You know, I just realized that there's only about 500 voters in their district. Cam cited that 99.6% did not vote for them, with reference to the fact that only two votes (Graham's and Paul's) constituted the other 0.4% (essentially 1 person = 0.2% of the populace). Simple math magic reveals roughly 500 voters. Funnily enough, the next figure cited by Cam means that even Paul falls within the 99.8% that finds Graham personally disagreeable.
***** We are given two figures: 1) 99.6% of voters did not vote for Graham 2) only two people voted for Graham (Graham and Paul). From #1, we know that 0.4% of the voters DID vote for Graham (100% - 99.6% = 0.4%). Combining this with #2 shows that 2 people = 0.4% of the voters. Dividing by 2 gives us that each 1 person = 0.2% of the voting population. Taking a small step from that, 5 people = 1.0% of the voting population (simply multiplying by 5). So 500 people = 100.0% of the voters. Therefore, there are 500 voters. If any of this is still confusing, please let me know which line lost you.
Actually there is no connection with the population and the percentage. That only people voted does not indicate the polling size, just that there was a poll that showed this data.
There is a chance though that the poll to find which candidates are personally disagreeable is not the same population as the election poll. So for all we know none of the people in this room were polled on whether they disagree with each candidate or not.
I would find this funnier if it wasn't an accurate snapshot of our political systems. I mean it's still funny but also profoundly sad. Good jerb Kathleen.
I watched this sketch 2 years ago knowing nothing about Canadian politics. Now I watch it having studied Canadian politics and I see all the hidden jokes.
Hehe, nice! I always love Graham's acting, too. Maybe it's a good thing you guys left Penny Arcade, as I wouldn't have seen this if I had a checkpoint-only feed!
I love how the president of the flat earth society is a critical thinker that wants proof from his peers. Also, there are two maps in that office... and are they both different?
***** This is a real actual thing that somebody really actually believes. It starts with "EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE" and only gets less coherent from there.
Wow, I only JUST picked up on the "Progressive Conservative party" XD Turns out, studying the elections in school helps. Also, I wonder how many American watchers actually understand the All Candidate's Debate and the way our government is run XD
The most frustrating part of this bit to me is how, as shown on the Flat Earth Party posters, flerfers often use an azimuthal map when they don't even understand why it exists and how they're made. Ugh.
I am 7 years too late, but fun fact about 1:33, the progressive conservative party was a real party in canada until 2003 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada
I mostly did not get this the first time I saw it. Now I actually get the jokes. Also I'm a little bit surprised this video doesn't have one of those misinformation warnings on it now.
I was so incredulous at this, I just looked up the Flat Earth Society. Luckily, they don't actually believe the Earth is flat anymore. It's a comedic commentary on taking things people tell you at face value instead of trusting your own senses and thoughts, which actually seems like a sensible ideal. But it is still funny. I'm just glad they don't actually believe the Earth is flat.
I am legitimately curious what information was looked up to conclude the flat earth society didn't believe the earth was flat. Like, sure, I can believe some fools got into it as a comedic commentary, the equivalent of trolling and pretending to be stupid, so you can go "haha, gotcha, it was just meant to remind you to not be that dumb"....but they are deeply in the minority.
@@FFKonoko You're replying to a six-year-old comment. I have no idea what I found anymore. My guess is I googled it and found that, not realizing there was a different page I had not found with people who actually still believe it. Honestly, I believe if I'd come across actual serious discussion between Flat Earthers without knowing who they were beforehand, I'd have still thought they were doing a parody or making some commentary on how we should examine all existing assumptions with the scientific method repeatedly or something.
@@daracaex it was not meant to be a direct reply to you, or expecting you to be able to come back and explain it. More of a "huh, they always seemed really up front about the crazy aspect, wonder if they used to seem more reasonable". The latter part of the comment was more aimed at the 7 month or so old comments instead, acknowledging that some people potentially are doing it out of a sense of irony, but that they're not really better than the idiots they're unintentionally encouraging to sincerely follow it. And sadly, Poe's law hits hard, which means it's safer to err on the side of assuming stupidity. Especially when said flat earthers so thoroughly refuse the scientific method the deeper they go in. Like the ones that got an expensive laser gyroscope, got the results, then threw them away because they weren't what they wanted. Though on the other hand, there was the pseudo celebrity that acted like they wanted to sincerely test the theories using weather balloons or something...but did it as a Kickstarter style thing, only wanting to put other peoples money where his mouth was. Assuming it's all an elaborate parody for teaching critical thought would be a lot nicer, mais, non.
