all 12 comments

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Yes but they don't think they are doing harm

Progressivism is an ideology with a single principle - change - they have to move forward much like conservatism's principle is 'dont change it'.

There are no static principles here. Progressives used to support free speech for instance, when it was a new and progressive value, but have now progressed to a new and 'better' ideology of restricting dangerous speech.

Conversely, most historical attacks on speech in the US have been from christian conservatives concerned with naughtiness. But this also isnt static, because now free speech is becoming an old 'traditional' value rather than a 'new' progressive value, and we see conservatives defend it

Both of these ideologies are defining good not by any principles, but where those principles exist in time, i.e whether they are 'traditional' or 'new' values. Traditional values are the boundaries here. Progressives have to push boundaries, and conservatives must protect them. Reducing harm is assumed to be synonymous with progressivism and conservatism respectively by the followers of these ideologies, they both think they are doing good.

[–]hfxB0oyA 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This is shockingly well explained for something on this site. Well done Phooey!

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Appreciate the updoot, people usually don't appreciate nuanced or objective takes that aren't wholesale buying in to some ideology, it's nice to receive positive feedback instead of being called names

[–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hear you. 👍

[–]passionflounder 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yup- well put.

To the OP- the whole point of progressivism is to push boundaries to where it harms a targeted class that's characterized as "privileged".

[–]lactivist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

One way of looking at some of the central interests. To offer some examples:

[ holds that it is possible to improve human societies through political action. As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization. Adherents hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to human societies everywhere. Progressivism arose during the Age of Enlightenment out of the belief that civility in Europe was improving due to the application of new empirical knowledge to the governance of society. In modern political discourse, progressivism gets often associated with social liberalism, a left-leaning type of liberalism, in contrast to the right-leaning neoliberalism, combining support for a mixed economy with cultural liberalism. In the 21st century, a movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions."]

AKA: progressives of different kind are normally concerned with the improvement of the standard of living and the human condition. This might seem like a no-brainer, but there are corporate and wealthy special interest groups actively trying to reduce progressive efforts that would give employees a better percentage of profits. The trends of the past 70 years have shown late stage capitalism and extreme income inequality developed because of money in politics. The group actively promoting the wealthy and corporate control are not Ike conservatives. They are radical Republicans. Thus, in order for progressives to succeed, they must push boundaries supported by neoliberal traitors (those AOC complains about, and Manchin and Senema &c) , and push boundaries set by other simps for corporate and wealthy doners, namely Repuglicans.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

AKA: progressives of different kind are normally concerned with the improvement of the standard of living and the human condition.

Yes, as I said, their motivation is to improve conditions and do good, I thought I was clear on that. They have to change things to improve them though, they have to push the boundaries, and they can be wrong

But you are missing my point Socks. My point is that both the progressive/conservative paradigm hinges on beliefs about change. Progressives believe their proposed changes will lead to better conditions, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. Conservatives want to preserve traditional values because they want to protect against the possibility of things getting worse, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong.

Personally I don't make my judgements based on this paradigm at all, temporal location is not my highest principle, or even a meaningful one to me

I have values people would consider progressive, and values people would consider conservative, but they aren't based on this duality. I have completely different principles I am basing my political stances on

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah I agree this gets messy in terms of definitions. Sometimes progressive ideas are in conflict with traditional liberal values for example. And yes i'd totally agree about the 1970's definition being unrelated, part of the point I was trying to make was that what is considered conservative or progressive changes, rather than being an ideology with static values, such as traditional liberalism or evangelicism which are pretty well defined by philosophical/political theory or scipture in terms of their values.

    And no, not a boomer, I'm an older milllenial born in the mid-80s

    This wasn't meant as an attack or progressivism or anyone, I was trying to explain the core ways these ideologies view the world to explain why progressives can sometimes advocate for things that are perceived as harmful by others, and it isn't because they are trying to do evil, it is because this paradigm is the defining principle of the progressive/conservative duality.

    [–]HanssenBob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    What you're saying is that "conservatives" are now classically liberal, and that "progressives" are now authoritarian.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I think we are seeing a shift in that direction yes

    [–]JewsAreOfColor 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Dangerous to whom? The oligarchs who lied us into one war for oil after another while oil keeps getting more and more expensive?

    [–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Comrade, the only ones harmed by progressive ideals are chuds who deserve to face the wall. Only good comes from progress. Please, refer to tumblr for your latest update.