UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Alvecia]

"Pride in one's country is not necessarily a bad thing"

Gosh, I'm good. The Independent should hire me to write opinion pieces.

Which element of progressive theory did you use to generate that argument?

I've already conceded A Progressive can be a patriot, what i'm contesting is that progressivism as an ideology can support that choice.

If you really want me to try, which definition of progressivism would you like me to use? Mine? Yours? Google's?
You know, just so we can head off the "that's not progressivism" comments at the pass.

[Ostroeuropa]

Which element of progressive theory did you use to generate that argument?

I've already conceded A Progressive can be a patriot, what i'm contesting is that progressivism as an ideology can support that choice.

If you really want me to try, which definition of progressivism would you like me to use? Mine? Yours? Google's?
You know, just so we can head off the "that's not progressivism" comments at the pass.

Honestly it strikes me as bad faith to pretend not to know who we're talking about. It's one of the means by which there's a routine avoidance of criticism by this group, and it's a common theme to many of the adherents and their objections at every label that's been applied to them. Remember they used to argue there's no such thing as an SJW and such.

Part of the problem is the inconsistency and incoherence of the worldview, and that it is merely a series of sophistic and disingenuous assertions without evidence, double standards, etc, that are routinely framed to be anti-male, anti-white, anti-western. It is not a worldview so much as a common style of racism and sexism. The sociological equivalent of biological racism.

That's the only definition of the movement that doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. Attempts to define it other ways will uniformly run up against the problem of the misandry and anti-white tendencies of the movement, and rely on accepting dogmatic assertions as to why those things don't count/matter when defining the movement as something like "Concerned with the equal treatment of demographics."

Progressivism uses that as a cover, alongside a series of inconsistently applied and sophistic excuses, for its primary activity, the hatred of white males.

A good example proving this is the almost complete lack of concern from the movement and its representatives for the fact women are three times more likely to be raped in prison by a fellow inmate than men. This is because the "Concern for women" is not genuine, rather, the hatred of males is, because the ideology conflates attacking males with helping women. (Smashing patriarchy and such.)

The best definition would be;
"Progressivism is an ideology that resists, downplays, appropriates, or denies the notion of misandry and anti-white racism, and conflates attacking and demonizing white males with helping women and minorities, either due to genuinely being tangled up in the sophistry and excuses, or due to just hating those groups."

The best example I can think of that doesn't fall under that would be Liriena, and even they routinely come up short due to still buying into a number of the racist and sexist arguments the movement generates.

Progressivism appears to me to be merely racism and sexism in inconsistent and duplicitous egalitarian clothing.

If you can show me something that doesn't fall under that, i'm happy to be proven wrong. It's important to note that one can say and do and believe racist and sexist things without being a bad person at heart.

[Alvecia]

It's really rather interesting to see how you've managed to take an ideology that had a defined worldview, so to speak, and have used the extremes, imposters, fools, and detractors to build an entirely separate definition and then apply said definition to all that hold the label "progressive".

You, on your own authority, have redefined an entire ideology.

Rather than holding the definition of an ideology, and applying that label to those that fit said definition, you've taken the label that some people apply to themselves, and you've reverse engineered an ideology based on their words and actions.

It's completely backwards.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's really rather interesting to see how you've managed to take an ideology that had a defined worldview, so to speak, and have used the extremes, imposters, fools, and detractors to build an entirely separate definition and then apply said definition to all that hold the label "progressive".

You, on your own authority, have redefined an entire ideology.

Rather than holding the definition of an ideology, and applying that label to those that fit said definition, you've taken the label that some people apply to themselves, and you've reverse engineered an ideology based on their words and actions.

It's completely backwards.

As I said, you're welcome to find an example that my criticism doesn't apply to. I think it's important to see it for what it really is rather than accept the conflations put out. You claim there's a "real" ideology out there somewhere, show it to me. So far we've spent this time me noting a common trend and you insisting its an extreme and not the norm, followed by me asking for an example to prove your case, and you've routinely failed to source your claim, just insisted over and over that it is so. It should be trivial for you, and yet you refuse to do it.

This is because it's a dogmatic assertion you're engaging in, another of those duplicitous and insincere dodges, and not actually based in reality and an analysis of it, the insistence that the toxic influence of the movement and its detrimental effects is due to the extremes, rather than a fundamental aspect of the movement, it's a meme that is used to dismiss criticism and prevent self-reflection.

This began with you being unable to find a single example of progressive ideology supporting English Patriotism, and now the claim is being expanded outward, and you're still unable to do it.

