Your foundation between the two is not clear. "Conserative" and "progressive" are opposite in grammar samanics. True. But not necessarily match actual real-life people. The two real-life people are narcissist vs. liberals. These are real-life people. My favorite cartoon, Aviator, the last Airbender, had the narcissist fire nation at odds with a vegetarian (A liberal). The Fire Nation wanted to share their secret of success. The narcissist uses the BS "Conserative values" as an alibi for their narcissistic beliefs. "It's capitalism bro". And liberals don't need an alibi for their political beliefs. The airbender was a vegetarian. The internal fight of a narcissist pretending they are a liberal. The narcissist wants to share their secrets of their wealth to the rest of the world. That stereotypical fire nation mentality of my favorite cartoon. Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need to seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others, AKA a liberal. Liberal and narcissists are opposites. Please, fire nation narcissist. Tell me all about being a griffin goods supply and demand capitalist. Because, This liberal capitalist uses the normal supply and demand math chart.
Would love to see videos on more political ideologies such as minarchism, communism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, social liberalism, classical liberalism, facism, etc.
@@Nanofuture87 back when the government used to invest a lot in college during the 50s 60s and 70s, tuition was hecka cheap. Now that we spend less it’s a lot more. So why would spending even less help us??
Why? Because professors are waaaaaayyyyyy over paid; and sports are far too central. The professors need about a %1/2 pay cut. The sports need to be all but eliminated!
Many so-called progressive ideals tend to place the people in a restrictive bind, and not lead to more freedom and free enterprise for people. Innovation and finding better ways to do and create things is great, but progressivism usually makes everything political, with the Ruling Class giving themselves social and political advantage.
All our laws and rights as Americans already benefit everybody equally. Especially our constitutional rights. It's that ones with a victim mindset that don't understand that they can do anything they want to already. Just because someone on the street bullies them doesn't mean that they are not free to do as they please.
Individual citizens do like Edison and Tesla - like Walton and Woolworth, - like Ford and the Dodge brothers etc. not necessarily the private sector as a whole. That said much of achievements have come lately through DARPA, a collective governmental effort at innovation - thus the internet etc. are all from that. Solution - make it easy for innovator, entrepreneur, creative people and organize national efforts toward transforming our society through a non-military like DARPA. Both would work wonders for us and people around the world.
Socially conservative and fiscally liberal is basically the Republican Party. I’m socially conservative and fiscally progressive which is like a solidarity party
@@mike_404 the republican party is fiscally conservative. Trickle down economics, low taxes, and minimal regulation for corporations. If you are socially conservative and fiscally liberal, I’m afraid you are politically homeless as the Democratic Party is socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
I am an economic progressive, social libertarian, and on everything else for One America and national unity. The only thing that matters in government is economics. Economics is an art not a science. It is simply rules that all agree to. Independence through manufacturing our own items, selling them with our our own stores, and being able to farm our own produce etc. ensures we can determine those rules and not let someone somewhere else determine them and the value of our means of exchange which is money. Anyway - as an economic progressive there are two very important matters to control - the financial system (national banking) and payment of income to workers, retirees, and the disabled unable to work which then is spent and drives the economy through the economic vote in choice. To enhance choice anti-monopoly rules are put into place and competition rules enforced. The worker is protected against explotation with max. hours laws (8 hr day for example), guaranteed vacation time and holiday's, and breaks and is allowed representation through a Union in the workplace to protect those rights. A social tariff exists on all imports to equal out the cost of making it here to there and thus being a great force for better conditions and pay abroad and keeping our standards at home. Taxes exist to balance the money supply and create a demand for the currency thus make it valuable to obtain. Phew - some thoughts on being an economic progressive. As a social libertarian that means I believe government should legislate as little as possible in ones private and bedroom affairs and should strongly promote and defend the Bill of Rights with fines and jail time for violators of those rights and this should apply to big corporations and social media as well as government. To each his own is my rule. One America? That means promoting what would unite us out of our diversity to create a cohesive society that works. On those issues called wedge issues I tend to support compromise trending toward progress and liberty while protecting innocent life as much as possible.
