Why atheists, Satanists, heathens, etc can't be Americans or Westerners

[jacksonsprat22]

There were different concepts of the Prime Mover in Ancient Greece. The idea that it was a creator god was just one of them.

I am not aware of the term being used by anyone but Aristotle.

[Cypress]

I do. And left wing Christians even have a significant presence in the South. They're part of what drives sanctuary policies and open immigration.

That being said, I do give them credit for supporting the Civil Rights Movement of the past. That was back when progressivism made more sense.

Liberal Christians and the Christian left were at the forefront of slavery abolition, 1960s civil rights, the eradication of apartheid, Latin American liberation theology, and all the social justice movements of the early 20th century. They also play important roles in environmentalism and climate change.

I find that message boards are fertile ground for stereotype and simplistic caricature, whether it be atheist or devout; capitalist or socialist.

[Saudade]

Any philosophy can be used for propaganda. But because Progressivism is based on logical principles, it's less malleable than religion. You could use Progressivism to promote laissez-faire Capitalism, but it would be a lot more difficult.

Actually, progressivism has changed a lot of what it's based on over the years. It was connected to eugenics and temperance movements initially, but it only halfway supports eugenics now and doesn't seem to have any support for temperance currently. About half of progressives were imperialist in the 1890s and early 1900s. Now, they seem to be less so or are often non-interventionist.

When it comes to social attitudes, however, there seems to be an ever-changing stance on what is racist vs. what isn't. It used to be that being colorblind was desirable. Now, that's apparently racist. It used to be that suggesting we're all one race was progressive, but that's white supremist, apparently.

You never know when something that used to be acceptable or even preferable is suddenly heresy or blasphemy.

This is also shown by biological women who express concerns that allowing biological males into female spaces presents safety concerns. It used to be progressive to protect women, but that's transphobic if you limit transgender people in any way for any reason.

[StoneByStone]

Actually, progressivism has changed a lot of what it's based on over the years. It was connected to eugenics and temperance movements initially, but it only halfway supports eugenics now and doesn't seem to have any support for temperance currently. About half of progressives were imperialist in the 1890s and early 1900s. Now, they seem to be less so or are often non-interventionist.

How exactly are you defining Progressivism? If you mean anyone who wants to change society, that's not really a single philosophy. Social Darwinists can be called progressive in that they want major changes, but they're not progressive in the context most people would use that word.

When it comes to social attitudes, however, there seems to be an ever-changing stance on what is racist vs. what isn't. It used to be that being colorblind was desirable. Now, that's apparently racist. It used to be that suggesting we're all one race was progressive, but that's white supremist, apparently.

That's because the racism narrative is being driven by (((Globalists))) and really doesn't fit in with all of the other aspects of Progressivism. Race has become the weird uncle of the Left.

This is also shown by biological women who express concerns that allowing biological males into female spaces presents safety concerns. It used to be progressive to protect women, but that's transphobic if you limit transgender people in any way for any reason.

Progressives still believe in protecting women. We just accept that allowing biological males into women spaces doesn't actually present safety concerns. The places that allow trans women into women's bathrooms hasn't actually led to an increase in rape, like Conservatives hoped it would.
Personally, I think people should be legally allowed to self-segregate themselves any way they want. I just think it's stupid to segregate based on gender.

[Iolo/Penderyn]

My point was that, when considering most cultures today got where they were through imperialism, it doesn't accomplish much to dwell on it.

Most of the rich got there by theft, and it accomplishes a great deal to keep pointing it out. All this racism crap, again, comes out of imperialism, and is just a way to make the mugs do what their masters require, as you know, so that they could expand their thieving abroad..

[Saudade]

Most of the rich got there by theft, and it accomplishes a great deal to keep pointing it out. All this racism crap, again, comes out of imperialism, and is just a way to make the mugs do what their masters require, as you know, so that they could expand their thieving abroad..

Well, if you're a socialist, your cynicism toward the success of others certainly explains why.

[Saudade]

How exactly are you defining Progressivism? If you mean anyone who wants to change society, that's not really a single philosophy. Social Darwinists can be called progressive in that they want major changes, but they're not progressive in the context most people would use that word.

That's because the racism narrative is being driven by (((Globalists))) and really doesn't fit in with all of the other aspects of Progressivism. Race has become the weird uncle of the Left.

So what actually would be consistent with Progressivism regarding race before that? I did bring up eugenics, because of its racial views. Are you saying progressives would still be eugenicists today?

Progressives still believe in protecting women. We just accept that allowing biological males into women spaces doesn't actually present safety concerns. The places that allow trans women into women's bathrooms hasn't actually led to an increase in rape, like Conservatives hoped it would.
Personally, I think people should be legally allowed to self-segregate themselves any way they want. I just think it's stupid to segregate based on gender.

Well, I was actually referring more to the issues that have been discovered with prisons. The UK, in particular, has experienced serious rape problems by allowing biological males into prisons with biological females. Just because a felon identifies as female doesn't make "her" less able to rape biologically female inmates.

[StoneByStone]

So what actually would be consistent with Progressivism regarding race before that? I did bring up eugenics, because of its racial views. Are you saying progressives would still be eugenicists today?

Probably, in that they would want to keep non-white immigration to a reasonable minimum. I don't think they'd still be against miscegenation.

Well, I was actually referring more to the issues that have been discovered with prisons. The UK, in particular, has experienced serious rape problems by allowing biological males into prisons with biological females. Just because a felon identifies as female doesn't make "her" less able to rape biologically female inmates.

That's definitely a complicated issue. Trans women are often targeted in male prisons, but then cis males just say they're trans so that they can get sent to a women's prison. I think the real issue here is the lack of protection for prisoners.