| ▲ | ballmerpoint 5 hours ago |
| (1952). Heinlein was such an odd fellow. Extremely progressive on one hand and extremely regressive on the other, sometimes in the span of a single paragraph. |
|
| ▲ | jankovicsandras 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes. Philip K. Dick wrote this about Heinlein: "Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him—one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don't agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn't raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I'm a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick#cite_note-32 |
|
| ▲ | Leonard_of_Q 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Heinlein wasn't "regressive" but conservative. Your formulation indicates that it is you who might not be progressive but regressive since conservatism - same root as conservatorship - is a legitimate and, especially in good times, logical and effective strategy: keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much or too fast lest you destroy that which worked. Heinlein wrote this in 1952 when the sky wasn't the limit anymore and people were reaching for the "stars" - well, low earth orbit anyway - so he had plenty of backing for his conservatism. |
| |
| ▲ | gojogs 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > keep that which works you forgot the "pretend that everything works" part | |
| ▲ | TuringTest 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > conservatism is a legitimate and, especially in good times, logical and effective strategy: keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much Conservatism runs entirely on the ingroup-outgroup divide - "keep that which works for us", and be a force opposing changes sought by people for whom things are not going so well, for whom change is the logical strategy. Honest conservatives can see past the blind spot of the divide and don't try to present their strategy as a universal ethical good. | |
| ▲ | watwut 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is not what conservativism as political ideology is. Like common, not clearly that and we have multiple years where this was made super clear by conservatives themselves. Conservativism has nothing to do with "conservatorship". They are not trying to conserve, they are trying to force radical change - sometimes to imaginary past and sometimes toward something completely new. And then violently keep it there regardless of needs of other people. | | |
| ▲ | ileonichwiesz an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s one of those cases where the label has stayed the same, but the thing it commonly describes has changed so much that the word just has multiple completely different meanings. There’s the “let’s create National Parks to conserve our natural treasures!” conservatism and there’s the “let’s sell our National Parks to the highest bidder so they can drill for oil!” conservatism. It can mean fiscal responsibility and small government, or it can mean crypto scams and surveillance state. This happens a lot when describing political positions. | |
| ▲ | EdwardDiego 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is like how Americans of the "conservative" bent use "liberal" as a perjorative, despite holding to liberal (or, occasionally, neoliberal) economic theory. I don't get America at all. | |
| ▲ | xbar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. That is reactionary. Conservatism means "government should govern as little as possible to guarantee freedoms, and no less. it should not provide services for a fee (aka tax)." | | |
| ▲ | watwut an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It never meant that. Conservativism does not care about freedoms, expect for cherry picked few freedoms for selected few. It also does not care about small government, it cares about government small in some areas and huge in others. Conservative voters do not care about freedom, conservative politicians do not care about freedom and and considerable amounts of them are actively opposed to it. Conservativism is consistently very authoritarian. It is about hierarchies, not freedom. | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You definition sounds more like anarchism or some kind of ultra-libertarian end goal. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | GMoromisato 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is also possible, maybe even likely, that we are the ones who are odd. |
| |
|
| ▲ | chr15m 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Interesting that you choose "regressive" as the opposite of progressive. thinking emoji |
|
| ▲ | ai_critic 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
