Andra - as I read your articles every day on Project 2025, it gets me thinking on all these other topics that impact humanity ..... I do realize that I'm not at an A La Carte Cafe where I can order any particular article from you on demand ( lol)..... so please don't think that when I ask off topic questions. 😊
I'm very interested in what project 2025 has to say (future article from you) about: the pharmaceutical industry/ big pharma - and mental health issues. I presume the Christian nationalist do not believe in mental health issues ( like bipolar and schizophrenia) they likely think it is due to negative attachments & demonic possession that require only Deliverance.
I’m making a list of these questions now, Julie. I planned out a theme for each week. But I’d like to add this kind of content for paid subscribers only. I mean, I’m going to make it all paid only in a bit, but in the meantime, this will give you something extra. This is a great question.
It's always frustrating when they say things that sound good but they mean something very different by them. The whole point of environmentalism is so that we can continue to live on the planet. Duh. That's hardly anti-human. I suppose there are some who practice environmentalism in a misanthropic way, but as usual they paint their opponents in the least favorable way possible, so they can use straw man arguments. If anything is anti-human, I could think of nothing more so than putting a god over all of us, to disregard all of our own wants and needs, our own fulfillment. Of course that's the whole point to them, but it's strikingly anti-human. As usual, they tell on themselves by being afflicted with whatever they criticize, and it's always projection.
I get frustrated with how much environmentalism has been commandeered by capitalism. And of course, things can only change if we stop consuming so much, deny ourselves, and live simpler lives. (Based upon their teachings, they should LOVE that concept. Sigh.)
I will keep repeating that Project 2025's climate policies were written by people who want to force us to live in a burning world because only God can destroy the earth...in the next 25 years or so. Yes, it's also oil money, but I cannot stress enough how much Christian Nationalists believe only God can destroy the earth.
Well, maybe they're right, if God made horrible people who will destroy their planet, their own home.
I think there are some tricky issues that come up and I think it's when liberalism and progressivism come to somewhat different conclusions. To me progressivism can mimic conservatism in using state power to tell people what they -should- do. The difference being that conservatism wants to preserve the existing power structure, while progressivism seeks to create a new better one. Liberalism to me, and maybe I'm just revealing my own bias, is about seeking to have every individual realize their own full potential and fulfillment. So in this case, I'd be arguing that progressive environmentalism says we must deny ourselves, while liberal environmentalism would say let's find smarter ways to get what we want that can be sustainable for future generations.
I also make a distinction between capitalism and free markets, even though they're often used as synonyms. To me capitalism is about ownership, which is (at least somewhat) separate from the idea of free markets, which are a method to allocate resources using the aggregate of individuals' choices. Again, that sounds liberal, right? So for me it's not necessarily a problem for environmentalism to be co-opted by markets; it's more of a solution. With the big caveat that the accounting has to be honest. There is plenty of markets pretending to be environmentally friendly, but the numbers don't add up. Still to me it's more about the method we want to use to approach the problem.
Maybe the reason I'm inclined to make these distinctions and choose the more liberal options is because progressivism can be dour, which I accept when we're certain of doing the right thing, but if we're at all wrong, and if we're fighting human nature, human wants and needs and desires, too much, we're more likely for it to turn out wrong I think, then that just compounds it. So I guess if I can attack a problem with a carrot instead of a stick, I prefer it, and people are much more agreeable to it. But none of this should argue against the urgency of taking action.
So tl;dr I'm more of a liberal, but I will choose progressives over conservatives because at least they have good intentions, in my view. The question is whether we can put together and keep a coalition of progressives, liberals, and moderates, to stand against the conservatives. And who knows, maybe the end IS near and maybe we do need to radically deny ourselves, idk.
Yes, the progressive “we will force you to accept X because we are right” is the same as the conservative “we will force you to accept Y because we are right.” It’s a big reason we are where we are as a country.
I’m definitely a liberal and see it similarly to you, though I never thought about it in those terms. So thank you for helping me with my own growth.
Yes, the question is always, what's the liberal response to deeply illiberal people, such as Christian Nationalists. You've made the point many times before that forcing them to accept our way doesn't work, and at its most extreme it would be possible to be as illiberal as they are from the opposite direction, which is not really something to aspire to.