The thing is, all economical theories and ideologies out there don't mean anything without one crucial thing: energies. This is exactly what we are starting to lack since 2008 and it can only decrease to about 2050 when the planet will truly be fucked. Energies are what powers the machines that produces goods and services million times more than the power of a humans muscles. Which means you can try to reach some kind of utopia if you will, the reality shows us that it is more and more impossible. If you want a working society now, you'll need restrictions, sadly. But that's how it is, we abused the power of free markets and globalism. When progressism thinks it is a "left wing ideology", I beg to differ: progressists nowadays are exactly advocating for unrestricted fluxes of people, goods, finances and ideas, which is an ultra-capitalistic thing commonly known as neoliberalism and anarcho-capitalism. The said progressists are the biggest consumerists in 21st century's existence advocating for individualism, which is exactly a private property/capitalistic type of mindset. If you want to improve living conditions, the equation is simple: you need free markets, abundance and good quality of goods. Exactly capitalistic, exactly 21st century progressist which is our current problem. Resources will not become that abundant in the near future anymore and we will have to manufacture more and more pragmatically if we want the global population to not die too horribly.
@@RonJeremy514 There is a super abundance of oil out there. We won't run out for a very long time. That said I would like to see an alternative better for our planet. Free markets are not the answer as they lead to destruction of communities and low pay etc State capitalism is the only kind that works and has ever worked. There is no conflict between individualism and community spirit they often worked together in American history. We have much to look forward took but have to shed wokism on the left and rightist free marketism on the right.
@@northmeister I wouldn't be so sure about oil, global production has started to decrease since 2008, which means less oil is used which means less economical growth. We are at a point where any ideology doesn't have the right economical answer. No energy = no machines working, which means no production at all. Without machines, you have to say goodbye to the equivalent of billion times human muscle power. Machines don't tire, they are way stronger, but they need food just like the Matrix.
I’m trying to understand why these 2 categories are being compared and contrasted. From what you said, each group represents some positive ideologies. Neither do the the opposite of the other..just different..unless you need to explain even more?
While they do focus on different topics when talking in general, they're obviously at odds. Progressives want change, while conservatives want to conserve(prevent change). Which side is correct depends entirely on whether the change in question is good or bad for society. Change is not always good, but neither is refusing every change. So they're always cockblocking each other.
@@IllustratetoEducate progressive era is a innovation and efficiency focused movement.... it literally incorporates the American efficiency movement. Industrial society brought work related ailments and reformers sought to implement efficiencies to lower workplace injury, increase production and lower waste through empirical research.... also increase voter outcome and productivity through women's suffrage and more women I nthe work force. Progressivism is about rights and civil liberties, but in the context of more efficient government, administration. So your wrong... progressivism was centered around empirical efficiency for increased human wellbeing, whereas progress was originally leading to an inflection point from hard labour. I just thought you should know as to not label 'progressives' as solely being the domain of civil liberties and social programs, cus it is not.
From what I've seen (in Ontario, Canada, where our provincial governing party refers to themselves as 'The Progressive Conservative Party') it boils down to this: we're pro big business, development, deregulation, and 'law enforcement', conservative on healthcare and social issues in general... but it's ok that you're gay.
Progressive philosophy strives for solutions that would benefit everyone while conservatives push back on those solutions but then claim credit when it works out for them as well
What a complete load of bollox. Conservatism is freedom and individualism. Progressivism is collectivism where an individual has no control over their own destiny.
why do I not find any bias in here? I am serious, there is something wrong here, how can you explain both sides neutrally? Almost most channels will claim to be neutral or at least claim to have done their best in being neutral and be clearly one sided. And yet you are actually neutral. I am not praising you, I am scrutinizing you. How can you be neutral? Do you not have a position on the matter? Here is my praise: Good job, I don't know how you do it. Good Job!
I don't believe education should have bias in it. I like presenting as much factual information as I can without including my thoughts. I like people to be able to form their own opinions. I do have my own opinions, but this isn't the place for them. It's education, not indoctrination.
@@IllustratetoEducate nothing, he doesn't have any point. just like his forehead, so round even his hair looks like it doesn't want to have anything to do with him. it looks so detached.
The first Amendment was meant to protect the church from the State, not the state from the Church. It was first suggested to Thomas Jefferson by the minister of Danbury Baptist. The actual phrasing from Thomas Jefferson makes this clear "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The free exercise of religion is the freedom which is being protected. It’s arguable that banning prayer in school is a violation of this constitutional protected right. This was never intended to encourage secularism, but to protect the Church from the same historic persecution that occurred under the British Crown. As British rulers came in and out of power they would persecute the enemies of “The Church”. That could either the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church based o the particular religious believes of the current ruler. The Baptist in particular had been persecuted by both, many of which were robbed of all there earthly possessions, imprisoned and fled to America often with very little more than the shirt on there backs.
