Defining Progressivism

[Some Schmo]

It is this singleminded simplemindedness that makes me think this is a chatbot or at least A.I.-assisted writing. HoH ignores what I have said and just goes sideways with the same nonsense ad nauseam.

It's classic GOP. Keep repeating the same lie over and over to lower people's resistance so they start to buy the BS.

If it's A.I. assisted, he must be asking, "What's another way to make the case idiotically that everyone against Trump is a progressive?" The A.I. just dips into the vast pool of thoughtless Trump-world idiocy and spits it out for HoH to copy/paste.

[Hound of Heaven]

Currently, we have two members of the board who have affirmed that progressivism flourishes by providing its supporters with a list of enemies.

Consider this post from Schmo that he shared in a different thread.


To Schmo, anyone who disagrees with his progressive "truth" is considered an enemy just as I anticipated this thread would reveal. The presence of the belief of enemies, as demonstrated by both Schmo and Kishkumen, validates my perspective and highlights a crucial aspect of the mindset inherent in the militant religion of progressivism. It's not merely a handful of adversariesm it's anyone and everyone who opposes progressive ideology.

Their list of enemies includes all Republicans, conservative Democrats, moderate Democrats, and independents who do not align with Woke culture. The progressive movement has effectively distanced itself from a wide range of individuals, including the very party they regard as their home, the Democratic Party.

Progressives are increasingly seen as entitled individuals who require constant support. They remain oblivious, doubling down on the same actions and beliefs they maintained during the 2024 election. They seem to think that if they just put in more effort to persuade others of their correctness, perhaps in the next election, voters will choose them over the Republicans. This is despite the fact that in 2024, the American people overwhelmingly supported the Republicans, granting them the presidency, the House, and the Senate.

For those reading this who don't identify as progressive, appreciate that you're not caught up in a mindset that views disagreement as a personal affront. Consider the challenges of navigating life with a consistently pessimistic outlook. Consider the challenge of carrying such animosity within, perceiving anyone who disagrees with you as an enemy to overcome. What a wretched life that must be.

Just yesterday, Democrat strategist James Carville essentially echoed everything I have been discussing on this board regarding the detrimental impact militant progressivism has had on the Democrat party. He has proposed a division, suggesting that the progressives contemplate departing from the party to establish their own, and I wholeheartedly concur with him. Progressivism is detrimental and it led to the Democratic party's loss in the 2024 election. I suggest that the militant progressives find another venue to express their devotion to socialism, away from the Democrat party. Progressivism is a movement characterized by animosity, and I appreciate Some Schmo for supplying ample evidence to support this view.

[canpakes]

… embracing progressivism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …

Just as these follow:

… embracing conservatism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing MAGA entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing libertarianism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing Constitutionalism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing Catholicism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing patriotism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing freedom entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… and so on.

You are unable to argue against the plain reality of this.

Even embracing your own point of view, Hound, entails acknowledging a mental enemies list, and -

… the belief that enemies are encircling us, and it becomes our duty to confront them …

… as you are here, starting thread after thread about the same 3 or so subjects that you perceive to be your enemy.

Note how well your passage below still applies when you replace only the target with another target, while leaving the rest of the passage untouched:

For those reading this who don't identify as MAGA, appreciate that you're not caught up in a mindset that views disagreement as a personal affront. Consider the challenges of navigating life with a consistently pessimistic outlook. Consider the challenge of carrying such animosity within, perceiving anyone who disagrees with you as an enemy to overcome. What a wretched life that must be.

[Molok]

So Progressives have enemy lists, and your evidence of this is someone who isn't a progressive telling progressives to leave the Democrat party. Your logic is incredible.

[Kishkumen]

So Progressives have enemy lists, and your evidence of this is someone who isn't a progressive telling progressives to leave the Democrat party. Your logic is incredible.

It is a remarkable exercise in prolix stupidity.

[canpakes]

So Progressives have enemy lists, and your evidence of this is someone who isn't a progressive telling progressives to leave the Democrat party. Your logic is incredible.

And in this case, Carville’s issue was basically ‘pronoun politics’.

In the current day, where we have a President ordering removal of government web pages because they highlight the work of blacks or women, or initiating unwinnable trade wars while damaging our own financial markets, or cozying up to foreign dictators while they kill innocent people by the hundreds of thousands, or while he ‘accidentally’ ships people with protected residency status out of the country to dangerous foreign prisons, … while all of this is happening, it’s remarkable that so many folks look the other way so that they can instead become so deeply disturbed by someone else’s email signatures.

“Consider the challenge of carrying such animosity within, perceiving anyone who disagrees with you about someone else’s pronouns and email signatures as an enemy to overcome. What a wretched life that must be.”

Carville is being practical, because he realizes how broken the anti-email-signature crowd is. His warning would be akin to telling Jews in Germany during 1933 that it’s time to give up and leave the country.

[Molok]

And in this case, Carville’s issue was basically ‘pronoun politics’.

In the current day, where we have a President ordering removal of government web pages because they highlight the work of blacks or women, or initiating unwinnable trade wars while damaging our own financial markets, or cozying up to foreign dictators while they kill innocent people by the hundreds of thousands, or while he ‘accidentally’ ships people with protected residency status out of the country to dangerous foreign prisons, … while all of this is happening, it’s remarkable that so many folks look the other way so that they can instead become so deeply disturbed by someone else’s email signatures.

“Consider the challenge of carrying such animosity within, perceiving anyone who disagrees with you about someone else’s pronouns and email signatures as an enemy to overcome. What a wretched life that must be.”

Carville is being practical, because he realizes how broken the anti-email-signature crowd is. His warning would be akin to telling Jews in Germany during 1933 that it’s time to give up and leave the country.

Thank you for the extra context, Canpakes, I was unable to extract any useful information from HoH's word salad.

[Hound of Heaven]

For those who may not grasp it yet, Molok once mentioned to me that he is likely one of the most progressive members of the board, and I trust his words. Check out this post he just shared


It clearly conveys his progressive stance. It underscores my point that progressives perceive anyone who does not share their views as an adversary. To begin with, James Carville did not claim that progressives are an enemy, rather, he suggested that they should depart from the party to concentrate on their extreme views, which are detrimental to the Democrats' success in crucial elections.

However, for Molok, who identifies as a progressive, Carville's disagreement with the progressive narrative signifies that Carville perceives progressives as the enemy. . For a progressive like Molok, as I have stated repeatedly, any disagreement with one's belief system equates to having a mortal enemy. This encapsulates the essence of progressivism, and Molok has unintentionally validated my point once more.

Greetings Molok, Does James Carville view progressives as the enemy simply due to disagreement, or is that assumption from your last post reflective of a progressive mindset influencing your writing? You're proving my point, thanks!

[Molok]

I was just pointing out your lack of logic, I have no problem with James Carville, lol.

[Molok]

I mean seriously, the world is burning down all around us, aided by the most evil and dumb among us, who really cares about pronouns?