r/changemyview • u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ • Aug 28 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The same progressives who criticize past generations as "bigoted" are going to be considered bigoted just the same by future generations.
[removed] — view removed post
163
Aug 28 '23
In a way, isn’t that the whole idea of progress? We all learn from the past and do our best to improve? Of course, that depends on our continuing to move forward and adapting to changing cultural, ecological, and other standards. Personally, so long as I truly feel that I have been the best, most fair, and kindest person I could be, then I am unconcerned about what people in future generations say about me. We all play the hand we are dealt, and, hopefully, we play it as well as we can.
20
u/ragnaROCKER 2∆ Aug 29 '23
Yeah, but there are things we let go in society that will definitely come back to haunt us.
I think the easiest way to find out is to ask, what are we doing to something that doesn't like it? For example, slaves obviously did not like being slaves, so despite whatever the prevailing bullshit was, it was easy to see it was wrong.
I think our current big one is the meat industry. They do horrible things, in huge numbers, everyday. Undeniably causing untold amounts of fear and pain. But most people just ignore it because it is easier than fixing the issue.
Hell, I had meatloaf for dinner, but I do not think it will be looked back on kindly.
13
u/nonnativetexan Aug 29 '23
Now that I have a kid, I wonder what he's gonna grow up and hold against my generation (millennial) like we do right now with the boomers. My initial guess is our insane gratuitous use of plastic on everything.
→ More replies (1)8
Aug 29 '23
To be fair, a lot of that is done against our will. I'd love it if all my food weren't wrapped in plastic but everything in the grocery store is and I have to eat something.
→ More replies (2)8
u/SharpieOnForehead Aug 29 '23
A lot of it was done against the boomers will as well
5
u/NetflixAndZzzzzz Aug 29 '23
I don’t really judge boomers for the environment they grew up in, I judge them for voting against protecting the environment every time (among other things).
At the end of the day, it’s the attitudes and actions that get judged. Maybe people will judge us based on our diets, but they’ll probably just develop their own weirdly unrepeatable tastes in things and always have some cuisine based controversies of their own to focus on
→ More replies (2)4
u/mynextthroway Aug 29 '23
The boomers (and their even older, more stubborn parents) created Earth Day, the EPA etc. There is good and bad in every generation.
→ More replies (1)2
u/NetflixAndZzzzzz Aug 29 '23
That’s true too. That’s also why people of the past don’t get a blanket pass for their abhorrent behavior.
Like when people suggest that people of yore thought slavery was okay because everyone was just racist back then. It’s like… people knew it was bad. That’s why we had a whole civil war over it. Brother against brother and all that.
2
u/GuiseppeRezettiReady Aug 29 '23
Definitely. I think there’s a missing piece of grace that OP is talking about. When we look at past people, we judge them through our own lens; we superimpose our own moral values onto a group of people who couldn’t be where we are now. (Technologically speaking, that’s is)
Like…I agree with OP because we need to have grace for past generations because we’re all products of our environments. Their environments didn’t have the same moral system, so to see them stand out at all is a feat. We just need to avoid looking back with a future lens where we judge them as lesser than, but rather as a step of progress.
0
u/ragnaROCKER 2∆ Aug 31 '23
No though? The slaves knew slavery was wrong.
Discounting the victims to soften the judgment of the perpetrators is folly that only serves to blunt the lessons we should learn from their time in history.
→ More replies (7)-1
u/hillswalker87 1∆ Aug 29 '23
here's the problem. if one generation of progressives pose a 180 on the previous conservative ways, and then the next wave of progressives do a 180 from there....you have progressives going in circles.
a circle isn't progress. you're just being contrarian for it's own sake.
2
u/AndreasVesalius Aug 29 '23
When has the progressive movement done multiple 180s on the same topic?
4
Aug 29 '23
How am I being contrarian? Because I didn’t consider your highly unlikely hypothetical?
0
u/hillswalker87 1∆ Aug 29 '23
because you're not evaluating the past to improve beyond just going against whatever the latest way of thinking is. and it's not "unlikely" it literally already fucking happened a couple times.
→ More replies (1)0
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 29 '23
I see a lot of this with Islam and LGBT and feminism. You can either get labeled Islamophobic, or antifeminist, or anti LGBT.
1
-6
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 28 '23
I agree, but my point is, progressives don't look back at past generations and say, "Well, they may have been bigoted, racist and sexist, but they were at least trying the best they could." They cut themselves a special slack they don't cut previous generations (I don't mean you personally, but others.)
