Educational

Author Topic: The Progressive ideology exposed  (Read 779 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Go Piss Up A Rope

  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 5854
  • Karma: -8
  • Allahu Akbar!!!
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #120 on: January 11, 2018, 01:55:15 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Liberation_theology

 :LMAO:


There's nothing secular about liberation theology. It's directly drawn from the New Testament.




Interestingly, Marxist Economics are well in alignment with medieval, Aristotelian principles, insofar as they are formalized.
What's surprising is how far the Catholic Church (Protestants are more understandable here) from those views.

Well, technically, you're right but my point is the overlap between Frankfurt Marxism and certain types of Christian theology.

Frankfurt Marxism is arguably a mirror image of Christian Identity and Nazi propaganda, simply with the "good" races and "bad" races reversed.
WTF???

Offline Go Piss Up A Rope

  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 5854
  • Karma: -8
  • Allahu Akbar!!!
WTF???

Offline Minister of silly walks

  • Frequent Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
  • Karma: 28
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #122 on: January 12, 2018, 01:48:36 AM »
(1) Can't cite a  source as such. It's an impression that's grown  in my mind over the course of decades, finding confirmation in multiple souces of info.  Already pretty well formed i  my youth , when I was taking a big interest in Mathematics and Physics, in a quest to understand the Universe on a fundamental level. Later I drifted  towards Psychology, because I felt (and still fel) that the processes of  perception and cognition are more fundamental to our understanding of tbe Universe than "objective reality" is. I'm also attracted by the notion that matter may be the creation of mind, rather than vice-versa (though that would be to see "mind" as a sort of universal  substance, in accordance with Buddhism, not to suppose that out indivdual minds  have much impact on the whole)     In any case , our perceptions of the material world  (and other people especially ) are  certainly  a creation of our individual minds, and subject all to kinds of bias and intersting errors.

The scientific method is IMO still, by far, the best way we have of understanding the universe. Of peeling back the layers of reality.

Every now and then we come across weird shit that makes no sense at all, but that tends to be where the biggest advances come from. If you are measuring the speed of light from a distant source, for example, you would expect that if the Earth were orbiting away from that light source the speed would appear slower than if the Earth were orbiting towards that light source. But once we were able to measure the speed of light accurately enough to make such observations we noticed.... it seemed to be hitting Earth at exactly the same speed. Of course that all made perfect sense once Einstein came up with the theory of relativity.

Quantum physics makes very little sense to me. A cat can be both alive and dead at the same time and it's not even a zombie cat or a vampire cat?



And the double slit experiment we all did at school. The beams of light act like waves and interfere with each other, causing a wave pattern. But if you fire electrons one at a time at a double slit you still get an interference pattern, even though the electron can only travel through one slit. Turns out that the electron takes every possible path that it can take, not just the path that it appears to take. I still don't understand that shit, but there are valid theories that explain such phenomena.

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96958
  • Karma: 4069
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #123 on: January 12, 2018, 02:28:15 AM »
Quantum mechanics is also widely misunderstood. You don't ever get to meet the two cats. :P
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96958
  • Karma: 4069
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #124 on: January 12, 2018, 02:29:05 AM »
LOL'd at the Schrödinger's vet thing, tho. Brilliant.
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96958
  • Karma: 4069
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #125 on: January 12, 2018, 02:31:31 AM »
As for discussing social justice, I doubt there is a meaningful discussion to be had with Scrap on that front. It's all cute pejoratives and name-dropping for him.

Physics is far more interesting.
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16853
  • Karma: 2104
  • Friendly bastard
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #126 on: January 12, 2018, 03:59:29 AM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

:yawn:



As I said elsewhere

Quote
When your sewer break, how many times will you have a woman come to fix it? What about when you need your high rise window washed? What about when you someone to build your home? Now it MAY be that the reason you do not see many women is because they are pressured not to and the over-representation of males in this area is due to discrimination.

That is one theory BUT I would hazard a guess that it has FAR more to do with the fact that men and women are different and make different choices when it comes to work-life decisions. Look I will even go one step further I will say that MOST of the women that rail against over-representation both have NOT EVER seriously considered working in the roles they say are over-represented by men (or roles over-represented by men generally) AND were it to be mandatory that THEY take on these roles or ANY women HAVE to take on these roles to make up numbers on some enforced representation tally, they would baulk.

I think MY theories have far more legs than the Patriarchial over-representation theory.