Hahahahaha... the funny thing is that there really was/is a Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. And, for all intents and purposes, they're currently in power. ^_^;;;
As a note, the Progressive Conservative party actually makes some sense (as much as political parties tend to), as they are "socially progressive" and "fiscally conservative". Though the name actually comes from a weird historical thing involving the merging of the progressive and conservative parties.
ImperialSunlight Sadly they aren't that socially progressive.I Always vote NDP, at least they don't buy that science bull crap about the earth being round.
In Sweden, the ruling coalition consists of: The Moderate Party, a conservative party with mostly liberal policies and who has taken the epithet 'the new workers party' - The Liberal People's party who came out as social conservatives - The Center Party, the old farmers party, now rebranded as a libertarian party - And last (and least) the Christian Democrats, a socially conservative party struggling to keep the anti-abortionists in the party from being seen in media. The only reason why they are still represented in the parliament is support votes from people who normally votes for the moderate party.
Papperslappen Wow... That's astoundingly inconsistent nomenclature. Moderate = conservative liberals, Liberal = social conservative, Center = extreme economic conservative, Christian Democrat = moralizing liberals that don't even like themselves. I know the American system is fucked, but I was hoping it was more localized than this.
Ryan Gatts Sweden is not easily comparable to USA since the election system is proportional. While it looks funny, the ideological fuzziness in among the right wing parties in Sweden makes some sense. The Moderate party shifted at least rhetorically to the left to appeal to a broader audience, which they did to a great success, but they cannibalized on the center and the christian democratic party who have not really managed to find new niches. The Liberal party is in charge of a lot of social issues like the schools and immigration and integration. Their policies are still liberal, but come out as less liberal than previous social democratic government's. A funny detail is that the Center Party is by far the richest party in Sweden but it is very uncertain if they will get more than 4% of the votes which is the threshold to get seats in the parliament.
"How can you be progressive and conservative?" Pretty easily, really. "Progress" is a relative term. To me, liberals calling themselves "progressives" was always akin to conservatives calling themselves "moralists." The reasoning for the progressive label has always boiled down to "well, we believe this is how things should be, so us moving towards that goal is progress" which, really, works just as well for conservatives.
soupalex I think that with any party, the goal they're trying to move towards is simply "a better country." Reverting to *ways* employed in the past is simply a means of getting there. Perhaps an example. Let's take a look at organic food, shall we? Essentially, the organic food movement is a return to a much older style of farming. It's the rejection of decades of new ideas and lab work done by scientists. The type of work that we used to think would pave the way of the future. You go back to the 50's and 60's and look at how they imagined the future, you see Sci-Fi movies where food comes in pills and small squares. Pizza comes in a freeze-dried square that's reconstituted in a kitchen appliance. "Better food through chemistry" was the big promise, and we took that to heart. The result? Chemical compounds that our bodies don't break down properly, weird medical conditions that never used to exist like Celiac disease, fruit with abysmal vitamin content. Bread bereft of fiber and nutrients. Now, the organic food movement is trying to undo all that by endorsing fruits and vegetables grown *without* all the pesticides and genetic modification we've been using. Animals raised without hormones and steroids. Wouldn't you call that a progressive goal? Yet All those things they're trying to accomplish; all those goals - they are all a return to the way things used to be done. They're all, as you say, "goals that like in the past;" but *attaining* yet they believe that *attaining* them will move us *forward* towards the goal of a better country, by providing better food. And right or wrong, that's the logic of conservatives. To them, many of the changes made by conservatives are akin GMO produce, the introduction of steroids and hormones to animals, etc. So to them, repealing said changes would move us *forward* - would *progress* us - towards a better country.