But we're just supposed to take your word for it that i'm wrong and there's plenty of progressives my criticism doesn't apply to. Okay, one should have written something that my criticism doesn't apply to. You say it has a definition and i've redefined it, use that one you believe in. My position is that the ideology is fundamentally toxic, and the "Real definition" is merely used sophistically, inconsistently, etc, and my definition will still end up applying.

[Alvecia]

It's really rather interesting to see how you've managed to take an ideology that had a defined worldview, so to speak, and have used the extremes, imposters, fools, and detractors to build an entirely separate definition and then apply said definition to all that hold the label "progressive".

You, on your own authority, have redefined an entire ideology.

Rather than holding the definition of an ideology, and applying that label to those that fit said definition, you've taken the label that some people apply to themselves, and you've reverse engineered an ideology based on their words and actions.

It's completely backwards.

As I said, you're welcome to find an example that my criticism doesn't apply to. I think it's important to see it for what it really is rather than accept the conflations put out. You claim there's a "real" ideology out there somewhere, show it to me.

Gay marriage, racial equality, gender equality. Any examples thereof. Advances beneficial to society. It's really not hard to find examples of progressivism as it is, not as you've redefined it to be.

[Ostroeuropa]

As I said, you're welcome to find an example that my criticism doesn't apply to. I think it's important to see it for what it really is rather than accept the conflations put out. You claim there's a "real" ideology out there somewhere, show it to me.

Gay marriage, racial equality, gender equality. Any examples thereof. Advances beneficial to society. It's really not hard to find examples of progressivism as it is, not as you've redefined it to be.

Racial and gender equality doesn't appear to be a major aspect of the movement, merely the conflation of those things with attacking white males, or conflates solving misogyny and anti-minority racism with solving the overall problems of sexism and racism. Can you actually source an article that supports this view of yours?

You say it has a definition and i've redefined it, use that one you believe in. My position is that the ideology is fundamentally toxic, and the "Real definition" is merely used sophistically, inconsistently, etc, and my definition will still end up applying.

You're asserting the conflations used as the definition, and i'm questioning that and asking you to prove they aren't merely conflations.

[Alvecia]

Gay marriage, racial equality, gender equality. Any examples thereof. Advances beneficial to society. It's really not hard to find examples of progressivism as it is, not as you've redefined it to be.

Racial and gender equality doesn't appear to be a major aspect of the movement, merely the conflation of those things with attacking white males, or conflates solving misogyny and anti-minority racism with solving the overall problems of sexism and racism. Can you actually source an article that supports this view of yours?

If there are things happening that are not conducive to the society, then that's not progressive.
Call it whatever you want, regressive, neo-progressive. I don't give a shit. But actually change the label based on the actions rather than changing the definition based on the actions.
If the KKK starts advocating racial equality, we re-label the KKK. We don't change the definition of white supremacist.

[Ostroeuropa]

Racial and gender equality doesn't appear to be a major aspect of the movement, merely the conflation of those things with attacking white males, or conflates solving misogyny and anti-minority racism with solving the overall problems of sexism and racism. Can you actually source an article that supports this view of yours?

If there are things happening that are not conducive to the society, then that's not progressive.
Call it whatever you want, regressive, neo-progressive. I don't give a shit. But actually change the label based on the actions rather than changing the definition based on the actions.
If the KKK starts advocating racial equality, we re-label the KKK. We don't change the definition of white supremacist.

Show me a single progressive that actually exists in an institution of power then, one who is conducive to society, if we're going to insist all these scotsmen aren't real.

Your problem is that you're calling yourself a klansmen because you believe in christianity, but aren't a member of the klan, don't hold any positions of authority, and don't want to admit that that's merely an excuse they use to cover up their racism and any member of the Klan or Klansmen in a position of authority is merely a racist and nothing more.

Even if millions of people called themselves klansmen on that basis, it wouldn't change what the klan actually is.

The progressive movement and its impact on institutions and society is easily noticable. The sophistry and conflations it uses to cover for its racism and sexism might get some people to identify with the movement, but that's because they aren't scrutinizing it and its claims.

[Alvecia]

If there are things happening that are not conducive to the society, then that's not progressive.
Call it whatever you want, regressive, neo-progressive. I don't give a shit. But actually change the label based on the actions rather than changing the definition based on the actions.
If the KKK starts advocating racial equality, we re-label the KKK. We don't change the definition of white supremacist.

Show me a single progressive that actually exists in an institution of power then, one who is conducive to society, if we're going to insist all these scotsmen aren't real.

Literally any that believe in beneficial social advancement. Unless you're suggesting that every single person in power rejects the notions of racial, sexual, and gender equality.
This isn't a black and white thing, there are shades of gray.
I'd go as far as to say that May and Corbyn are progressive to at least some degree. Certainly, May wouldn't be where she is now without societal gender reform.