@@vidmister Prayer is banned in most public schools when lead by a teacher, coach, or faculty member. This is because it's seen as "the government advocating for one religion over another". Kids can, because they aren't viewed as arms of the government. There are plenty of stories of coaches and teachers getting in trouble for this, as well as the "student lead prayer" workarounds.
@Firemangan Organized religion is not in opposition to the first Amendment by any means. I'm not certain what you mean, but its main point is that the US government cannot establish a state Church, such as the Anglican church, but this doesn't prevent individuals nor politicians from being religious, organized or not. Part of what American Conservatives wish to preserve is, in fact, some form of Christianity, and the cultural domination it had until very, very recently. As the founder said, I believe it was John Adams but I could be wrong, "this government is set up for a religious people, it is wholly inadequate for any other." Thus, If we wish to maintain the Republic as it is, or to bring it back to what it was, we must become a more religious people. A more religious people seem to require less restrictive laws, because if a person's conscience keeps them from doing evil, no officer needs to handcuff them. This is also where libertarianism comes in, although the main division between conservatives and libertarians is that libertarians tend to not want others to follow any specific moral code, conservatives believe that a unified moral code is required to maintain a unified society. Drugs is the best topic to show this for- Libertarians believe all drugs ought to be legal and "people will figure it out", while conservatives tend to view their countrymen as siblings and anyone would hate to see their siblings succumb to addiction. Thus, a libertarian might not enjoy organized religion, but conservatives absolutely would.
I know this was a year ago but, I have some issues with it, and yeah im late and i just found this but, I cant see any positives for conservatism or a understanding of conservatism. I dont know why everyone wouldnt be progressive in this context. I understand your point, but you need to explain why conservatism is a thing. this video is a write off for all conservative people. you dont explain why they have a say and as such you have not reached their audience.
*The word progress was invented and developed by people from different centuries with no intention to be compared with religion and the word conserve was invented and developed by people with no intention to be compared with religion.* *Daeida Hartell and Harvey Wilcox are the parents of the name Hollywood.* *Daeida Hartell and Harvey Wilcox did not know about my existence.* *The people who invented the word progress did not know about my existence.* *Imagine psychologists borrowing the name created by someone else from 1883.* *Daeida Hartell and Harvey Wilcox had no connection with religion instead they had a relationship with real estate developers.* *So foolish to borrow someone else's invented name when the original purpose of the name invented by Daeida Hartell and Harvey Wilcox has nothing to do with the use of the name in the 21st century.* Dictionaries have words invented by people like progress or conserve. I am not the blood relative of the conservatives because biologically I am their blood relative. Of course, I am not the blood relative of the progressives because biologically I am not. I like that republicans have more roots in the traditional way of doing politics. When I think about politics, the personal lives of people are irrelevant. In traditional politics, people did not pay attention to personal lives but more about the work in politics. In a normal society and traditional politics, the personal lives of politicians are concerned for their close friends and close blood relatives. I like the previous society that had traditional politics. In the past, people tend to see republicans and left-wingers as workers. A worker chooses to come to work and not talk about their personal life. I like traditional politics where everything was more about the actual work and people voted based on work more than if it is left or right. I did not know progressives and conservatives in my childhood, why I should have an obsession with the right and the left when there is no special story with politics? I did not meet the creator of Progressivism and I did not meet the creator of conservatism. In politics, Republicans have nudists so there are many bad standards in politics today. Old French progres (Modern French progrès) and directly from Latin progressus "a going forward, an advance," noun of action from past-participle stem of progredi "go forward," from pro "forward" (see pro-) + gradi "to step, walk," from gradus "a step" (from PIE root *ghredh- "to walk, go"). In early use in English especially "a state journey by royalty." Meaning Figurative sense of "growth, development, advancement to higher stages" is by c. 1600, perhaps 15c. (the senses are not easy to distinguish). To be in progress "underway" is attested by 1849 and preserves the older sense of "a course," whether good or bad (as in Hogarth's "Rake's Progress"); earlier it meant "in sequence" (as the volumes of a book), mid-15c. Progress report is attested by 1865. "to keep safe, preserve from loss or decay," late 14c., from Old French conserver (9c.), from Latin conservare "to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard," from assimilated form of com-, here perhaps an intensive prefix (see com-), + servare "keep watch, maintain" (from PIE root *ser- (1) "to protect"). Related: Conserved; conserving. As a noun (often conserves) from late 14c. as "that which preserves;" early 15c. as "a confection, something preserved with sugar, etc."