***** I think you've just identified that parties identifying themselves as "conservative" sometimes tout un-conservative policies. I agree that what's "progressive" is often subjective, but "progressive conservative" is still an implied oxymoron.
soupalex But the organic food movement is very much a goal of the *progressive* party. They're making *progress* by attaining goals, which, as you say, lie in the past. Does that mean said goals (such as organic food) are not progress? Seems to me that the great lesson *of* organic food is that if you make changes that are *harmful,* that are dragging you *down,* then the only way *to* once again progress is to return to the ways of the past.
***** Let me reiterate: you're conflating party with policy. Not all "progressive" parties' policies are inherently progressive; neither are all policies promoted by "conservative" parties themselves inherently conservative/regressive. On a similar note: most mainstream "conservative" parties I know of are, with respect to economic policy, extremely "liberal". When applied to political parties, such words merely describe the general character of the values they champion.
Wonderful video, but you guys should really wear glasses less often or make sure nothing's reflecting in them. Like 75% of this video's shots have those green rectangle reflections. Very distracting.
[1:46] I know these people are speaking within their new understandings of the Progressive (more specifically the neo-progressive) party, but don't these people know that progressivism is rooted within the ideas of the Conservative party ever since the early 1900s?
I know the party name was adapted and altered and adjusted for 'spin' over time, but don't these people know that "Progressive" and "Conservative" are *literally* antonyms of each other; that a name with both terms in it is the dictionary definition of an "oxymoron"? www.dictionary.com/browse/progressive?s=t "1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: *a progressive mayor.*" www.dictionary.com/browse/conservative?s=t "1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." www.dictionary.com/browse/oxymoron?s=t
![Beige [commodoreHUSTLE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q7TP2RKYUX4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Moving Again [commodoreHUSTLE]](/img/n.gif)
2014: Aw man, thats so outlandish
2020: . . . fuck . . . please.
2023 this party is actually reasonable…
Well this sketch became retroactively prescient.
You know, I just realized that there's only about 500 voters in their district. Cam cited that 99.6% did not vote for them, with reference to the fact that only two votes (Graham's and Paul's) constituted the other 0.4% (essentially 1 person = 0.2% of the populace). Simple math magic reveals roughly 500 voters. Funnily enough, the next figure cited by Cam means that even Paul falls within the 99.8% that finds Graham personally disagreeable.
***** We are given two figures:
1) 99.6% of voters did not vote for Graham
2) only two people voted for Graham (Graham and Paul).
From #1, we know that 0.4% of the voters DID vote for Graham (100% - 99.6% = 0.4%).
Combining this with #2 shows that 2 people = 0.4% of the voters.
Dividing by 2 gives us that each 1 person = 0.2% of the voting population.
Taking a small step from that, 5 people = 1.0% of the voting population (simply multiplying by 5).
So 500 people = 100.0% of the voters.
Therefore, there are 500 voters.
If any of this is still confusing, please let me know which line lost you.
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar
Actually there is no connection with the population and the percentage. That only people voted does not indicate the polling size, just that there was a poll that showed this data.
There is a chance though that the poll to find which candidates are personally disagreeable is not the same population as the election poll. So for all we know none of the people in this room were polled on whether they disagree with each candidate or not.
The awkward moment when this sketch is now reality
So many LOLs!
* Mr. Menteur = Mister Liar
* The fact that Canada actually had a Progressive Conservative party for many years
* Alex
This sketch takes on a sad poignancy nowadays...
It's 2022. It's even more true now
@@flameofmage1099it’s gotten worse still.
Yes, The Flat Earth Society has members all across the globe....
Anti Vax, Anti Global Warming, Anti Whales, on top of being a flat earth party? These guys are gonna be bomb on Facebook.
Cam's movements are so expressive. His hands!!
I would find this funnier if it wasn't an accurate snapshot of our political systems. I mean it's still funny but also profoundly sad. Good jerb Kathleen.
Considering some of the takes presented in our current government, the Flat Earth party might actually stand a chance in 2020.
Wow! All these old episodes were in my feed and these are all great.
Oh the parallels that could be drawn between this and religiously motivated political parties...
leviadragon99
What on God's perfectly-flat Earth are you talking about? ;D
"Parallels"? This is simply a literal representation of Canadian politics...
I love how the Flat Earth logo is actually round!
"*Times Examiner News Weekly:* 534 Years of Mostly Credible Editorial Practices - Except for 1723, we are sorry about that"
The derp is strong in Alex today.