[Ostroeuropa]

Show me a single progressive that actually exists in an institution of power then, one who is conducive to society, if we're going to insist all these scotsmen aren't real.

Literally any that believe in beneficial social advancement. Unless you're suggesting that every single person in power rejects the notions of racial, sexual, and gender equality.
This isn't a black and white thing, there are shades of gray.
I'd go as far as to say that May and Corbyn are progressive to at least some degree. Certainly, May wouldn't be where she is now without societal gender reform.

What's your basis for this definition? From where is it derived?

I think almost every single person in power conflates those things with anti-white, anti-male, and anti-western attitudes, less so on the Conservative side.

You can "Accept the notion" of something and still have your view on it be twisted and dysfunctional.

I have seen nobody who actually supports gender equality in a coherent and functional way that sourced their discourse in the progressive movement. It is uniformly sourced in the mens rights movement, and its trivial to prove as much when debating them and finding out how woefully lacking and superficial their understanding on the topic of mens issues is, i've yet to find one that didn't apply to.

MRAs are definitely anti-progressive.

In the UK, there's a number of mens organizations and almost none are progressive, the exceptions being Mens Libbers.

Meanwhile, the primary antagonists to gender equality in the modern day identify as progressives. You can tell me that they want gender and racial equality and i'll believe you, in some cases, the problem is their ideology isn't suited to it. In any case, i'm bored of this and we're drifting from the initial example more related to the UK.

[Alvecia]

Literally any that believe in beneficial social advancement. Unless you're suggesting that every single person in power rejects the notions of racial, sexual, and gender equality.
This isn't a black and white thing, there are shades of gray.
I'd go as far as to say that May and Corbyn are progressive to at least some degree. Certainly, May wouldn't be where she is now without societal gender reform.

What's your basis for this definition? From where is it derived?

I think almost every single person in power conflates those things with anti-white, anti-male, and anti-western attitudes, less so on the Conservative side.

You can "Accept the notion" of something and still have your view on it be twisted and dysfunctional.

Most all definitions found on every article about progressivism and it's definition. I tried to find an actual definition rather than make one up by myself.

I think you need to pull your head out of the rabbit hole. To assert that all in power conflate equality with western, white, male oppression is ridiculous, and is more appropriate coming out of the mouth of Alex fucking Jones.

Calling someone progressive, or agreeing with their claim of being so, despite them going out and doing blatantly anti-progressive things is the equivalent of me calling myself 100% gay, then sticking my dick in a different girl every night (and loving it).

You were the one who said actions matter, why is that suddenly no longer the case?

[Ostroeuropa]

What's your basis for this definition? From where is it derived?

I think almost every single person in power conflates those things with anti-white, anti-male, and anti-western attitudes, less so on the Conservative side.

You can "Accept the notion" of something and still have your view on it be twisted and dysfunctional.

Most all definitions found on every article about progressivism and it's definition. I tried to find an actual definition rather than make one up by myself.

I think you need to pull your head out of the rabbit hole. To assert that all in power conflate equality with western, white, male oppression is ridiculous, and is more appropriate coming out of the mouth of Alex fucking Jones.

Calling someone progressive, or agreeing with their claim of being so, despite them going out and doing blatantly anti-progressive things is the equivalent of me calling myself 100% gay, then sticking my dick in a different girl every night (and loving it).

You were the one who said actions matter, why is that suddenly no longer the case?

Actions matter?
Fine.
Find me someone who identifies as progressive in an institution of authority in the united kingdom that actually supports gender equality in a functional manner rather than merely conflating it with the advancement of women or elimination of misogyny, if you're going to throw out alex jones as an example and refuse to actually engage with the point and find evidence for your claims. Actually find a damn example like you've utterly failed and outright refused to do for pages now, just saying over and over again that i'm wrong, conspiratorial, and it's only a minority, all while ignoring requests for evidence.

Yes, I'm well aware progressive articles routinely conflate their behavior with the definition you are offering, much like the klan conflates their behavior with christianity.

I'm asking ONCE more, then i'm writing you off as a willfully duplicitous and insincere debater. You keep acting like it's obvious and there's plenty of examples, but can't find even one. I'm telling you, I'm not going to accept the conflations you are repeating on their behalf at face value, prove it, Christ, this is incredibly basic.

"No but it's just christianity! They keep saying so!"
"NO BUT ITS JUST CHRISTIANITY!"
"Christianity is peace and stuff! The klan is fine!"
"It means being like jesus!"

Fucking.
Prove.
It.

[Alvecia]

Most all definitions found on every article about progressivism and it's definition. I tried to find an actual definition rather than make one up by myself.

