Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2
From	Message
proginoskes 15-Feb-13, 09:53	Bad stereotypes and generalizations I think - part of the problem, yes? I'm not a conservative because I LOVE ignorance. Lol. Come on Jeff!! I'm a conservative mostly because I appreciate that *radical* (or too quick of a) change often leaves culture and society in a disastrous state. I'm careful with change because I appreciate history. Change too quick and drastically and bad things tend to come up in the gaps. The rare exception to this rule historically does not invalidate this rule, but by virtue of it's rarity UNDERLINES this principle. I see liberals as tossing dice . . . dice loaded with kerosine and dynamite! Ha! Though, to be fair, liberals are not the only group that tries to do this. I'm just as cautious about "conservative" (in quotes for a reason) moves BACK to something that has already changed and we've adjusted for as a culture and society.
rmannstaedt 15-Feb-13, 09:54	I really feel that we should use "progressives" instead of liberals, in this discussion. Liberals are people who believe in liberalism, and once you look at what that actually is and what it means, I think very few people would choose not to believe in it. On the other hand, progressives - people who want progress and change, often from a liberal agenda - will easily generate resistance to their ideas simply because many people are conservative (in the original, non-party-alignment sense).
rmannstaedt 15-Feb-13, 09:55	... just like prog wrote above (didn't see that until after I had finished my reply)
chaz- 15-Feb-13, 10:24	... I think we're agreeing much too much here. Prog has given "some" balance, admittedly, but this is just not controversial enough to be balanced. If these are the pros, where are the cons?
zorroloco 15-Feb-13, 10:59	josh/chaz i purposefully did NOT use the word 'conservative.' i said 'far right.' i respect real conservatives and actually agree with a lot of their basic tenets. who i lack respect for are faux conservatives who denigrate education and want to go back to the 1950's. people who see the fifties as the heyday of american culture are despicable because they neglect to take into account the sorry condition of women and minorities. to them, it was great because white men could basically do whatever they wanted.
proginoskes 15-Feb-13, 11:12	Jeff Again, to be fair . . . we're like blind men trying to describe the elephant here. And you need to be careful with the identity politics, painting people who think the 50's were a good time for America do not think so because they are WHITE guys and pine for the days when WHITE guys did whatever they wanted, ostensibly at 120mph on a motorcycle while grabbing a raging hard-on in one hand and shooting a hand-gun in the other (no hands on the cycle!!!). Ha! You are correct that when you look at certain civil rights for "minorities" (not so "minor" anymore are they?? - lol) and women, there are more protections for these people in the aggregate - though, it wasn't like the entire country was full of racist, misogynist, prick white guys just keeping down the minorities and women, and that we all pine for those good ole days when you could keep a brother down (I know I do!!!11!). What conservatives think was great about the 50's wasn't that it was awesome to oppress select cohorts of the population, but rather that a guy could get a job out of high school, and pay for a house, a car, and feed a family with a strong dollar and plenty of factory jobs. Culturally we had a stable and fairly orderly society. Economy was strong.
zorroloco 15-Feb-13, 11:50	<a guy could get a job out of high school, and pay for a house, a car, and feed a family with a strong dollar and plenty of factory jobs.> exactly. a guy. a white guy. don't get me wrong. there was a lot to like about the fifties. but there was also no environmental protection, blatant widespread racism and sexism, and and senator mcarthy. it is not that there was nothing good, but rather that it was NOT the heyday some people make it out to be.
hennybogan1953 15-Feb-13, 13:15	How bad was it being woman in the 50's? All they had to do was keep house, get dinner on the table and make babies. I see no problem with it. Jeb Bush is going to usher us back to that 50's mindset and everything will be as it once was. Sodomy will be illegal, we will hate the Russians, God will be cool again.
rmannstaedt 15-Feb-13, 14:09	wonderful! ... anyone want to go vote with me ... on the other guy?
proginoskes 15-Feb-13, 14:14	Jeff In the 50s black men made a good living too - better than they do now for sure in-spite of civil rights problems in certain parts of the country, and had a lower out of wedlock birthrate than did whites. In many metrics it was also better for blacks in the 50s. And I know henny was being facetious, but many women would prefer to be at home, at least when their kids are younger, and most don't have that luxury any longer - "they've" destroyed our money to the point where a woman HAS TO work (ostensibly paying taxes too!! Ha!) There have been advances for minorities and women on certain levels, but also plenty of giant set-backs. This is some of those law of unintentional consequences that a conservative like me looks at wants to move with caution about change.
rmannstaedt 15-Feb-13, 14:18	Good points. But I still don't see a lot of women clamoring for going back to the 50'ies... nor colored people, for that matter. I understand and appreciate your wish for more caution and a bit more deliberation before we make changes in society. I don't think I actually disagree with you on that one.
proginoskes 15-Feb-13, 14:28	Well. Most adult women today, were not adult women in the 50's. Decades of radical feminism has told them things were so bad, and perhaps in the work-place they were bad for many women, and since most women do work these days, that's not the kind of thing they would want. However, I think if you couched the position: "as wouldn't you like the CHOICE to be able to stay at home?" like women had in the 50's, I dare say anyone would go for the "choice". Even women that are able to stay at home these days find it very lonely because most other women are working. Stay at home women 60 years ago were very social with each other because they were all at home. It's a large confluence of events that have come together, and do we truly have a better world for it?? Of course we are better that the work-place is now equal - it boggles my mind it was ever any other way - however, the aggregate social phenomenon . . . I am not convinced we've done women, our families, our children, or our society any favors with all the has occurred. Which is not to say I think that the civil rights should not have changed, or that we should undo them, but the ideas, the people, the movement that gave us the civil rights took it too far past where they were needed and this is why we should be cautious.
rmannstaedt 15-Feb-13, 15:25	Uhm ... why can't you say something that I can actually disagree with? (*grin*) I believe that people should have the freedom to have a choice. But it's still an economic luxury that most of us can't afford; in Denmark, one of the most affluent countries in the world (in terms of the general population) and consistently in the top 5 list of "most happy and satisfied-with-life" countries in the world, it is still very, very rare not to have both spouses out working. We simply do not have the economical means to have one half of the family stay at home. I think that is a tragic loss. But equally sad would be the situation where one half of the family *has* to stay at home because working would be a stigma and jobs very difficult to find.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.