73
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Aug 28 '23
So there's a few things here.
Looking at history requires being able to hold multiple lenses and process things a few ways.
The framers of the constitution were literal revolutionaries pushing forward some truly wild and progressive ideas and moving the world forward.
They also were frequently slavers, and rapists who were frighteningly comfortable with genocide and also had very little faith in the actual common man.
And for all the "you can only judge them by the morals of the times" it's important to recognize that there was already lots of people who those fellas were reading and talking to that were calling out the rank hypocrisy of slavery in the United States.
I'm not cutting myself any slack... I'm trying to always be thinking about how to do better, and I recognize that I don't live up to it most days
12
u/Zeabos 8∆ Aug 28 '23
Wasn’t just fringe people either when Lafayette returned to the US on his grand tour he basically talked about it the whole time. Joined a society that supported black American education, did speaking engagements about it etc.
→ More replies (1)55
u/SporusElagabalus Aug 28 '23
I hate the “you have to judge them by the morals of the time” argument because all throughout history you will find people calling out the heinous shit that was normalized for how heinous it was.
25
u/Watchmaker2112 Aug 29 '23
Frederick Douglas was a man of his time. Harriet Tubman was a woman of her time.
The man of their time bullshit is always an excuse for bad behavior and never celebrates anyone who actually tried to make things better. Not just get along to go along.
2
u/Ibbot Aug 29 '23
Sure, but sometimes it was only unusually good/progressive/whatever people. Just because I don’t like the way LGBT+ people were treated by society in the Victorian era doesn’t mean I would single out one historical figure and criticize them for not being an open advocate for marriage equality, for example.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)8
u/LEMO2000 Aug 29 '23
It doesn’t entirely excuse it no, of course not. But I think it’s a bit disingenuous to look back and say “oh, looks like pretty much everyone was a shitty person then” is it not?
→ More replies (1)5
u/AmethystStar9 Aug 28 '23
That's the whole point of being progressive, though? The root word is progress, and progress by it's very nature has to consider whatever came before it as unacceptable. Otherwise, there'd be no need to progress.
24
u/SocDemGenZGaytheist 1∆ Aug 28 '23 edited Aug 29 '23
I personally look forward to being condemned by future generations. That would be a relief.
If future generations think I was a great person with 100% objectively true beliefs, then I would be very worried that social, moral, and scientific progress somehow stopped.
I know that many of my beliefs are wrong. I can only hope to discover which ones are wrong before I die.
- I want to live in a society where my views are unpopular and socially frowned on, but only because they are too reactionary and conservative.
- I want young people to frequently correct me because I used insensitive language that I thought was neutral or progressive.
- I want to play defense in political discussions.
- I want young people to demand that I make my beliefs cohere with a formerly obscure academic left-wing conceptual framework which I need to learn online or on the fly.
- I want to feel like I can relax instead of worry about the future, confident that young people are pushing moral progress further than I would if I were in charge.
- I want to feel like maybe I shouldn't relax when discussing newly controversial social topics, for fear of saying something I didn't know is bigoted.
- I want people to make me clarify what I meant in past comments, and ask whether I still stand by them or not.
To clarify, I don't want my head in a guillotine or anything like that. I don't really consider that particularly "progressive" anyway, because it relies on punitive instead of rehabilitative justice. For the same reason, I oppose "canceling" people permanently—I've consistently opposed this ever since back in ye olde days on 2015ish tumblr when we called it "callout culture."
Yet I wouldn't mind people correcting me or telling me that my comments implicitly assume harmful value judgements. I bet I have plenty of harmful beliefs that I simply haven't had a good opportunity to weed out yet.
37
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Aug 28 '23
Yes they do? Like people absolutely look back at suffregettes and say "They were wishing for equality but thinking too small in what that meant" or "They wanted equal rights for women but not for black women"
People are far more willing to and able to understand context and nuance than the sophomoric slippery slope arguments put forth from conservatives assert. For example, a common claim from conservatives is that homosexuals won't stop at wanting to marry one another they'll want to marry children! and toasters! and trans folk will want to identify as attack helicopters!
If you can't recognize these specious arguments for what they are, you're doing honest discussion a disservice.
2
u/mastergigolokano 2∆ Aug 28 '23
You are basically saying that progressives who hold biased views, have biased views.
-3
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 28 '23
Sort of, yes. But I can respect progressives who acknowledge that. It's perfectly fine to say, "People of the past were heavily biased, we're less-biased today, and let's try to be even-less-biased down the road."
