Subj : Backwards
To   : JEFF THIELE
From : Mike Powell
Date : Wed Jun 08 2022 16:05:00

> And yes, as opposed to some leftists who support socialism. The US has never
> been socialist, so there's no socialism to which we can go "backwards." I
> don't support full socialism, by the way, but for the US that is not a
> "backwards" position.

It appears we have different definition of "backwards."  You are using it
here like one would use "in reverse" which, you are correct, we cannot go
"in reverse" to somewhere we've never been.  A very litteral interpretation.

"Backwards" can also mean "underdeveloped" or moving "towards a worse or less
advanced condition," which is what I usually think of when I hear "backwards
country/economy/etc."  It is not that those things are litterally
moving back along the path they came, but that they are underdeveloped,
deteriorating, or not advancing.

Trying to enact "green policies" before the alternatives required to make
them successful are both available and viable would be one good example of
moving "towards a worse or less advanced condition."  Last I checked, that is
not usually an action that a conservative would get behind, but some leftists
would indeed do so because their desired end justifies whatever happens
between now and then, and any economic hardships would likely affect others
much more than themselves.

So, in my mind, their thinking is "backwards" even if it does not take us
directly back the path we came... although I suspect some things might look
familiar to someone who grew up in a previous period where electricity and
modern transportation were either not available or not taken for granted.


 * SLMR 2.1a * Yea, I'm a pacifist. Wanna make somethin' of it, bub?
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

.