The list on your illustration of the constitution looks about right anymore😅😅😂 (scribble) both sides are ripping it to pieces and using it to wipe their asses when done talking…..
Progressivism was tied Eugenics. For people who don’t know what that term means, it’s atheistic Darwinism applied to humanity. That was the ideology of Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood. She directly stated that certain groups of people shouldn’t breed. She was very fond Nazi’s before WWII and shared many of her views with her comrades in the German National Socialist Labor Party.
@@pweddy1 that is old school progressivism. its like saying chef cook on stone because cavemen don't have pan. progressivism now a bit more like liberal they just see human no different. they like racist that believe in human race superiority.
@@pweddy1 'was' being the operative word. It's not any more, thankfully. To highlight the fact in an attempt to discredit contemporary progressives is to be disingenuous at best.
@@m.charron Modern progressives are Neo Marxist. And Marxism is inherently built upon the idea that "humanity isn't biologically prepared for communism" and thus espouses "improving" upon mankind. You don't want to call it eugenics fine, but it's the same thing.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE to support more educational videos like this one! Thanks in advance! :)
Hay didn't Herbert Hoover rejected to abolished the 18th amendment and forced by progressives to bring alcohol back.
Your foundation between the two is not clear.
"Conserative" and "progressive" are opposite in grammar samanics. True. But not necessarily match actual real-life people.
The two real-life people are narcissist vs. liberals. These are real-life people.
My favorite cartoon, Aviator, the last Airbender, had the narcissist fire nation at odds with a vegetarian (A liberal). The Fire Nation wanted to share their secret of success.
The narcissist uses the BS "Conserative values" as an alibi for their narcissistic beliefs. "It's capitalism bro".
And liberals don't need an alibi for their political beliefs. The airbender was a vegetarian.
The internal fight of a narcissist pretending they are a liberal.
The narcissist wants to share their secrets of their wealth to the rest of the world.
That stereotypical fire nation mentality of my favorite cartoon.
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need to seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others, AKA a liberal.
Liberal and narcissists are opposites.
Please, fire nation narcissist. Tell me all about being a griffin goods supply and demand capitalist. Because, This liberal capitalist uses the normal supply and demand math chart.
Would love to see videos on more political ideologies such as minarchism, communism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, social liberalism, classical liberalism, facism, etc.
Thanks for this list. I will eventually get around to all of these.
Check Ryan Chapman's channel also.
Too many parties you have mentioned. They should all be wiped out to make things simpler. Thorough thinking is for the weak.
yes
I'm glad you didn't use liberal. I feel a real liberal is independent. Being open to new ideas is not someone grounded in party ideology.
lol
You're confusing liberal with Libertarian.
Nice to see a fair description, no propaganda
how is this channel not more popular
Could you please make a video about
Why is American colleges so expensive and how to make it affordable?
There are a number of reasons, but the big ones are government spending and federal student loans. You make it affordable by stopping those things.
This is informative viewing not problem solving
@@Nanofuture87 back when the government used to invest a lot in college during the 50s 60s and 70s, tuition was hecka cheap. Now that we spend less it’s a lot more. So why would spending even less help us??
Reasons: Profits!
Why? Because professors are waaaaaayyyyyy over paid; and sports are far too central. The professors need about a %1/2 pay cut. The sports need to be all but eliminated!
Perhaps we should have progressivism ideals that benefits for everyone in the world by creating ideas for the future.
Many so-called progressive ideals tend to place the people in a restrictive bind, and not lead to more freedom and free enterprise for people. Innovation and finding better ways to do and create things is great, but progressivism usually makes everything political, with the Ruling Class giving themselves social and political advantage.
All our laws and rights as Americans already benefit everybody equally. Especially our constitutional rights. It's that ones with a victim mindset that don't understand that they can do anything they want to already. Just because someone on the street bullies them doesn't mean that they are not free to do as they please.
yo, I literally take notes whenever I watch your video!! Thank you!!