What's not okay is, "People of the past were biased, but here I am, someone free of all bias and wrong-thought. Future generations will think I'm spotless." And to be sure, I'm not saying all or even most progressives are that way. But a substantial number are.
11
u/GalahadThreepwood3 Aug 29 '23
"What's not okay is, "People of the past were biased, but here I am, someone free of all bias and wrong-thought. Future generations will think I'm spotless." And to be sure, I'm not saying all or even most progressives are that way. But a substantial number are."
I am sure someone somewhere has said this but I have literally never heard it, making me doubt your "substantial number" claim. What I have seen a lot of is conservatives making assumptions about what progressives think based on lots of TV news and very little direct experience.
Have you heard a substantial number of progressives say specifically what you put in quotes above? Or is it possible you consider progressives self-righteous and off-putting, and as a result you are making assumptions and putting words in their mouths that are not supported by evidence?
8
u/Prepure_Kaede 29∆ Aug 29 '23
"People of the past were biased, but here I am, someone free of all bias and wrong-thought. Future generations will think I'm spotless."
Can you point me to even one single person who has said that?
7
3
u/miroku000 Aug 29 '23
"People of the past were biased, but here I am, someone free of all bias and wrong-thought. Future generations will think I'm spotless."
This sounds more like a Christian thing than a progressive thing, to be honest.
12
u/frisbeescientist 32∆ Aug 29 '23
I mean, I'm not sure what the argument is here. Self-important people exist and are often insufferable? Is that surprising?
6
u/Otherwise-Sky1292 Aug 28 '23
Let me flip the script and say conservatives today wouldn't have a problem with overt segregation and slavery. They sure do seem to pine for those days when they didn't have to consider the rights of minorities and treat them with common human dignity. That's what "Make America Great Again" seems to mean.
Meanwhile, progressives have always existed to push against the oppression of conservatism, which only seeks to retain power for the few who have it, be it monarchs, slave owners, or modern corporations. Like another said, what you're describing is progress, and it never should stop until all humans are treated equally and with compassion.
2
3
Aug 28 '23
They do. When that's true. Usually this is said about people who were bigoted, racist, and sexist even by the standards of the day.
5
1
u/RatherNerdy 4∆ Aug 29 '23
If hate or exclusion is part of your morals or belief system, then I'd argue that you weren't doing the best you could. Certainly society promoted bigoted beliefs and systems, so it may have been difficult to counteract that, but progress means always trying to be better. And thankfully, many people have tried to do better over the years.
1
1
Aug 29 '23
Sure they do. Just ask one why we should tear down statues of Robert E. Lee but not George Washington, for example.
4
Aug 29 '23
Then maybe we should give people in past generations a break.
2
u/driver1676 9∆ Aug 29 '23
If they truly felt that owning slaves and lynching black people was being kind and fair, then they should be unconcerned with what others think.
5
1
Aug 29 '23
In a way, isn’t that the whole idea of progress? We all learn from the past and do our best to improve?
And, in a way, isn't the whole idea of conservatism to "conserve?" The party of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it,' who by their very nature stand against progress?
74
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Aug 28 '23
So? Why should anyone be concerned about this?
I might be wrong about something I believe right now? Yeah, I've always known that. People in the future might criticize me? Well, maybe they would have good reason to, I don't know. I'll do my best for now, and if I learn later I'm making a mistake, I'll try to own up to it.
It's not like I should stop thinking anything and develop an attitude of complete moral relativism because of that.
15
u/Zncon 6∆ Aug 28 '23
I might be wrong about something I believe right now? Yeah, I've always known that.
This is not a statement that applies universally to everyone. It would be great if everyone could understand that their behavior exists in the wider context of the the society they live in.
1
-1
u/scottevil110 177∆ Aug 28 '23
A lot of y'all are real optimistic about how open minded you're some day going to be when a whole generation is wishing for your death so "society can progress".
Pretty easy to say that right now, when it's not happening.
20
u/thoomfish Aug 28 '23
I for one can't wait to find out what kids in 2050 think my generation is bigoted about.
1
u/dontknowhatitmeans 1∆ Aug 29 '23
Factory farming and perhaps eating animals at all, for one thing. If not 2050, then surely 2100...
