Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, the crime itself had nothing to do with her ut her response to it will be a very good predictor of what we should expect when it comes to crime and safety. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we hear the usual Black Lynch Mob narrative...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampert
I understand you have your narrative to push but this has nothing to do with a mayor that was just elected a few days ago.
What about using the proper thread to discuss crime in Boston?
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,940,305 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space_League
That's the benefit of history is we get to look back and see where political/cultural/social movements were justified and righteous. That doesn't make change inherantly good in any given situation, nor is it to say that nothing needs to be changed in modern society.
Conservative ideals have played just as important a role as progressive through history and to this day. We can't just write off either one and miss its value
Conservative ideals did some good, but the so called conservatives of today don't hold any of the conservative values that did those few good things.
Conservation (same base word) was something conservatives for a long long time held in high regard historically (much of their voter base was and still is sporting groups), but the so called conservatives of today don't even give lip service to conservation. That's one of many examples.
(though mostly their "important role" was to prevent progress and bolster the existing power structure... they may have been important, but that doesn't mean they were beneficial)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie
Unlike you, I'm not comparing them based on the nuances of how they may have been viewed but to the reality and substance of what they represent. Postmodernism and "Woke-ism" in many ways simply reinvents the very injustices people in history have fought to eradicate. They aren't comparable regardless of the comparisons of how they were, or were not, viewed. The goals of the people you cite involved moving beyond identity, postmodernists bring us back.
I don't agree at all. Bring us back? We've barely left. They're still fighting the fight to eradicate racism, homophobia/heterosexism, misogyny, etc. It isn't like these things were ever eradicated. Not even close. They're still dug in deep. At the very core of our society. Plenty of people out there much more educated on these things than I will ever be believe it is fundamentally impossible to eliminate most of this as our very country and society was largely built on them.
Last edited by timberline742; 11-07-2021 at 03:46 PM..
I don't agree at all. Bring us back? We've barely left. They're still fighting the fight to eradicate racism, homophobia/heterosexism, misogyny, etc. It isn't like these things were ever eradicated. Not even close. They're still dug in deep. At the very core of our society. Plenty of people out there much more educated on these things than I will ever be believe it is fundamentally impossible to eliminate most of this as our very country and society was largely built on them.
Sorry but you've missed the point. First of all if you think no progress has been made you need to study history a little more closely. Secondly, introspective people understand that biases are part of human nature and will never be fully eradicated. What those people fought for was not the eradication of bias but of unequal and discriminatory treatment of people under the law. Indeed, MLK sought for people to be judged based on the content of their character. The ideals were for a society that moved beyond identity and toward common goals of humanity. That's not what postmodern wokeism is about and it only sets back progress which has been made in that respect.
Eradicate racism you say? If that’s the case why hasn’t anyone said a word about that cozy little “church” at 10 Washington in Dorchester, and why was a racist who makes David Duke sound like a schoolboy named Boston’s person of the year?
Also heterosexism? Got any more fun *ism buzzwords?
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Conservative ideals did some good, but the so called conservatives of today don't hold any of the conservative values that did those few good things.
Conservation (same base word) was something conservatives for a long long time held in high regard historically (much of their voter base was and still is sporting groups), but the so called conservatives of today don't even give lip service to conservation. That's one of many examples.
(though mostly their "important role" was to prevent progress and bolster the existing power structure... they may have been important, but that doesn't mean they were beneficial)
I don't agree at all. Bring us back? We've barely left. They're still fighting the fight to eradicate racism, homophobia/heterosexism, misogyny, etc. It isn't like these things were ever eradicated. Not even close. They're still dug in deep. At the very core of our society. Plenty of people out there much more educated on these things than I will ever be believe it is fundamentally impossible to eliminate most of this as our very country and society was largely built on them.
Conservative ideals did some good, but the so called conservatives of today don't hold any of the conservative values that did those few good things.
Conservation (same base word) was something conservatives for a long long time held in high regard historically (much of their voter base was and still is sporting groups), but the so called conservatives of today don't even give lip service to conservation. That's one of many examples.
(though mostly their "important role" was to prevent progress and bolster the existing power structure... they may have been important, but that doesn't mean they were beneficial)
I think the more important thing is exactly what you seem to dislike about conservatism. The point is to preserve the beliefs and traditions that carried us through in the past. Our ancestors weren't always as dumb as we think, and sometimes they still have things to teach us. Their voices are still worth listening to in many cases.