Haha that’s awesome! ✏️ thanks for watching!
I lean conservative and found this to be very fair and logical breakdown. Thank you for providing that without including bias of either side
Thank you! I’m glad you found it to be helpful! 👍🏼
Love the new intro!
Thanks! I like it a lot because it's show more of what I do right from the start.
I'm conservative and didn't understand what progressive was or how to explain it..thank you for this breakdown
Damnation Dan, another great video.
Hello mr. Dan I was just wondering if in the future you could do a video explaining what a Centrist is
Definitely! That would make a great video. Thanks for the idea!
@@IllustratetoEducate no problem sir thank you for providing such awesome content very informative and enlightening
Good job look forward to learning and perhaps teaching
There is more to “Progressive….ism”
Hope you welcome discussion
Lets keep America strong
Excellent breakdown. Thank you and please keep doing what you're doing!
Thank you so much for watching! Look for new videos every week or so.
A society needs a healthy amount of both.
Blows my mind people can look at these two and decide "yep I want my society to stagnate forever, technological and social change are horrible."
Wait until you realize that nobody ever says what you think they say.
Do private sector innovative?? Is there any reality in this? Could you make a video about it
Individual citizens do like Edison and Tesla - like Walton and Woolworth, - like Ford and the Dodge brothers etc. not necessarily the private sector as a whole. That said much of achievements have come lately through DARPA, a collective governmental effort at innovation - thus the internet etc. are all from that. Solution - make it easy for innovator, entrepreneur, creative people and organize national efforts toward transforming our society through a non-military like DARPA. Both would work wonders for us and people around the world.
This is so poggers
I had no idea what 'poggers' meant till I just looked it up now. lol!
@@IllustratetoEducate wow lol. You are honestly the most unbiased person ever
@@internetexplorer8234 I miss you in your prime bro
@@mike_404 😭😭😩
Conservatism seem to make sense to me !!!!
I am socially conservative and fiscally progressive
i’m like 68% conservative and 32% progressive
Wow thank you that was extremely helpful!
I think I am more of a social conservative and fiscally liberal .That's the reason many people say that I belong to the Nazbol gang .
I am also social conservative and fiscally progressive. So are many minorities
Socially conservative and fiscally liberal is basically the Republican Party. I’m socially conservative and fiscally progressive which is like a solidarity party
@@mike_404 the republican party is fiscally conservative. Trickle down economics, low taxes, and minimal regulation for corporations. If you are socially conservative and fiscally liberal, I’m afraid you are politically homeless as the Democratic Party is socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
@@WrestlingwithPolitics8421 What defines “liberal”? It’s a right wing ideology in economics
I am an economic progressive, social libertarian, and on everything else for One America and national unity. The only thing that matters in government is economics. Economics is an art not a science. It is simply rules that all agree to. Independence through manufacturing our own items, selling them with our our own stores, and being able to farm our own produce etc. ensures we can determine those rules and not let someone somewhere else determine them and the value of our means of exchange which is money. Anyway - as an economic progressive there are two very important matters to control - the financial system (national banking) and payment of income to workers, retirees, and the disabled unable to work which then is spent and drives the economy through the economic vote in choice. To enhance choice anti-monopoly rules are put into place and competition rules enforced. The worker is protected against explotation with max. hours laws (8 hr day for example), guaranteed vacation time and holiday's, and breaks and is allowed representation through a Union in the workplace to protect those rights. A social tariff exists on all imports to equal out the cost of making it here to there and thus being a great force for better conditions and pay abroad and keeping our standards at home. Taxes exist to balance the money supply and create a demand for the currency thus make it valuable to obtain. Phew - some thoughts on being an economic progressive. As a social libertarian that means I believe government should legislate as little as possible in ones private and bedroom affairs and should strongly promote and defend the Bill of Rights with fines and jail time for violators of those rights and this should apply to big corporations and social media as well as government. To each his own is my rule. One America? That means promoting what would unite us out of our diversity to create a cohesive society that works. On those issues called wedge issues I tend to support compromise trending toward progress and liberty while protecting innocent life as much as possible.