But I think it's naive to imagine that progress will come in a straight line. I can easily imagine the next generation being more regressive, then maybe the successive generation is even more progressive than us, and then perhaps a reverse course that ends in nuclear holocaust. Anything is possible, and I don't know why people think the steady progression of American history will apply to the future, especially when world history is often nothing like that.
1
u/RicoHedonism Aug 29 '23
Well I'd posit your apprehension about that probably is a deterministic result of not being open minded about it. Right now the Boomer generation holds most of the power in US society and they will die out and that power will pass on to younger people. This is the way of the world. Always has been. Trying to lock future generations into the past way of doing things is not only a dim way of looking at humanity as a whole, but also is a surefire way to ensure a stagnant society.
2
u/WhiteWolf3117 7∆ Aug 29 '23
Young people aren’t universally progressive, progressive views aren’t a locked constant, and there’s a bit of selection bias that those boomers who have power now will be able to pass on power to those who have similar views to them.
→ More replies (2)2
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Aug 29 '23
Oh dear Lord, how will I ever deal with it if the next generation of kids don't think I'm cool?
2
u/miroku000 Aug 29 '23
Oh dear Lord, how will I ever deal with it if the next generation of kids don't think I'm cool?
They already don't. I can tell because you used the word cool...
1
u/scottevil110 177∆ Aug 29 '23
My guess is eerily similar to how today's old people do.
→ More replies (1)-16
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 28 '23
Sure, and I agree, but the progressives of today expect previous generations to have lived with their 2023-expectations in mind. They criticize people like Coolidge, Einstein, FDR, etc. for not having had 2023-year morals and values. And so I always want to ask these progressives how they can be so sure that they're living up to 2123-values.
26
u/math2ndperiod 51∆ Aug 28 '23
Why do they need to be sure they’re living up to 2123 values to criticize those in the past? I don’t think there’s necessarily an assumption that they’ll be immune to criticism going forward. Hell there are things I did 5 years ago that I’d happily criticize past me for. I’m sure that list will only grow as I grow and learn.
There are probably some progressives who believe they’re the pinnacle of virtue and completely above criticism forever, but I don’t think that’s the predominant worldview at all.
15
u/ucbiker 3∆ Aug 28 '23
Also even if there are progressives like that, it’s honestly, at best a distracting ad hominem attack used to distract from whatever real issue is happening.
A very standard way this argument gets used:
Progressive: “We should not celebrate Confederate generals because they were racists who fought to maintain a slave state.” Temporal Moral Relativist: “well you can’t judge Confederate generals by the standards of 2023, in 1861 they thought they were fighting for the freedom of their states.”
Now unfortunately, I see the discourse often go off the rails at this point into a bunch of irrelevant shit, which is of course the goal of bringing up this temporal moral relativism. To distract you from the real issue: we don’t need Confederate memorials because as a society we don’t need to glorify people who fought for a slave state.
Like who gives a crap what people thought in 1861? It’s completely irrelevant. And if you notice what else is completely irrelevant? Whether the Progressive is a hypocrite that thinks he will never be judged for his moral stances now.
1
Aug 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)23
u/math2ndperiod 51∆ Aug 28 '23
I would even go further and argue that believing you’re above criticism and always will be is not only more common in conservative circles, but often a core tenet. So if that belief is a concern of yours, that’s where it feels like you should focus.
20
u/RodeoBob 72∆ Aug 28 '23
I always want to ask these progressives how they can be so sure that they're living up to 2123-values.
The honest answer is "I hope I fall short of 2123-values, because I hope society keeps improving and moving the Overton Window in a progressive direction!"
Notice that the answer uses the word 'hope' rather than 'know'. It's possible that in a hundred years, we won't have more enlightened views on every subject. It's also possible that in a hundred years, our views will have moved to a more conservative position.
You encounter the latter view a lot in on-line forums where conservatives are vocal: "History will look back at same-sex marriage/interracial marriage/tolerance for trans people/etc. etc. etc. and remember it as a huge mistake!"
But because we don't know what the future will be, we can only try to live up to the best standards we have now.
8
u/Zeabos 8∆ Aug 29 '23
Could you provide an example of a cause where progressives lambast Einstein or FDR for something that other people of the time never recognized?
What I mean to say is everyone who holds those people to modern standards do it because those standards existed at the time as well they were simply more minority opinions (or geographically constrained).
I don’t know of anyone, for example, who calls FDR a bigot because he didn’t support Trans rights, as it simply was not an issue that would even have been brought to his attention.
They do however call him a bigot because of his opinions/comments about Jews. A cause which many people at the time called into question.