The examples where those beliefs and traditions were injust are immediately obvious, and in those cases conservatives were holding us back, sometimes in a big way. But those aren't the majority of cases. For every practical reform that moves us forward there are many more half-baked schemes that will set us back. Conservatives are supposed to serve as a guard rail against those kind of changes just like progressives should serve as a guard rail against social stagnation.
It's not always easy to pick out cases where conservatism saved a society from collapse, because in those cases society didn't collapse. How can anyone say for sure a society would have collapsed until it does? That doesn't make it less important, just harder to measure
It's easier to identify cases where conservatives lost and as a result of societal changes, those societies collapsed.
i think the more important thing is exactly what you seem to dislike about conservatism. The point is to preserve the beliefs and traditions that carried us through in the past. Our ancestors weren't always as dumb as we think, and sometimes they still have things to teach us. Their voices are still worth listening to in many cases.
The examples where those beliefs and traditions were injust are immediately obvious, and in those cases conservatives were holding us back, sometimes in a big way. But those aren't the majority of cases. For every practical reform that moves us forward there are many more half-baked schemes that will set us back. Conservatives are supposed to serve as a guard rail against those kind of changes just like progressives should serve as a guard rail against social stagnation.
It's not always easy to pick out cases where conservatism saved a society from collapse, because in those cases society didn't collapse. How can anyone say for sure a society would have collapsed until it does? That doesn't make it less important, just harder to measure
it's easier to identify cases where conservatives lost and as a result of societal changes, those societies collapsed.
I think the more important thing is exactly what you seem to dislike about conservatism. The point is to preserve the beliefs and traditions that carried us through in the past. Our ancestors weren't always as dumb as we think, and sometimes they still have things to teach us. Their voices are still worth listening to in many cases.
The examples where those beliefs and traditions were injust are immediately obvious, and in those cases conservatives were holding us back, sometimes in a big way. But those aren't the majority of cases. For every practical reform that moves us forward there are many more half-baked schemes that will set us back. Conservatives are supposed to serve as a guard rail against those kind of changes just like progressives should serve as a guard rail against social stagnation.
It's not always easy to pick out cases where conservatism saved a society from collapse, because in those cases society didn't collapse. How can anyone say for sure a society would have collapsed until it does? That doesn't make it less important, just harder to measure
It's easier to identify cases where conservatives lost and as a result of societal changes, those societies collapsed.
Nope. As a lifelong Massachusetts Republican, my issue is with populists. Traditionally, a Massachusetts Republican has been a fiscal conservative and social moderate. Unless there’s a recession, the budget should balance. We should only borrow for infrastructure. I have no love of paying taxes but I recognize that we can’t have a strong country without infrastructure and that includes education. If I’m paying taxes, i want value for my tax dollars. I’m all for the safety net but the objective needs to be to educate people so they’re not reliant on the safety net. Recall that Richard Nixon brought us the clean air and clean water acts. My Republican Party used to be environmentalists. Today’s Republican Party is the antithesis of that. It panders to ignorant people to elect representatives who pass laws that benefit the truly rich. It’s incredibly corrupt. To stay on topic, Massachusetts Republicans supported public health. Today’s national Republican Party is as anti-public health as you can get. I can only take solace that the Bill Welds and Charlie Bakers aren’t aligned with the national party at all.
Recall that Richard Nixon brought us the clean air and clean water acts. My Republican Party used to be environmentalists.
That's 50 years ago. That party isn't just dead, it has also decomposed already.
The presence of Baker and Weld in the GOP only shows how odd it is to have a 2-party system. In most countries in the world there would be a moderate conservative party for people like Baker but here if you don't vote for the R or the D you are considered someone that likes to waste his/her vote.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,940,305 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampert
That's 50 years ago. That party isn't just dead, it has also decomposed already.
The presence of Baker and Weld in the GOP only shows how odd it is to have a 2-party system. In most countries in the world there would be a moderate conservative party for people like Baker but here if you don't vote for the R or the D you are considered someone that likes to waste his/her vote.
We do. That's the mainstream Democratic party, from a Western Nation political view.
We do. That's the mainstream Democratic party, from a Western Nation political view.
Doesn't really change much since then you are missing a moderate left party and a truly left party...
Regardless, I have read this idea many times and it really isn't the case at all.
The democratic party is quite far left on certain social issues by European standards. It's more toward the center on economic issues but rally there are no moderate conservative parties that push minority rights or PC culture in the same way in Europe. On the other hand there are quite a few left parties in Europe that are more socially conservative than the democratic party in the US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
re
