If the defence of a Constitution that allowed slavery is that it still pointed to the larger ideal of actual freedom for everyone, despite failing to realise it, and that it was eventually improved, then the value of the ideal is in the ongoing improvement, not in refusing change.
No-one, certainly not me, is "refusing change." But you shouldn't abandon core principles on the basis that they're not fashionable this week. The preamble to the Constitution still contains the basics of the American experiment. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And if someone suggests changing the preamble rather than any of the topics raised in this thread, that will be more than a strawman argument.
Conservatives are the ones abandoning those principles! Are you daft? Women have no control over their own bodies. Gays have no control over their choice of marriage partners. Children have no control over their religion. Oh, and anyone who isn't "Christian" is fucked. Stop pretending to uphold these things with one side of your mouth, then deny them out of the other.
Way to prove my point? Yes. Social justice should always be a priority. Debate? of course. There are many ways to work things out, we have to find which is the best. The problem is that Conservatives shut down every discussion with "NO! We HAVE to go back to 1776!"
Well no, my point was you immediately went to shut me down and paint me as someone who hate progress rather than actually expand on my post. As for social justice should always be a priority, well given the definition of social justice is rather fluid, I'd rather some concrete examples. Trans- and intersex being able to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with? Yup, fine with that. Some of the censorship of views in public spaces I've seen floated? Nope. If you can't deal with a different opinion, you may as well go chug a bleach cocktail now as life has a lot of worse things in store as you get along in life. So, that's why you tried to shut me down with a "it's the same BS!" rather than engage me on it? They're not alone in shutting down debate. I had a wonderful moment a few years back when I said I disagreed with the UK gay civil unions laws, which immediately got most of the company I was with foaming at the mouth. After about 15 minutes of relentless whining and abuse had exhausted their jaws I pointed out that I didn't think they went far enough and wanted marriage between any consenting adults, regardless of gender or number, to be recognised by the state, whilst allowing churches to choose whether they would provide a religious service, which was why I disagreed with them. At least one had the good grace to apologize for making a knee jerk assumption I was about to condemn the concept. The rest mumbled. I sympathise with a lot of left wing views, not all, but a lot - however I don't like hanging around them overly much. If you're doing a graph of arrogant cuntyness, the right certainly certainly zooms upwards, however the left starts at a much higher value of cuntyness.
"Work things out" and "slow down" are different propositions, and "slow down" is a very difficult proposition for a person who already enjoys full rights to offer to one who doesn't.
You accuse me of shutting down debate, but you don't seem amenable to debate when you start off with " 'progressive' has been somewhat hijacked to mean " cuz I quit reading after that.
The constitution is more than the 2nd amendment, which liberals are at worst seeking to limit because ability to wield deadly weapons fucking well SHOULD have some limits. And if you think you can argue for liberals trying to undermine anything else, go right ahead. Meanwhile, maybe you can remember the political affiliation of the last US president to say "the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper!"?
I don't think so. There ARE people on the margins of any political worldview who claim to be the "true" representitives, but are not, in fact, that. In the same sense that Richard Spencer is not the true face of Conservatism (or libertarians) the people you describe are not the face of mainstream progressives.
The thing is the current incarnation of the party of progressives are anything but. They'd give Hitler a run for his money.
I'm on your side, but you tend to come out swinging rather than searching for common ground. #tonepolicing
This is probably true. I've always been a fighter. And I've been fighting against people attacking my liberal principles all my life. I'm thinking it's time they started trying to find common ground with me. Why should liberals always be the ones to have to play nice - especially when we're accused of doing the stone-throwing.
since when do liberals play nice? They appear to play nice (or at least their echo chamber thinks they are playing nice) and by golly their excrement has the same noxious smell as that of a conservative as far as I know.
the new revelations are dropping so hard and fast it's basically impossible to foreecast where this runaway train is going or when it will get there
He will have some health problems and resign declaring himself the winner and citing them as reason by years end.
You understand that debate consists of making an assertion, and that assertion being challenged? I made an assertion, you stopped reading and dived right into assumptions and opted to try and close me down without most of the information. Uh-huh. @Dayton3 mate, you've got a twin sister.