Progressivism is bullshit virtue signalling. It is all about feelings and no substance. "It's about social justice!".....really? Isn't it a whine by people that cannot embrace realities? Isn't it a disingenuous to cherry pick their offences without having to back their commitments with any reasonable alternatives? See it all sounds nice and reasonable and righteous until It has to stand up to actual reality. The fact is IF anyone wants to allow choice then the outcomes are reflected by choices and the outcomes good or bad are a result of the choices made. If a lady wants to be a teacher or a nurse, that is a choice and she is free to make that choice BUT she cannot then gripe if her husband earns more than her because he chose a field that pays more. They both had choices. She also has no reasonable leg to stand on if she makes broad claims about her female friends and colleagues about their lack of earnings if they by and large make less pay-centric choices.

It is not about social justice or righting a wrong.......it is a whinge.

Society sure as shit should not pander to this kind of unfettered bullshit.

This is my humble opinion.
I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch

Offline Walkie

  • Wooden sword crusader of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Karma: 191
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #127 on: January 12, 2018, 10:47:55 AM »
(1) Can't cite a  source as such. It's an impression that's grown  in my mind over the course of decades, finding confirmation in multiple souces of info.  Already pretty well formed i  my youth , when I was taking a big interest in Mathematics and Physics, in a quest to understand the Universe on a fundamental level. Later I drifted  towards Psychology, because I felt (and still fel) that the processes of  perception and cognition are more fundamental to our understanding of tbe Universe than "objective reality" is. I'm also attracted by the notion that matter may be the creation of mind, rather than vice-versa (though that would be to see "mind" as a sort of universal  substance, in accordance with Buddhism, not to suppose that out indivdual minds  have much impact on the whole)     In any case , our perceptions of the material world  (and other people especially ) are  certainly  a creation of our individual minds, and subject all to kinds of bias and intersting errors.

The scientific method is IMO still, by far, the best way we have of understanding the universe. Of peeling back the layers of reality.
'...



I'm not inclined to disagree  with that... much, especially not in the light of the examples you gave, which displayed a much better understanding of the scientific method than most people have. (At the other extreme, I am heartily sick of people uncritically accepting the conclusions  of  badly -designed experiments, supported by dubious logic and unfounded assumptions, because that's scientific innit? The really scary thing is that many of those people call themselves "scientists  " and have bits of paper to prove it)

I have every respect for proper science, conducted by intelligent and more-ir-less open -minded people. The increasing volume of empirical evidence for all these increasingly "woo" theoies is to our credit as a species, methinks. It shows that we can not only think outside the box (on occasion)  but , little-by-little,  expand the box . That said, even Einstein   found quantum therory too counter-intuitive for his tastes. "God does not play dice" he declared. An interesting declation. Not only does it show that he reached his personal limit as regards expanding the box (no shame on him. We all have our limits, and out prejudices) ; it also demonstates  that the supposed  incompatibliity betwen religion and Science is a fiction., founded on low-grade reasoming and bias.  Yeah, yeah, I know thaty's just one little bit of anecdotal evidence, but you can find a load more if you look for it.  An awful lot of the ground-breaking scientists do profess a belief in God.  And why not?  A rigourous proof of the non-existence of God so elusive as to be unimaginable...if we honestly apply our reason to the issue. 

You're certainly not alone , btw. I read somewhere (I forget where) that no physicist really feels that they "understand" Relativity, not on a gut level . They just can't argue with  maths, and the growing weight of empical evidence.  I do recall that observation  came from a  theoretical Physicist , mind, so I should think he had access to the opinions of fair number of the same.

Me, I think that what we accept as "common -sense" is bound to be profoundly influenced by the inconvenient fact that we're three-dimenionsal (or four , if you count time) massive objects (compared to say an electron) living at the bottom of a gravitational well.  Even Newton's laws of Motion seem counter-intuitive from that perspective.  I should think your average man would find them laughable, if not for the fact that the media have effectively made outer space into a part of our everyday consciousness.  Accepting that those Laws  are merely an approximation  of something (Relativity) that drags even futher outside our everyday experience  is , naturally enough , extremely difficult.  But that's already to analyse the theory from a psychological perspective isn't it? which is something I've  found myself increasingly fasinated by.