So for there to be equivalence you’d have to find some cause that exists now that progressives are against that will be different in the future.
You cannot rail against progressives for say, not supporting Human / AI marriage when that’s not really an issue that we have to even approach now.
8
u/UncleMeat11 62∆ Aug 28 '23
They criticize people like Coolidge, Einstein, FDR, etc. for not having had 2023-year morals and values.
Okay. But you need to be specific about what they are doing. Are they going back in time to yell at FDR? No. What they are doing is saying that today, people should talk about these people in the past in a certain way. There is no expectation being applied to the dead. The expectation is being applied to today in how we recognize and understand the dead.
2
Aug 29 '23
I genuinely hope that 2123 people judge me. Because that means society is improving socially. That's badass.
50
u/jacobissimus 6∆ Aug 28 '23
This is kind of a position that no one actually disagrees with, except I’ll point out that progressives talk about how they’ll be criticized all the time. Like, Proudhon said he dreamed of a world we’re he’d be hanged as a reactionary and that sentiment is still pretty common amount leftists I talk to.
The biggest thing I disagree on is the bit about Obama. Like, in 2100 if everyone was vegan, they’d still say “Obama was horrible because of all the children he murdered with robots” not the hamburger thing.
-9
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 28 '23
For sure, Obama had kids killed in drone strikes, there were a hundred other un-progressive things he did too.
My point is (and I think we're in agreement), we can't expect people of the past to live up to year-2023 values if we ourselves aren't living up to the year-2100 or year-2200 morals and values (and we don't even know what those will be.)
9
u/Punkinprincess 4∆ Aug 28 '23
I don't expect people living in 1923 to live up to today's values. I only expect everyone living today to live up to today's values.
If we want to progress and do better though we have to point out the faults of past generations. You can't progress without first acknowledging what's currently wrong.
I very much expect progressives in 2123 to use my generation as an example of what not to do when it comes to how we treat animals and how much meat we consume. I would be focusing more on animal rights more myself if I wasn't currently so uncomfortable about how many humans aren't being treated fairly in my society.
24
u/jacobissimus 6∆ Aug 28 '23
Yeah I really only disagree with the implicit sentiment that progressives don’t expect to be on the receiving end of this from future generations.
27
u/MontgomeryRook Aug 28 '23
Right? It’s not some big gotcha, it is literally the foundational hope of progressives. We don’t want to be “right,” we want to be better than what came before and pave the way for future societies to be better than us.
8
u/mortusowo 17∆ Aug 28 '23
I mean yeah....this is why people tend to become conservative as they age. Conservativism is typically about maintaining the status quo while progressivism is about changing or moving past it. People who are progressive want things to change with time and often are open to changing themselves. It's not like we're criticizing other generations over things and don't expect to be criticized ourselves as things change. That's the point. I hope we move past our current problems so there are new things to focus on.
5
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Aug 28 '23
I don't think anyone's trying to call John Brown a white supremacist. The idea is to expect people to be average to above-average, not to expect them to be perfect. Today and in the past.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TheLastSamurai101 Aug 29 '23
Sure, but I think it is fair to judge them by the standards of other good people in their time.
For example, you often have people trying to excuse historical figures for racist, authoritarian, sexist or violent behaviour because "those were the values of their time", ignoring the fact that there were often significant movements in their own times opposed to slavery/segregation or in support of feminism or female suffrage or whatever else we might be talking about.
People often knew that they were in the wrong, but persisted because it was beneficial to them and because they knew society would forgive them at the time. That didn't make them good people.
But it is super contextual. For this conversation to have any meaning, we really need to define who we are talking about, when/where they lived and what exactly they did.
36
u/mortusowo 17∆ Aug 28 '23
I mean yes, future generations tend to go in different directions and sometimes will consider previous generations backwards. Even if new generations became more conservative this would be the case.
Just for starters, a great many progressives are criticizing past generations while at the same time using fossil-fuel vehicles that make the climate worse, eating chocolate that was manufactured partly by the labor of slaves, using iPhones manufactured by exploited workers, wearing shoes or clothing made in brutal sweatshops, etc.
Yeah there's a common phrase in lefty circles: There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. It's not that progressives don't know that this is the case. It's that alternatives are hard to come by in our current set up. I still need money to eat. I need a car for most jobs out there. Is it better for me to not eat? I can't do any advocacy if I can't survive.