What can be difficult though is deciding when you're exercising your own rights, and when you're infringing on the rights of others. Abortion is a really easy one. It's absolutely no one's business what's going on in someone else's body. But what about smoking, for example? There's the question of other people breathing in the air and there's also the question of the health care systems we all pay for and use devoting resources to self-inflicted illnesses (which to me is an even bigger issue for unhealthy diets than for smoking). I would tend to be tolerant, but the opposing arguments aren't obviously wrong either. What of the second amendment? Is self-defense liberal, or does having guns everywhere infringe too much on people's freedom to live their lives and reasonable expectations of safety? Every liberal democracy other than the United States has concluded the latter and I think that's right; our empirical experience here carries more weight to me than abstract arguments.
A really vexing one is parental rights: the right to raise your own child, but what about the rights the children themselves have, or ought to have if we're being liberal? You could probably speak to this better than I because of your own difficult personal experience; I'm not sure where the line is. This is where education policy also comes in and gets fraught. Everyone thinks someone else is indoctrinating their kids. But I am also very leery of preventing children from being exposed to other ways of doing things.
It's not always easy to figure out what course of action represents the maximum kindness and empathy. That's always where I want to end up, and it's a searching process. I am very happy if something I say provides a useful insight! :)
Exactly.... And the way they word salad this stuff has me reading it 3 times to decode. Oh my! How will the fuckin idiot tRump ever figure this out. Lol. He won't..... B/c he's not going to win. But every Presidential election is a risk for democracy. The rest of our lives are at risk.....state & national.
Does the Christian Taliban not learn anything valuable at all regarding renewable, green from the state of California? Fossil fuel jobs convert over to renewable green jobs, no one is left behind, the poor and elderly are not harmed. I suppose the minute anyone says California to them they run to grab their Bibles..... fornication is the work of the devil. 😂
Yes, California is the Land of Woke. Home to the Hollywood sewer and Sodom and Gomorrah Francisco. And immigrants streaming unchecked across the border.
"Environmental extremism is anti-human"....... Lol.... never heard that one. As if we want to stop the use of fossil fuels on Friday this week.....or not run some level of redundant systems to ensure continuity.
"Cheap grace" is another Christo-fascist concept that deserves its own post. I have several of these and will roll them out for paid subscribers only next week.
Andra - as I read your articles every day on Project 2025, it gets me thinking on all these other topics that impact humanity ..... I do realize that I'm not at an A La Carte Cafe where I can order any particular article from you on demand ( lol)..... so please don't think that when I ask off topic questions. 😊
I'm very interested in what project 2025 has to say (future article from you) about: the pharmaceutical industry/ big pharma - and mental health issues. I presume the Christian nationalist do not believe in mental health issues ( like bipolar and schizophrenia) they likely think it is due to negative attachments & demonic possession that require only Deliverance.
I’m making a list of these questions now, Julie. I planned out a theme for each week. But I’d like to add this kind of content for paid subscribers only. I mean, I’m going to make it all paid only in a bit, but in the meantime, this will give you something extra. This is a great question.
It's always frustrating when they say things that sound good but they mean something very different by them. The whole point of environmentalism is so that we can continue to live on the planet. Duh. That's hardly anti-human. I suppose there are some who practice environmentalism in a misanthropic way, but as usual they paint their opponents in the least favorable way possible, so they can use straw man arguments. If anything is anti-human, I could think of nothing more so than putting a god over all of us, to disregard all of our own wants and needs, our own fulfillment. Of course that's the whole point to them, but it's strikingly anti-human. As usual, they tell on themselves by being afflicted with whatever they criticize, and it's always projection.
I get frustrated with how much environmentalism has been commandeered by capitalism. And of course, things can only change if we stop consuming so much, deny ourselves, and live simpler lives. (Based upon their teachings, they should LOVE that concept. Sigh.)
I will keep repeating that Project 2025's climate policies were written by people who want to force us to live in a burning world because only God can destroy the earth...in the next 25 years or so. Yes, it's also oil money, but I cannot stress enough how much Christian Nationalists believe only God can destroy the earth.
Well, maybe they're right, if God made horrible people who will destroy their planet, their own home.
I think there are some tricky issues that come up and I think it's when liberalism and progressivism come to somewhat different conclusions. To me progressivism can mimic conservatism in using state power to tell people what they -should- do. The difference being that conservatism wants to preserve the existing power structure, while progressivism seeks to create a new better one. Liberalism to me, and maybe I'm just revealing my own bias, is about seeking to have every individual realize their own full potential and fulfillment. So in this case, I'd be arguing that progressive environmentalism says we must deny ourselves, while liberal environmentalism would say let's find smarter ways to get what we want that can be sustainable for future generations.