His brain is still attempting to process Prayer Warriors.
Alex was priceless.
+Henry Mildenstein He always is
I watched this sketch 2 years ago knowing nothing about Canadian politics. Now I watch it having studied Canadian politics and I see all the hidden jokes.
I lold all the way through this, Cam really sold it, his delivery is amazing.
Alex is LEGENDARY in this sketch. So good.
Four years old and it gets truer every day
Haha just wait for 2021
Hahaaahaa
Wow.
This hits DIFFERENT in 2021...
Lawl. "I hear it's a lot cheaper to run a campaign when you don't need to win!"
That newspaper in the end was just the best.
I can't get over how much gram looks like Shido from persona 5 in this
9 years later and this is so tragically real.
Hehe, nice! I always love Graham's acting, too. Maybe it's a good thing you guys left Penny Arcade, as I wouldn't have seen this if I had a checkpoint-only feed!
Yaaah.
Did Alex ever find his dog?
As a Canadian, this is glorious. x3
I love how the president of the flat earth society is a critical thinker that wants proof from his peers.
Also, there are two maps in that office... and are they both different?
I want to know what the Times Examiner News Weekly did in 1723 that was so bad.
Well at least Mr. FlatEarth sounded more sane then the Time Cube guy.
*****
This is a real actual thing that somebody really actually believes. It starts with "EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE" and only gets less coherent from there.
GG Crono Yep it always amazed me how someone could become less coherent when they were incoherent in the first place.
Wow, I only JUST picked up on the "Progressive Conservative party" XD Turns out, studying the elections in school helps.
Also, I wonder how many American watchers actually understand the All Candidate's Debate and the way our government is run XD
+WindyDelcarlo
None
because your government is as insane and nonsensical to us as ours is to you
2020, this is still becoming a more and more precise depiction of the world
6 years later and I’m only now realizing that the consultant’s name is Mr. Menteur, or “Mr. Liar” when translated from French.
This is _sooooooooo_ surreal in 2020
woof, watching this in 2022 from the US.
This definitely sounds familiar in Ontario. Great work!
Daaaam this hits different in 2021
Yeahhhhhhh
5:40 what happened in 1723? must have been pretty bad
B.o.B and Tila Tequila support this candidate.
Man, this sketch got surprisingly relevant after 2016
Did Alex ever get his cheese?
I think this portrays the in game world leaders in Civilization pretty well.
The most frustrating part of this bit to me is how, as shown on the Flat Earth Party posters, flerfers often use an azimuthal map when they don't even understand why it exists and how they're made. Ugh.
I am 7 years too late, but fun fact about 1:33, the progressive conservative party was a real party in canada until 2003
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada
You can apologize all you want for 1723, Times Examiner News Weekly, but it will never be enough.
Watching this on election night here in the US.
I hate you and I love you… 😣
Because everyone loves animals, Mr. Shenton
I had never seen the stinger, ha ha ha.
Is it sad that this is super accurate to today's political climate
Huh, feels like way better acting than usual.
If the earth was flat then cats whould have pushed everything off by now.
sharp cheddar moon
The joke about vaccines hurts more now
I mostly did not get this the first time I saw it. Now I actually get the jokes. Also I'm a little bit surprised this video doesn't have one of those misinformation warnings on it now.
Go Flat earth party! You'll win next year. Lmao. Great video.
Aww I wanted to read the entire article.
Republicans in 2022 Mid-terms
Love the punchline
"my dog!"
This is no longer satire in the US! 😭😭
This hits differently for Americans in 2020-2021
4 years later and apparently flat earthers are a thing now.
this episode is definitely awesome because of Alex x3
little did they know some people took this skit as reality.
i'd love a story staged in this world ngl
I was so incredulous at this, I just looked up the Flat Earth Society. Luckily, they don't actually believe the Earth is flat anymore. It's a comedic commentary on taking things people tell you at face value instead of trusting your own senses and thoughts, which actually seems like a sensible ideal.
But it is still funny. I'm just glad they don't actually believe the Earth is flat.
i am pretty sure they do theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society
I am legitimately curious what information was looked up to conclude the flat earth society didn't believe the earth was flat. Like, sure, I can believe some fools got into it as a comedic commentary, the equivalent of trolling and pretending to be stupid, so you can go "haha, gotcha, it was just meant to remind you to not be that dumb"....but they are deeply in the minority.