I think you need to pull your head out of the rabbit hole. To assert that all in power conflate equality with western, white, male oppression is ridiculous, and is more appropriate coming out of the mouth of Alex fucking Jones.

Calling someone progressive, or agreeing with their claim of being so, despite them going out and doing blatantly anti-progressive things is the equivalent of me calling myself 100% gay, then sticking my dick in a different girl every night (and loving it).

You were the one who said actions matter, why is that suddenly no longer the case?

Actions matter?
Fine.
Find me someone in an institution of authority in the united kingdom that actually supports gender equality in a functional manner rather than merely conflating it with the advancement of women or elimination of misogyny, if you're going to throw out alex jones as an example and refuse to actually engage with the point and find evidence for your claims. Actually find a damn example like you've utterly failed and outright refused to do for pages now, just saying over and over again that i'm wrong, conspiratorial, and it's only a minority, all while ignoring requests for evidence.

Yes, I'm well aware progressive articles routinely conflate their behavior with the definition you are offering, much like the klan conflates their behavior with christianity.

I'm asking ONCE more, then i'm writing you off as a willfully duplicitous and insincere debater. You keep acting like it's obvious and there's plenty of examples, but can't find even one. I'm telling you, I'm not going to accept the conflations you are repeating on their behalf at face value, prove it, Christ, this is incredibly basic.

To be honest, what's the fucking point?
I could put aside the time to actually go and find hundreds of examples, but any examples I find don't fit with your pet definition of progressive, so I don't doubt that you'd just throw them all out. Do you want me to go back over the past couple decades and dig up any example of social progression? Or do you think that we're no better, or worse, off since 20 years ago?
I'm happy bashing out a couple paragraph of text in 5 minutes, but I've no particular interest in wasting my time doing trying to convince you. I'm not naive enough to think that I can provide anything that you'll accept because I've seen this debate over and over and it always ends up the same way.

[Ostroeuropa]

Alright, we're done.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-43867132

For the record, I have misgivings over the court ruling, and i'm not convinced it should be within the power of a court to rule that someones quality of life is low enough that healthcare for them should be withheld.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Theresa May announces Stephen Lawrence Day to be celebrated every year on 22nd April. Nice to see Theresa trolling racist fuckwits.

[Fartsniffage]

The independent:

Of all the things we could celebrate, St George's Day is the worst possible choice
We cannot allow for the normalisation of anything which might be perceived as a dog whistle to the far right

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/st ... 16696.html

lol

Also includes:

"the world’s most overrated writer of all time: William Shakespeare"

Click on her name to bring up all the articles the Indy has published of hers.

Check out the ads they include, I don't think she'd be impressed...

[Ostroeuropa]

The independent:

Of all the things we could celebrate, St George's Day is the worst possible choice
We cannot allow for the normalisation of anything which might be perceived as a dog whistle to the far right

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/st ... 16696.html

lol

Also includes:

"the world’s most overrated writer of all time: William Shakespeare"

Click on her name to bring up all the articles the Indy has published of hers.

Check out the ads they include, I don't think she'd be impressed...

*Shrug*
Substantial criticism of the current system of power isn't on the agenda when its stacked in your favor.

[Fartsniffage]

Looks like we have another Prince!

What's the point? They already have an heir and a spare. They should sell this one to reduce the national debt.

[Ostroeuropa]

Looks like we have another Prince!

What's the point? They already have an heir and a spare. They should sell this one to reduce the national debt.

"Show your patriotism by donating five bucks to eliminate the national debt."
*crickets*

[Fartsniffage]

What's the point? They already have an heir and a spare. They should sell this one to reduce the national debt.

"Show your patriotism by donating five bucks to eliminate the national debt."
*crickets*

I was thinking more like 5 billion. I'm sure there are plenty of oil-rich Arabs that would love a genuine British royal as a pet.

[Ifreann]

Looks like we have another Prince!

What's the point? They already have an heir and a spare. They should sell this one to reduce the national debt.

Could be a sign of Catholic infiltration of the monarchy.

[Vassenor]

What's the point? They already have an heir and a spare. They should sell this one to reduce the national debt.

Could be a sign of Catholic infiltration of the monarchy.

THE HORROR

[Anywhere Else But Here]

What's the point? They already have an heir and a spare. They should sell this one to reduce the national debt.

Could be a sign of Catholic infiltration of the monarchy.

Probably not, but we should abolish it just to be on the safe side.

[Ifreann]

Could be a sign of Catholic infiltration of the monarchy.

Probably not, but we should abolish it just to be on the safe side.

Catholicism or the monarchy?

[Kosernia City]

I’m just gonna Leave this Here

Northern Ireland is rightfully Irish Land