A.k.a. nutpicking.
I’m just popping out to hike across the excluded middle between this example and “this is an accurate representation of everyone on the left”. I may be gone for a few weeks - it’s a long way across.
What part of it do you doubt specifically? I can find you a video of Dean explaining that he and the other 29 creators got together to ask Zee to leave because she was, and I quote, “incredibly microaggressive”; and I can find you a video of the call itself. But I don’t want to link random cites until I know exactly what fact you’re doubting, because otherwise we will just be going back and forth all day.
What a strange strawman.
I didn’t say that everyone on our side is guilty of this. If they were, I probably wouldn’t consider it “my side” anymore.
It’s certainly enough people that I consider it a problem, though. because of the harm those people cause, like torpedoing the Unfuck America Tour and similar events
I’d much rather read text than watch multiple videos. If this is literally the only example you know of, I’ll concede it to you as a singular event that I don’t care enough about to dispute, and will instead dispute it as indicating a significant problem in progressive thought.
If you have any events that are documented in text, the claim is that “Progressives…spend a lot of time ordering the pyramid of oppression.”
So show a significant progressive thinker or three who spends significant time ordering the pyramid of oppression.
I guess you’ll have to define what “ordering the pyramid of oppression” means first.
Well, I’m glad I asked before wasting my time.
If you’re ready to have a normal conversation, let me know; until then, I’m not a trained lion who jumps through hoops on command.
What a weird standard! Should we also stop talking about what MAGA supporters believe, and instead only engage with the writings of conservative thinkers?
And the conversation is over.
Oh that’s right - you only pretended that this was representative of the left. Which of course is not a strawman at all, no sir.
What a weird false equivalence. Do you genuinely think that the views of the person in the example you provided are as pervasive throughout the left and up to the top levels of Democrats and/or other left-wing politicians as MAGA views are in the GOP and on the right?
I never said it was representative of the left.
Nope! Democrats, thankfully, are for the most part Liberal, not Progressive.
What is the difference? AFAICT “progressive” is just the more modern/hip term for “liberal”, since conservative media was able to do so much damage to the term “liberal” over the past few decades.
Hit post by mistake
The labels “Progressive” and “Liberal” don’t cover exactly the same ground, so there are definitely some Progressives who are Liberal and some Progressives who are Illiberal, just as some Liberals are Progressive and some are not. I don’t have a problem with Progressivism, I have a problem with illiberalism; and thus I consider myself aligned with Liberal Progressives but not with Illiberal Progressives.
This is a really good essay that encapsulates how I feel about Liberalism:
But if I had to distill it down to a post, I’d say:
It is true that Society and the Individual have claims on each other. An extreme individualist, say a Libertarian, would say that Society has no claim on the Individual (or at least, that the Individual’s claim supercedes Society’s claim to a great degree); a collectivist or an absolute monarch would say that Society has full claim on the individual.
The core conceit of Liberalism is that Society’s claim on the Individual is, and should be, limited. Not that it should be zero, but that the Individual’s rights are what we truly value.
Progressivism places more value on both an Individual’s claim on Society (not the difference - not limiting Society’s claim on the Individual, but also increasing the Individual’s claims on the Society) while simultaneously demanding greater Societal claims on the Individual.
This would seem to conflict with your implication that the incident in question is representative of “progressivism” among left/Democratic Americans.
…what?
I can’t parse this sentence at all.
What is the “this” being referenced? My definition of Liberalism and Progressivism? What exactly does it conflict with?
Maybe I’m misinterpreting your posts. IIRC you posted about an incident with a liberal (or whatever) person touring and debating (and crushing) MAGA nuts, and then there was some incident in which they were mildly rude (or whatever) and ended up being “canceled” and stopping the tour, and someone said “how is that representative of all Democrats”, and you said “luckily most Democrats are liberal, not progressive”, thus implying that the “cancelers” in this incident were progressive (and thus bad), not liberal. Am I misreading?
Yeah, the streamers in question are very much Progressives, not Liberals.
So is your problem with “progressives”, or just some slice of progressives? If the latter, which ones?
I’ll note that, IMO and experience, the vast majority of liberals/progressives/etc. don’t use these words this way.
I thought I answered that:
So, those Progressives who raise Society’s demands on the Individual to such an extent that it crosses the line to illiberalism are the ones I have a problem with.
The vast majority of any political ideology have given it about 15 minutes of thought, so yeah, they’re going to be very imprecise.
Among politically aware people, especially those my age and younger, I constantly hear the term liberal used pejoratively, as in “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds”.
Then what’s with the “luckily most Democrats are liberals not progressives”? This implies a conflict between the two, while “liberal progressives” implies there’s not necessarily any conflict at all.
You do? And where do you think I’ll find that phrase if I do a search?
What makes this far worse than “bad” is the fact that an alarming number of these people really have no understanding of the religion (in this country very predominantly Christian) in which they profess to believe. As a consequence, they create a plethora of man made rules that allegedly define their faith, virtually none of which can be found in the Gospel, which is the basic story of what Jesus said, did, and believed.
An incident that says it all is Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. She and her people were virtual outcasts in the eyes of the Jews, yet he reached out to her with the same love, acceptance, and spiritual gifts that he offered to all the others, many of which felt quite satisfied in the belief that they were the “true Christians” but yet practiced hatred and discrimination.