I also make a distinction between capitalism and free markets, even though they're often used as synonyms. To me capitalism is about ownership, which is (at least somewhat) separate from the idea of free markets, which are a method to allocate resources using the aggregate of individuals' choices. Again, that sounds liberal, right? So for me it's not necessarily a problem for environmentalism to be co-opted by markets; it's more of a solution. With the big caveat that the accounting has to be honest. There is plenty of markets pretending to be environmentally friendly, but the numbers don't add up. Still to me it's more about the method we want to use to approach the problem.
Maybe the reason I'm inclined to make these distinctions and choose the more liberal options is because progressivism can be dour, which I accept when we're certain of doing the right thing, but if we're at all wrong, and if we're fighting human nature, human wants and needs and desires, too much, we're more likely for it to turn out wrong I think, then that just compounds it. So I guess if I can attack a problem with a carrot instead of a stick, I prefer it, and people are much more agreeable to it. But none of this should argue against the urgency of taking action.
So tl;dr I'm more of a liberal, but I will choose progressives over conservatives because at least they have good intentions, in my view. The question is whether we can put together and keep a coalition of progressives, liberals, and moderates, to stand against the conservatives. And who knows, maybe the end IS near and maybe we do need to radically deny ourselves, idk.
Yes, the progressive “we will force you to accept X because we are right” is the same as the conservative “we will force you to accept Y because we are right.” It’s a big reason we are where we are as a country.
I’m definitely a liberal and see it similarly to you, though I never thought about it in those terms. So thank you for helping me with my own growth.
Yes, the question is always, what's the liberal response to deeply illiberal people, such as Christian Nationalists. You've made the point many times before that forcing them to accept our way doesn't work, and at its most extreme it would be possible to be as illiberal as they are from the opposite direction, which is not really something to aspire to.
What can be difficult though is deciding when you're exercising your own rights, and when you're infringing on the rights of others. Abortion is a really easy one. It's absolutely no one's business what's going on in someone else's body. But what about smoking, for example? There's the question of other people breathing in the air and there's also the question of the health care systems we all pay for and use devoting resources to self-inflicted illnesses (which to me is an even bigger issue for unhealthy diets than for smoking). I would tend to be tolerant, but the opposing arguments aren't obviously wrong either. What of the second amendment? Is self-defense liberal, or does having guns everywhere infringe too much on people's freedom to live their lives and reasonable expectations of safety? Every liberal democracy other than the United States has concluded the latter and I think that's right; our empirical experience here carries more weight to me than abstract arguments.
A really vexing one is parental rights: the right to raise your own child, but what about the rights the children themselves have, or ought to have if we're being liberal? You could probably speak to this better than I because of your own difficult personal experience; I'm not sure where the line is. This is where education policy also comes in and gets fraught. Everyone thinks someone else is indoctrinating their kids. But I am also very leery of preventing children from being exposed to other ways of doing things.
It's not always easy to figure out what course of action represents the maximum kindness and empathy. That's always where I want to end up, and it's a searching process. I am very happy if something I say provides a useful insight! :)
Exactly.... And the way they word salad this stuff has me reading it 3 times to decode. Oh my! How will the fuckin idiot tRump ever figure this out. Lol. He won't..... B/c he's not going to win. But every Presidential election is a risk for democracy. The rest of our lives are at risk.....state & national.
I hope it will get easier for everyone to decode as they spend more time here. That was one of my biggest goals.
Does the Christian Taliban not learn anything valuable at all regarding renewable, green from the state of California? Fossil fuel jobs convert over to renewable green jobs, no one is left behind, the poor and elderly are not harmed. I suppose the minute anyone says California to them they run to grab their Bibles..... fornication is the work of the devil. 😂
Yes, California is the Land of Woke. Home to the Hollywood sewer and Sodom and Gomorrah Francisco. And immigrants streaming unchecked across the border.
"Environmental extremism is anti-human"....... Lol.... never heard that one. As if we want to stop the use of fossil fuels on Friday this week.....or not run some level of redundant systems to ensure continuity.
It’s absurd.
Can you unpack the phrase "cheap grace" for us?
"Cheap grace" is another Christo-fascist concept that deserves its own post. I have several of these and will roll them out for paid subscribers only next week.