The thing is, all economical theories and ideologies out there don't mean anything without one crucial thing: energies. This is exactly what we are starting to lack since 2008 and it can only decrease to about 2050 when the planet will truly be fucked. Energies are what powers the machines that produces goods and services million times more than the power of a humans muscles. Which means you can try to reach some kind of utopia if you will, the reality shows us that it is more and more impossible. If you want a working society now, you'll need restrictions, sadly. But that's how it is, we abused the power of free markets and globalism. When progressism thinks it is a "left wing ideology", I beg to differ: progressists nowadays are exactly advocating for unrestricted fluxes of people, goods, finances and ideas, which is an ultra-capitalistic thing commonly known as neoliberalism and anarcho-capitalism. The said progressists are the biggest consumerists in 21st century's existence advocating for individualism, which is exactly a private property/capitalistic type of mindset.
If you want to improve living conditions, the equation is simple: you need free markets, abundance and good quality of goods. Exactly capitalistic, exactly 21st century progressist which is our current problem. Resources will not become that abundant in the near future anymore and we will have to manufacture more and more pragmatically if we want the global population to not die too horribly.
@@RonJeremy514 There is a super abundance of oil out there. We won't run out for a very long time. That said I would like to see an alternative better for our planet. Free markets are not the answer as they lead to destruction of communities and low pay etc State capitalism is the only kind that works and has ever worked. There is no conflict between individualism and community spirit they often worked together in American history. We have much to look forward took but have to shed wokism on the left and rightist free marketism on the right.
@@northmeister I wouldn't be so sure about oil, global production has started to decrease since 2008, which means less oil is used which means less economical growth. We are at a point where any ideology doesn't have the right economical answer. No energy = no machines working, which means no production at all. Without machines, you have to say goodbye to the equivalent of billion times human muscle power. Machines don't tire, they are way stronger, but they need food just like the Matrix.
So yiur a fadcist
Explain the socdem beliefs?
Both vote for consumerism and neolib capitalism in the end. It doesn't matter.
Is capitalism all bad?
In America yes, but in Europe Progressives are Democratic Socialist.
@1:41 you fucking nailed that 🤣
Hahaha thanks! I tried…
I’m trying to understand why these 2 categories are being compared and contrasted. From what you said, each group represents some positive ideologies. Neither do the the opposite of the other..just different..unless you need to explain even more?
While they do focus on different topics when talking in general, they're obviously at odds. Progressives want change, while conservatives want to conserve(prevent change). Which side is correct depends entirely on whether the change in question is good or bad for society. Change is not always good, but neither is refusing every change. So they're always cockblocking each other.
@@therainbowconnection6813 thats false, conservatives brought up reform and progressives ignore it and voted mass incarceration
@@DosAleph There's a difference between textbook conservatives
/ progressives and the groups who label themselves as such.
@@therainbowconnection6813 every progressive i talk to online and in person supports mass incarceration and says blm is just a phrase for votes
yay. not conservative or progressive propaganda
There’s not propaganda here at Illustrate to Educate. :)
@@IllustratetoEducate Bourbon reforms are not Conservative, they are imperial reforms of latin monarchs
@@IllustratetoEducate progressive era is a innovation and efficiency focused movement.... it literally incorporates the American efficiency movement. Industrial society brought work related ailments and reformers sought to implement efficiencies to lower workplace injury, increase production and lower waste through empirical research.... also increase voter outcome and productivity through women's suffrage and more women I nthe work force. Progressivism is about rights and civil liberties, but in the context of more efficient government, administration. So your wrong... progressivism was centered around empirical efficiency for increased human wellbeing, whereas progress was originally leading to an inflection point from hard labour. I just thought you should know as to not label 'progressives' as solely being the domain of civil liberties and social programs, cus it is not.
I'll need to watch it again, but thanks very informative.
But then there are Progressive Conservatives.
Basically an hybrid or ultimate centrist
From what I've seen (in Ontario, Canada, where our provincial governing party refers to themselves as 'The Progressive Conservative Party') it boils down to this: we're pro big business, development, deregulation, and 'law enforcement', conservative on healthcare and social issues in general... but it's ok that you're gay.
Watch this on 0.5/0.25 speed, and its great
The line in the us wasn’t always as clear cut with the rise of progressive conservatives
I am pro-life with exception
I'm absolute pro-life under all circumstances.
@@pikachu8508 so what do you think should be done to support rape victim having to care for their baby after the birth?
I have conservative views on many social issues, but I'm fiscally progressive though.