Part of my dissatisfaction with text-book physics was  that it indulges in circular definitions and doesn't trouble to define it's axioms, doesn't even seem to notice that it has any axioms , as such.  If that's supposed to make sense to the student (and it usually does make sense to student, much to my consternation ) then, heck, we're training people up to embrace a really shoddy way of thinking. IMO: a way of thinking that could easily allow all kinds of groundless bias to slop  through as undisputed  facts. That wouldn't happen in Pure Maths, (but then Pure Maths has no need to trouble itself with the nature of "reality") Oh! hang on, that actually does happen in Pure Maths, at School level, because most syllabi leave  the fundamental stuff like Axiomatics to degree level. I was lucky enough to get a bit of sneak preview at 13-14, on account of rhe weirdy syllabus my school had adopted . However, 14-14 is still a biyt too old, IMO, cos most of my peers had lost their mental flexcibilty by then, and found all those  new concepts pretty damned daunting, even though the maths wasn pretty  simple) and expanded on that preview with private study, with the help of my wonderful Maths Mistress (who actually lent me some of her Uni. texbooks, and didn't care if they totally distracted me from logs) .

Later on , in Physics classes (which i did as a mature student, cos I'd flunked out of Physics   pretty early on at school, through  stuggling too hard to make sense of all the unsupported assertons.  It  gets a whole lot  easier to understand those concepts at more advanced levels, because the theory is more thoroughly presented)    I used to spot all the silly mistakes (and over-simplifications to the point of absurdity) in the textbooks, and not because I'm awsomely intelligent, but just because I was thinking everything through from first principles (as near as was feasible)  and not blindlyttaking anybody's word for anything  (Well, the exact same reasdon why I flunked out earlier, indeed  :LOL:  But it proved a considerabl;e  advantage here). That nobody else, not even the tutor  ever spotted said silly mistakes, but just wrote them down as if they were gospel  really troubled me.

Yep, I have a bitch with the way kids are educated, you might have noticed?  I think it's pretty anazing  that somebody can get through all that without losing the requisite flexibility of mind tjhat it takes to be an Einstein. But oh! wait! wasn't Einstein thought to be retarded? Isn't Einstein though t to dave been autisic ? Didn't Einstein stuggle to keop up, like most of us spazzes.? So he had to learn to think for himself.  That's what's missing in modern Western Education, by and large.  We're mostly educuted to absorb information uncrutically, with a view to getting good grades in the exams.  That question "what the fuck are we doing to our children's  minds?" eventually became a damn sight more intersting and relevant to me that pondering the Theory of Everything.  Well. that's one way to socialise a spazz  :LOL:

Undfortunately, psychological theory is not , oir the most part, amenable to empirical investigation. A lot of it is, but more of it isn't . We cam't just discard the stuff that isn't , and patiently wait for Science to catch up. We can't  because we're social animals, and we;re highly conscious animals; and we're actually applying  our own half-baked  theories all the time ,as we move about the world inteacting with each other. What's more,  we're also applying a bunch of unconscious biases to our inderstanding of scientific research.  We can't afford to wait for Science to catch up. And Science is not even  gonna have a fair chance to catch up, at that rate

Your average human being is so far deficient in understanding that he thinks it's man's innate intelligence that's responsible for all this "sientific progress"  and likes  basks in the resplected glory . Ofc it isn't, It;s communication and social organisation, together with occasional flashes of unusual intelligence that's responsible. Nobody needs to re-invent the wheel. or else we'd all be stuck in the stone age. 

Another thing that disillusioned me withl Physics (much though it's concepts turned me on) is our utterly stupid misuse of every advance. The first thing the human race thought to do with the equivalence of matter and energy was to ba really terrifying weapon of Mass Destruction., wasn't it? And we've no way of stopping that kind of stupidiy taking overl. If the requisite  infrastructure is there, then blind socio-econimic  forces will see the job  to compltrion, never mind how horror-struck most of us are.  I simply don;t beieve that Modern Civilisation can survive  unless we somehow develop sufficient psychologiical maturity to enable us  predict and prevent such oucomes.

Well, I think it's probably to late to save Modern Civilisation, But at least we can improve our own minds, and improve our relationships with others by shifting the emhasis to psychological development, rather than technological development. That's worth doing.  And the best place to start, IMO, is by getting some kind of handle on our own , personal subjective reality. Of course that won't have much in common with objective reality. The thing is to notice that fact  (there are clues all over the place), accept ione's own limitations , and move on , undunted by one's own stupidity, towards an ever-closer approximation to the Truth.    Well, actuality that's much the same as the Scientific Method, in spitit, isn't  it? The big difference is that the most useful pychological theories (i.e, those that  yield satisfactorty  results) can't be rigotously "proved" . Psychology is more of an art than a science, but an art that's desperatel;y needed. IMO.