@@FFKonoko You're replying to a six-year-old comment. I have no idea what I found anymore. My guess is I googled it and found that, not realizing there was a different page I had not found with people who actually still believe it. Honestly, I believe if I'd come across actual serious discussion between Flat Earthers without knowing who they were beforehand, I'd have still thought they were doing a parody or making some commentary on how we should examine all existing assumptions with the scientific method repeatedly or something.
@@daracaex it was not meant to be a direct reply to you, or expecting you to be able to come back and explain it. More of a "huh, they always seemed really up front about the crazy aspect, wonder if they used to seem more reasonable". The latter part of the comment was more aimed at the 7 month or so old comments instead, acknowledging that some people potentially are doing it out of a sense of irony, but that they're not really better than the idiots they're unintentionally encouraging to sincerely follow it. And sadly, Poe's law hits hard, which means it's safer to err on the side of assuming stupidity. Especially when said flat earthers so thoroughly refuse the scientific method the deeper they go in.
Like the ones that got an expensive laser gyroscope, got the results, then threw them away because they weren't what they wanted.
Though on the other hand, there was the pseudo celebrity that acted like they wanted to sincerely test the theories using weather balloons or something...but did it as a Kickstarter style thing, only wanting to put other peoples money where his mouth was.
Assuming it's all an elaborate parody for teaching critical thought would be a lot nicer, mais, non.
It's fucking science!
Just decided to quote Ninja Sex Party. Had no idea this would actually make sense as a comment.
I miss the sketches :(
I wonder what they printed in 1723?
Hahahahaha... the funny thing is that there really was/is a Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. And, for all intents and purposes, they're currently in power. ^_^;;;
As a note, the Progressive Conservative party actually makes some sense (as much as political parties tend to), as they are "socially progressive" and "fiscally conservative". Though the name actually comes from a weird historical thing involving the merging of the progressive and conservative parties.
ImperialSunlight Sadly they aren't that socially progressive.I Always vote NDP, at least they don't buy that science bull crap about the earth being round.
In Sweden, the ruling coalition consists of: The Moderate Party, a conservative party with mostly liberal policies and who has taken the epithet 'the new workers party' - The Liberal People's party who came out as social conservatives - The Center Party, the old farmers party, now rebranded as a libertarian party - And last (and least) the Christian Democrats, a socially conservative party struggling to keep the anti-abortionists in the party from being seen in media. The only reason why they are still represented in the parliament is support votes from people who normally votes for the moderate party.
Papperslappen Wow... That's astoundingly inconsistent nomenclature. Moderate = conservative liberals, Liberal = social conservative, Center = extreme economic conservative, Christian Democrat = moralizing liberals that don't even like themselves. I know the American system is fucked, but I was hoping it was more localized than this.
Ryan Gatts Sweden is not easily comparable to USA since the election system is proportional.
While it looks funny, the ideological fuzziness in among the right wing parties in Sweden makes some sense. The Moderate party shifted at least rhetorically to the left to appeal to a broader audience, which they did to a great success, but they cannibalized on the center and the christian democratic party who have not really managed to find new niches. The Liberal party is in charge of a lot of social issues like the schools and immigration and integration. Their policies are still liberal, but come out as less liberal than previous social democratic government's.
A funny detail is that the Center Party is by far the richest party in Sweden but it is very uncertain if they will get more than 4% of the votes which is the threshold to get seats in the parliament.
So this is the inside of the American Republican party. . .
Alex rocks!
Graham looks like Justin Roiland in this.
applicable today
This is weirdly prescient
As a Christian, and a LRR fan, not sure whether to take this as a subliminal jab against my faith or just a political satire...
i'd say the latter.
Definitely the latter. It's definitely more political and a satire of conspiracy buffs.
I look to the future but respect the past.
imperial apologist!
What of Alex's dog?
Oh....
It's gone to live on a farm. You know..... upstate.
He's happy now.
Side effects include doglessness.
Alex made this!
That awkward moment when this has become an increasingly popular opinion...it was supposed to be a joke guys
Needs moar green screen reflecting in glasses.