Progressive philosophy strives for solutions that would benefit everyone while conservatives push back on those solutions but then claim credit when it works out for them as well
What a complete load of bollox. Conservatism is freedom and individualism. Progressivism is collectivism where an individual has no control over their own destiny.
why do I not find any bias in here? I am serious, there is something wrong here, how can you explain both sides neutrally? Almost most channels will claim to be neutral or at least claim to have done their best in being neutral and be clearly one sided. And yet you are actually neutral. I am not praising you, I am scrutinizing you. How can you be neutral? Do you not have a position on the matter?
Here is my praise: Good job, I don't know how you do it. Good Job!
I don't believe education should have bias in it. I like presenting as much factual information as I can without including my thoughts. I like people to be able to form their own opinions. I do have my own opinions, but this isn't the place for them. It's education, not indoctrination.
Hierarchy vs Egalitarianism
Thats a funny way to describe eugenics. Just completely ignore the racial part.
Had to define it as quickly and simply as possible. No time to go deep into it. That's another conversation for another time.
@@IllustratetoEducate so never because you don't want to lose racist progressives as followers
Progressivism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive
Teddy Roosevelt and moderates
Technically Allowing a woman to have a show at the Daily Wire is more progressive than conservative
He just ripped this from Wikipedia...
Yeah, and I cite that in my sources. So your point is...?
@@IllustratetoEducate nothing, he doesn't have any point. just like his forehead, so round even his hair looks like it doesn't want to have anything to do with him. it looks so detached.
Progressivism you forgot 2 mention abolitionism
Here’s an idea , Ready !
Mix both sides together and have a hybrid. Hybridtism
Organized religion? Seems someone missed a part on the 1st amendment.
The first Amendment was meant to protect the church from the State, not the state from the Church.
It was first suggested to Thomas Jefferson by the minister of Danbury Baptist.
The actual phrasing from Thomas Jefferson makes this clear "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The free exercise of religion is the freedom which is being protected. It’s arguable that banning prayer in school is a violation of this constitutional protected right.
This was never intended to encourage secularism, but to protect the Church from the same historic persecution that occurred under the British Crown. As British rulers came in and out of power they would persecute the enemies of “The Church”. That could either the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church based o the particular religious believes of the current ruler. The Baptist in particular had been persecuted by both, many of which were robbed of all there earthly possessions, imprisoned and fled to America often with very little more than the shirt on there backs.
@@pweddy1 prayer isn't banned in any school anywhere in the US.
@@vidmister Prayer is banned in most public schools when lead by a teacher, coach, or faculty member. This is because it's seen as "the government advocating for one religion over another". Kids can, because they aren't viewed as arms of the government.
There are plenty of stories of coaches and teachers getting in trouble for this, as well as the "student lead prayer" workarounds.
@Firemangan Organized religion is not in opposition to the first Amendment by any means. I'm not certain what you mean, but its main point is that the US government cannot establish a state Church, such as the Anglican church, but this doesn't prevent individuals nor politicians from being religious, organized or not.
Part of what American Conservatives wish to preserve is, in fact, some form of Christianity, and the cultural domination it had until very, very recently. As the founder said, I believe it was John Adams but I could be wrong, "this government is set up for a religious people, it is wholly inadequate for any other." Thus, If we wish to maintain the Republic as it is, or to bring it back to what it was, we must become a more religious people.
A more religious people seem to require less restrictive laws, because if a person's conscience keeps them from doing evil, no officer needs to handcuff them. This is also where libertarianism comes in, although the main division between conservatives and libertarians is that libertarians tend to not want others to follow any specific moral code, conservatives believe that a unified moral code is required to maintain a unified society. Drugs is the best topic to show this for- Libertarians believe all drugs ought to be legal and "people will figure it out", while conservatives tend to view their countrymen as siblings and anyone would hate to see their siblings succumb to addiction.
Thus, a libertarian might not enjoy organized religion, but conservatives absolutely would.
I am very conservative
I know this was a year ago but, I have some issues with it, and yeah im late and i just found this but, I cant see any positives for conservatism or a understanding of conservatism. I dont know why everyone wouldnt be progressive in this context. I understand your point, but you need to explain why conservatism is a thing. this video is a write off for all conservative people. you dont explain why they have a say and as such you have not reached their audience.
