Could we standardise our terminology, agree on what words mean?
My lingo goes like this:
Progressive - ethics that are humanist rather than Christian
Left - an economy with substantially less inequality that an unregulated one
Particularly I would not state that Bill Clinton or B Obama or Hillary were on the Left because they agree with intergender bathrooms, to me Left is about economics. My observation in England was that the Left had strict morals and the Right were rich spoiled brats who did as they liked.
If we can't restrict Left / Right to economic demography and progressive / conservative to ethical then we will just continue confusing everyone including ourselves.
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I assume standardize in this group, and maybe on Agnostic.com. Elsewhere, conservatives will paint red everywhere and cast aspersions on progressives and leftist economics. It might be valuable to standardize replies to aspersions.
EdEarl
Level 8
Apr 12, 2018
1
I think everyone needs to do it because if they can't get the lingo to mean anything then we should rename all the political forums 'argument forums' because nobody is going to get anywhere
the mind control in 1984 was based on reducing the meaning the language can express
A lot of the public dream of an economy way on the left, the politicians with very few exceptions live in a reality of grabbing as much money as they possibly can.
Bill Clinton made NAFTA a reality, Obama favored the TPP which Hillary declared 'the gold standard of trade agreements', Hillary picked up 225,000 dollars per talk to the banks giving them the straight talk which the public would never get.
oops I'm responding to your comment in little bits,
I just noticed the bit in the middle about Conservatives applying red paint and casting aspersions at progressives
Well that's about Christian prudishness really and is mainly on the decline,
the only part I can think of offhand that matters is the abortion issue and roe v wade is still in force after 45 years, and even if it is overturned it will just lead to abortions being done in more enlightened countries, funding could be a key factor though but I think something as big as overturning Roe v Wade may lead to funding becoming available
It's the overall shape of economic demography that concerns me and correcting that would also flx the difficulty very poor people might have in getting abortions, in that there should not be any very poor people.
The issue of conservatives casting aspersions at leftist economics is more an American problem than anywhere else which helps to identify the cause behind the problem.
I think most Christians are aware of gospel commands to help the poor, the orphans and the widows.
What's happened is because Karl Marx was proposing a change in the way society was run, and that meant displacing the hierarchical pro establishment pro privilege church.
That was the 1800s when there was gross economic disparity, and the church supported inequality on the basis that god had made things the way they were and slaves were to obey their masters, and stealing a walnut was a capital crime, the Bible has a huge list of capital crimes.
Any change in the structure would be opposed by the church which was a force for disparity so of course it had to go.
It wasn't that Marx was anti Christian, it was that the Christians were anti humanist.