i think conservitism can actually replace progressivism with the definition of "out with the less structurally sound/in with the more structurally sound" but from a different perspective "keep the more structurally sound/let go of the less structurally sound"

This is why the exact word used is absolutely integral. People will see the word and have to know what the idea is with it or make assumptions about what it is.

That's why I usually avoid the established terms

Because of their connotations, which aren't always descriptive of the original meaning

Yeah while progressivism is a moving word conservitism can be seen as a standing word if you look at them like that

It also makes for much nicer conversation

Conservatism is a stranding word

Fundamentalist would be the standing word

Also why I don't like the "left/right" divide. Makes it way too easy to discredit someone elses ideas simply because they use a word they identify with.

There's also a different meaning here in Europe

left/right

Yeah, like being on the right or left is supposed to be an inherently bad thing? It makes no sense. lol

From what I've heard other American pallerinos

I heard my mom say something like "isn't he a republican though?" or some shit like that. Like why does it matter which letter he has next to his name if he has good ideas.

The two party system was a dumb idea to reinforce, mang

Right - more control to private sector

Left - more control to governments

In theory.

In practice, they're both bought out by busniesses and monied interests, so it's moot.

While the left around the Iraq war was completely against the government. These ideas shift

Yeah

That's the horseshoe theory

They end up in the same place

it's like if the horseshoe was made of mercury

You need a constant flux

You can't stay in the middle

I thought the horseshoe theory was that the extremes of the right and left, in terms of ideology, is that they end up in the same place?

Well, yeah

Their extremes

I was talking purely about money in politics.

it's that they're fundamentally the same

It's all nepotism

Because of our lame social nature

perceive it as you will

There's a difference, though

One comes from the production of goods/services

The other comes from the escalation of power of those manufacturers

I think arguing definitions is a good way to miss the point though

It's all cyclical, because products and ideas go obsolete

Yeah, good point. It's a superficial issue at best

Just avoid using the established and dusty/stagnant political monikers and explain your fundamental issues like you would to a four year old