Why isn't liberal included
Liberal doesn't mean progressivism
*The word progress was invented and developed by people from different centuries with no intention to be compared with religion and the word conserve was invented and developed by people with no intention to be compared with religion.*
*Daeida Hartell and Harvey Wilcox are the parents of the name Hollywood.*
*Daeida Hartell and Harvey Wilcox did not know about my existence.*
*The people who invented the word progress did not know about my existence.*
*Imagine psychologists borrowing the name created by someone else from 1883.* *Daeida Hartell and Harvey Wilcox had no connection with religion instead they had a relationship with real estate developers.*
*So foolish to borrow someone else's invented name when the original purpose of the name invented by Daeida Hartell and Harvey Wilcox has nothing to do with the use of the name in the 21st century.*
Dictionaries have words invented by people like progress or conserve.
I am not the blood relative of the conservatives because biologically I am their blood relative. Of course, I am not the blood relative of the progressives because biologically I am not.
I like that republicans have more roots in the traditional way of doing politics. When I think about politics, the personal lives of people are irrelevant. In traditional politics, people did not pay attention to personal lives but more about the work in politics. In a normal society and traditional politics, the personal lives of politicians are concerned for their close friends and close blood relatives. I like the previous society that had traditional politics.
In the past, people tend to see republicans and left-wingers as workers. A worker chooses to come to work and not talk about their personal life. I like traditional politics where everything was more about the actual work and people voted based on work more than if it is left or right. I did not know progressives and conservatives in my childhood, why I should have an obsession with the right and the left when there is no special story with politics? I did not meet the creator of Progressivism and I did not meet the creator of conservatism.
In politics, Republicans have nudists so there are many bad standards in politics today.
Old French progres (Modern French progrès) and directly from Latin progressus "a going forward, an advance," noun of action from past-participle stem of progredi "go forward," from pro "forward" (see pro-) + gradi "to step, walk," from gradus "a step" (from PIE root *ghredh- "to walk, go").
In early use in English especially "a state journey by royalty." Meaning Figurative sense of "growth, development, advancement to higher stages" is by c. 1600, perhaps 15c. (the senses are not easy to distinguish).
To be in progress "underway" is attested by 1849 and preserves the older sense of "a course," whether good or bad (as in Hogarth's "Rake's Progress"); earlier it meant "in sequence" (as the volumes of a book), mid-15c. Progress report is attested by 1865.
"to keep safe, preserve from loss or decay," late 14c., from Old French conserver (9c.), from Latin conservare "to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard," from assimilated form of com-, here perhaps an intensive prefix (see com-), + servare "keep watch, maintain" (from PIE root *ser- (1) "to protect"). Related: Conserved; conserving.
As a noun (often conserves) from late 14c. as "that which preserves;" early 15c. as "a confection, something preserved with sugar, etc."
The list on your illustration of the constitution looks about right anymore😅😅😂 (scribble) both sides are ripping it to pieces and using it to wipe their asses when done talking…..
😂😂😂
The opposite of progressive is regressive, not conservative!
The opposite of conservative is liberal.
They feed off one another unfortunately.
Don't listen too me im deception.
"Conservitives" need to watch this!
Progressivism was tied Eugenics. For people who don’t know what that term means, it’s atheistic Darwinism applied to humanity.
That was the ideology of Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood. She directly stated that certain groups of people shouldn’t breed.
She was very fond Nazi’s before WWII and shared many of her views with her comrades in the German National Socialist Labor Party.
@@pweddy1 that is old school progressivism. its like saying chef cook on stone because cavemen don't have pan. progressivism now a bit more like liberal they just see human no different. they like racist that believe in human race superiority.
@@pweddy1 "Progressives" need to read your comment!
@@pweddy1 'was' being the operative word. It's not any more, thankfully. To highlight the fact in an attempt to discredit contemporary progressives is to be disingenuous at best.
@@m.charron
Modern progressives are Neo Marxist. And Marxism is inherently built upon the idea that "humanity isn't biologically prepared for communism" and thus espouses "improving" upon mankind. You don't want to call it eugenics fine, but it's the same thing.
Right wing all the way
Wrong
Simplistic and misleading video
I thought it was quite unbiased and educational
Conservatives would also often but not always be against interracial marriage if it was socially acceptable for them
Funnily enough even though most BW are somewhat against IR marriage , they seem to be targeted by many conservatives…