I guess maybe we are using the terms differently.

I’m not the guy who tried to claim an insane murderer is somehow representative of an entire political party.

My whole point was that the cultural revolution was a disaster because of unchecked progressivism, and that more conservative voices could have averted the disaster. This was in response to an unhinged rant about conservatives being good for nothing and how they should be silenced. Not sure why I engaged in that insane premise to begin with, but anyway that’s how we got here.

Wtf? You people are insane

So let me get this straight, communism failed in China because it was like Trump?

Ok you’ve got to be trolling me. Goodbye.

Mao may not have been progressive, I don’t need to argue that point. But he definitely tapped into a progressive spirit driven by progressive youths and the result was a tragedy.

Eradication of the “4 olds” was a deliberate effort by the communist party to destroy old culture, in order to replace it with something new. Since when do conservatives strive to destroy and overturn existing, established culture? That literally the opposite of conservative. Or is your argument that it isn’t necessarily conservatives, but it’s not progressives either?

There will always be conservatives since it’s a relative term. But I’m guessing that you are referring to the Republican party, of which roughly half of the country belongs to, comprising everything from moderates to extremists, just like the Democrat party has. How can you preach about subverting democracy in the same breath as advocating to silence half of the country? People who cannot coexist with different opinions or world views, who lack empathy and cannot understand nuance, cannot function and don’t belong in democracy. Why don’t you drop the mask and admit to being an extremist authoritarian? and in that case don’t even bother talking about democracy.

What part of the Chinese revolution do you feel was done right, what part of it makes you think it’s a good idea and that you want to try it in America?

Conservatism is resisting change, so the whole purpose of a conservative party is to resist progressive forces, provide resistance to the rapid and sometimes over reactive changes that can result from unchecked progressivism. A good example of where it went off the rails is the Chinese cultural revolution. Conservative voices were silenced, even killed by the thousands. Years of history and artifacts were destroyed along with the economy itself. There needs to be someone to speak up when things are going crazy, and a shift to the right can be a sign that things went too far.

Yes, it’s a way to move forward with incomplete knowledge, when you need to make assumptions regardless of which theory you go with. There will always be an asterisk by theories or decisions made with this method, because one of more of the assumptions themselves could later turn out to be incorrect, thereby invalidating your decision. Occams razor is very misunderstood and used or quoted incorrectly all the time.

Gotta go with “skate or die: bad n rad”

Plus it has a sweet soundtrack

I had similar experiences, and couldn’t understand why they would discourage dialog and discussion around various issues. The thing is, they don’t actually want dialog, they want to stamp out opposition to their views as though it never existed.

You probably commented on one of the verboten subreddits. That’s how I got most of my bans.

Hah! I remember reddit

Do you actually believe this? I know a lot of conservatives, some more extreme than others, but none of them envision this kind of world, not even the ones that wanted to be at the Capitol on Jan 6. It’s contrary to virtually all Christian, conservative values. The whole premise of this story wouldn’t even hold up unless there were an extreme event causing a massive shortage of fertile women. In that case, there is no telling what kind of dystopia would emerge. Frank Herbert wrote “The White plague” in 1982 (a couple years before the handmaid’s tale), where women were nearly wiped out altogether, and it plays out similar in some respects, wildly different in others. In any event, it’s not a “goal” of any sane person, and certainly not the goal of half of the country.

The main problem with this book is in how it is applied by various people to Christianity in general (as opposed to a fringe cult), or used as an analogy of events today. It might apply in some cases, but those are so rare and unusual (back woods polygamist cults and the like), that they really don’t deserve to be discussed in context of current politics.

Stoicism teaches that you should strive for virtue, but cannot expect any particular outcome. You can’t have your happiness and contentment depend on factors outside your control, or you will inevitably be unhappy. Try to be virtuous, try to do the right thing for the right reasons, and if the outcomes are not what you hoped for, then at least you tried. Stoic virtues are wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance.