it would be foolish to insist that none of them are any good or in need of improvement. And anyone who turned against communities simply because they are Jewish is not at all progressive. But as with any other demographic, villains and bigots exist among them.

Anyone who opposes them is quickly branded as an evil right-winger and ultimately labeled as a Nazi.

Not just anyone!

She accurately observes that progressivism and socialism represent cultural dead ends that are unlikely to advance any further in America.

Given the fact that she still proudly calls herself a progressive, I doubt that she is really resigned to that dismal view.

Brianna Wu, the trans woman featured in this video, faced a barrage of insults and was branded a right winger simply for daring to express a viewpoint that diverged from the prevailing narrative of extreme progressivism. Now, Gunnar, I want you to focus intently on Molok, Canpakes, and Schmo. They have no choice but to tarnish this person's reputation.

Upon reading this, they will likely turn to Google in search of information that portrays this individual unfavorably, as someone who simply seeks to criticize others. Canpakes will particularly be looking up Google for the most unpleasant information about Brianna so that it can be shared here in the thread to portray Brianna in a negative light.

Please stop unjustly maligning my friends!

Hold on, Gunnar! It is approaching. The board progressives are searching through Google and Reddit in an effort to uncover any information that could portray Brianna as a Nazi or maybe a Zionist pig! Anyway, the video runs for an hour, but you only need to watch the first 15 minutes or so to grasp why Brianna believes progressivism has completely lost its way.

I'm sorry she feels that way, if that is what she really believes. I'm not at all sure that she has completely given up on progessivism.

You willing to watch the video Gunnar and offer up an opinion on what she believes?

I watched the entire tedious video as you suggested and have given my opinions on it.

As I have said before here is how I define "progressivism"

While many ideologies can fall under the banner of progressivism, both the current and historical movement are characterized by a critique of unregulated capitalism, desiring a more active democratic government to take a role in safeguarding human rights, bringing about cultural development, and being a check-and-balance on corporate monopolies.[10][11]

If your definition of the term significantly disagrees with that, I reject it!

[Hound of Heaven]

Let me share my thoughts on socialism, Gunnar. In America, it is often the misguided intellectuals and complacent college professors who promote socialism. However, socialism does not align with the concept of freedom.

Many college professors consist of individuals who struggled to succeed in the professional world, leading them to seek refuge in academia, where they find a stable career that often lacks the demands of traditional work. Individuals with this fragile mindset are drawn to socialism as it reflects their perspective on status.

However, for those who have not been influenced by the prevailing ideology often referred to as wokeism, it is clear that socialism has not succeeded in the majority of countries where it has been put into practice. Consider the comparisons of Taiwan with Mao Zedong's China, West Germany with East Germany, or North Korea with South Koream the model that embraces economic freedoms consistently outshines the socialist model.

Socialism is unwelcome in America, and I demand its removal from my party! In 2024, I experienced the first instance in my life where I felt I wasted my vote, fully aware that the candidate I supported had no real chance of winning. If the Democratic Party nominates a socialist in 2028, and I’m still around, I will vote Republican regardless of their candidate, as a way to protest against the party I have known my entire life.

Fortunately, I genuinely believe that the progressive movement is being dismantled by the Trump administration, and I value what he is doing for the Democrat party! He is emerging as the savior of the Democratic Party, as many moderate Democrats seem fearful of being canceled by the socialists you apparently hold in high regard.

I have additional articles to share with you, even though I realize you may not be inclined to change your perspective. However, I have yet to complete my definition of progressivism, and I believe they will prove to be beneficial.