So... Republicans.
Kyrie Irving brought me here...
EARTH NOT FLAT EVEN KNOW YOU HOPEINGLY KNOW
I like to think that every down vote is from a disgusting horizon apologist.
"How can you be progressive and conservative?"
Pretty easily, really. "Progress" is a relative term. To me, liberals calling themselves "progressives" was always akin to conservatives calling themselves "moralists." The reasoning for the progressive label has always boiled down to "well, we believe this is how things should be, so us moving towards that goal is progress" which, really, works just as well for conservatives.
*****
If the goals you're moving towards lie in the past, however, that is termed (quite sensically, I think) "*re*-gressive", not "*pro*-gressive".
soupalex I think that with any party, the goal they're trying to move towards is simply "a better country." Reverting to *ways* employed in the past is simply a means of getting there.
Perhaps an example. Let's take a look at organic food, shall we? Essentially, the organic food movement is a return to a much older style of farming. It's the rejection of decades of new ideas and lab work done by scientists. The type of work that we used to think would pave the way of the future. You go back to the 50's and 60's and look at how they imagined the future, you see Sci-Fi movies where food comes in pills and small squares. Pizza comes in a freeze-dried square that's reconstituted in a kitchen appliance. "Better food through chemistry" was the big promise, and we took that to heart.
The result? Chemical compounds that our bodies don't break down properly, weird medical conditions that never used to exist like Celiac disease, fruit with abysmal vitamin content. Bread bereft of fiber and nutrients.
Now, the organic food movement is trying to undo all that by endorsing fruits and vegetables grown *without* all the pesticides and genetic modification we've been using. Animals raised without hormones and steroids. Wouldn't you call that a progressive goal? Yet All those things they're trying to accomplish; all those goals - they are all a return to the way things used to be done. They're all, as you say, "goals that like in the past;" but *attaining* yet they believe that *attaining* them will move us *forward* towards the goal of a better country, by providing better food.
And right or wrong, that's the logic of conservatives. To them, many of the changes made by conservatives are akin GMO produce, the introduction of steroids and hormones to animals, etc. So to them, repealing said changes would move us *forward* - would *progress* us - towards a better country.
*****
I think you've just identified that parties identifying themselves as "conservative" sometimes tout un-conservative policies. I agree that what's "progressive" is often subjective, but "progressive conservative" is still an implied oxymoron.
soupalex But the organic food movement is very much a goal of the *progressive* party. They're making *progress* by attaining goals, which, as you say, lie in the past.
Does that mean said goals (such as organic food) are not progress? Seems to me that the great lesson *of* organic food is that if you make changes that are *harmful,* that are dragging you *down,* then the only way *to* once again progress is to return to the ways of the past.
*****
Let me reiterate: you're conflating party with policy. Not all "progressive" parties' policies are inherently progressive; neither are all policies promoted by "conservative" parties themselves inherently conservative/regressive. On a similar note: most mainstream "conservative" parties I know of are, with respect to economic policy, extremely "liberal". When applied to political parties, such words merely describe the general character of the values they champion.
♡♡
Wonderful video, but you guys should really wear glasses less often or make sure nothing's reflecting in them. Like 75% of this video's shots have those green rectangle reflections. Very distracting.
Yeah, usually I don't notice it but it was REALLY noticeable and distracting in this one.
cheddar is actually white. but sure alex sureeeeeeee
i love that no mater how you look at this it really seems like loading ready run goes politics is a load of crap "period".
[1:46] I know these people are speaking within their new understandings of the Progressive (more specifically the neo-progressive) party, but don't these people know that progressivism is rooted within the ideas of the Conservative party ever since the early 1900s?
+Chemist Web EXACTLY!
I know the party name was adapted and altered and adjusted for 'spin' over time, but don't these people know that "Progressive" and "Conservative" are *literally* antonyms of each other; that a name with both terms in it is the dictionary definition of an "oxymoron"?
www.dictionary.com/browse/progressive?s=t
"1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
*a progressive mayor.*"
www.dictionary.com/browse/conservative?s=t
"1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."
www.dictionary.com/browse/oxymoron?s=t
When suddenly, real life events make comedy much less funny...
Creationists.