Oh ! and I just loved the apparent paradox of the double-slit experiment . To my mind,  it shows how inadequate our concepts  "wave" and "particle" are . I t shows that there's a much more fundamental underlying reality that we are failing to grasp.  And now it seems that the underlying "substance" is no substance at all (as we think of it) , just the the endless interplay  of a bunch of abtruse mathematical properties.  Nothing there at all, in actuality,  but a probability wave.  Woo! I mean woot! I find that kind of thinking fun  (and hey!  we might as well have fun )

Well, hope it's evident from the above , that I'm far from being anti-science. More like over-sincere about this "understanding" lark . And pretty damned convinced that turning the lens of our intellects back on ourselves is the only realistic way forward. And that logic is not the only tool, nor even an especially reliable tool, at least  not in the hands of our infinirely slippery human  brains.


[edit:  please excuse all the really gross typos. Am actually trying to fix 'em all, but spotting them in the first place is the trick :S]
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 11:05:57 AM by Walkie »

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Karma: -169
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #128 on: January 12, 2018, 11:05:48 AM »

Physics is far more interesting.


Certainly more contentious.

Offline Walkie

  • Wooden sword crusader of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Karma: 191
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #129 on: January 12, 2018, 11:08:44 AM »

Physics is far more interesting.


Certainly more contentious.
you aiming for being contentious, Cal?    :LOL:  Nah, dammit , I will not argue with that proposition

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96958
  • Karma: 4069
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #130 on: January 12, 2018, 02:18:40 PM »

Physics is far more interesting.


Certainly more contentious.

Than Scrap's SJWs?

Physics is far more objective.
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Karma: -169
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #131 on: January 12, 2018, 04:32:29 PM »

Physics is far more interesting.


Certainly more contentious.

Than Scrap's SJWs?

Physics is far more objective.


See? Even you object.

Online Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 12333
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #132 on: January 12, 2018, 05:24:38 PM »
LOL'd at the Schrödinger's vet thing, tho. Brilliant.
Agreed.

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96958
  • Karma: 4069
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #133 on: January 13, 2018, 05:11:16 AM »
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Offline Minister of silly walks

  • Frequent Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
  • Karma: 28
Re: The Progressive ideology exposed
« Reply #134 on: January 14, 2018, 10:53:42 PM »
Walkie, you touched on a lot of areas in your post about science etc, and I hope you don’t mind if I just respond in very general terms.

The following is an article regarding some comments by Richard Feynman regarding scientists and belief in God. I don’t find it surprising that educated people and scientists often believe in God – as Feynman says, belief in the possibility of God is not entirely incompatible with a knowledge of science:
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/how-scientists-can-believe-in-god

And the following is an article about Einstein’s actual quotes regarding a personal God. I don’t find it surprising that a lot of people (theists, atheists, autistics, and so on) want to claim Einstein as one of their own, given his position in popular culture as “smartest person ever”.
https://www.thoughtco.com/albert-einstein-quotes-on-a-personal-god-249856
You will probably find the video at the bottom of the article interesting, it touches on the likelihood of him being on the autism spectrum as well as the widely repeated myth about Einstein’s poor results at school.

When it comes to belief in God, I’m pretty much a stickler for having an agreed definition of what God is. Otherwise you just waste your time going around in circles. What Einstein believed in was not “God” in any sort of traditional sense of the word. I call myself an atheist and, from what I’ve read, Einstein didn’t believe in God or Religion any more than I do.

At purely a layman’s level I never found the theory of relativity particularly difficult to get my head around (obviously I don’t understand all of the mathematics involved). I suspect that, when the theory of relativity was first put forward, quite a few members of the scientific community would have struggled with it because of an understanding of the universe that was largely defined, previously, by Newtonian physics.

Quantum physics is interesting. I find things like the potential implications of quantum entanglement particularly fascinating. I’ve been too lazy to try to get my head around the basics of quantum physics though, I really need to find a “quantum physics for dummies” type of book and read it cover to cover.

To anyone who is interested in the scientific method, the best resource (by far) that covers the subject in detail is “The Grand Theory” by Hawking and some other guy who is probably very smart as well. An example that really stuck with me was the conflicting theories over the nature of light, i.e. one theory said that light consisted of particles, and the alternative theory said that light consisted of waves. As it turned out, of course, both theories are valid. That is one of the big advantages of the scientific method, new advances are always possible because existing knowledge or beliefs about science have no bearing on the validity of a new hypothesis.