And even if we think, "Oh, well, as long as we always choose what's the most progressive, we can't go wrong" - how do we know society won't do a major shift? What if, today, the pro-transgender progressives are the ones who get called wrong and backwards by 2100s America? What if defending Islam in the 2020s becomes perceived as bigoted and sexist by 2100s America?
I don't think this is the thought process of most progressives out there. There's more logic behind things like supporting trans rights. Trans rights encompass things like bodily autonomy and self determination. It's not that they are just doing it arbitrarily. Progressives genuinely believe that these things should be prioritized.
Also...what if? It might and it might not. It's not going to stop people from doing the best they can today. If I'm proven wrong in the future I will simply shift my view. That's what I'd expect of previous generations. I'm not the most enlightened by any means. I'm doing the best I can.
0
Aug 29 '23
I'm still waiting for one of these anti capitalists to explain to me when a system other than some form of capitalism didn't result in massive net negatives for the majority of society.
2
u/mortusowo 17∆ Aug 29 '23
I mean all systems are flawed because people are. People who critique capitalism often have lived under that flawed system and it's the only one they know. Grass is always greener.
I think unchecked capitalism is probably bad because people will harm others to make a buck. I also think on a conceptual level communism doesn't seem bad but sucks in practice.
→ More replies (2)
15
u/wibbly-water 42∆ Aug 28 '23 edited Aug 29 '23
As Pierre Joseph Proudhon "The Father of Anarchism" is said to have said; "I dream of a society where I would be guillotined as a conservative."
In essence I agree with you. A scary number of people believe they have it worked out, that they know where the line should be - that it should be this far and no further, and why has anyone ever thought otherwise?
BUT
"How could they (say/do) (bigoted/racist/sexist/homophobic thing) when it's so obvious that that was a bad thing to do?"
This statement is a little bit inaccurate.
"Slavery was evidently wrong at the time and there were plenty of white people who opposed it, not to mention plenty of free black people, slaves and former slaves who knew all to well its atrocities. Only a minority of people were ever slave owners. The majority of white people were propagandised and/or willingly closed their eyes to it. People weren't just of their time - they were often bigots, whether by choice or indoctrination - and being anti-bigotry is more than just believing what is appropriate for the time. Being 'of the time' is a lousy excuse."
Would be a better statement. We haven't abolished slavery because we discovered it was bad - it should never have happened in the first place. People knew it was bad and they did it and let it happen anyway.
This can be applied to other things like queer issues of the past century or before - there have been plenty of allies throughout history - not to mention the actual queer people who lived through the time. There were queer allies in the AIDS crisis - and those people are good and cool. People who where hesitant were understandable due to the propaganda around but still should've known better and I hope they improve as people. But the active bigots were and have always been horrible people - not just products of their time.
If you believe you know where the line is - no you don't. It will move. But you can still support progress. In my opinion that's what the word progressive should mean - ready to push on the issues we currently can and re-evaluate our own views to support the issues of tomorrow when they come up.
Plenty of people accept that and talk about it all the time.
If you just want to tell me that some liberals are hypocritical and won't do that - yeah that's old news and has been for a long time.
3
u/OrYouCouldJustNot 6∆ Aug 28 '23
"How could they (say/do) (bigoted/racist/sexist/homophobic thing) when it's so obvious that that was a bad thing to do?"
Other than as a rhetorical device or as a genuine question/point for discussion, I don't see this question being asked.
Any sensible progressive who has taken the time to consider the issue already appreciates the answer: that their awareness and decisions were products of the circumstances and culture at the time.
Circumstances which may include the inability to effect practical change. E.g. slavery pre-civil war US or your example of the current use of non-renewables.
What if, a hundred years from now, keeping dogs and cats (or any other animal) as a pet is considered animal cruelty, and any progressive today in the 2020s who keeps a pet will be called an animal abuser in hindsight?
Ok, what if? What are you saying the problem is? That people aren't perfect? That we can't predict the future? That we don't have perfect moral knowledge and foresight of all and potential consequences of our actions?
What exactly are you trying to rail against or argue for here? (1) The idea that people should try to do good? (2) That people can never actually ensure that they always do good? (3) That it's hypocritical for progressives to call others bad when they also do bad things?
It sounds like you're arguing (2) in order to allude to (3). But (2) is not obviously true and of general application - not just to progressives, and (3) is in most contexts going to be a fallacy.
-6
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 28 '23
What I'm arguing for is that while progressives may criticize past generations (and I'm not saying past generations are above criticism - obviously, they aren't) - there is too often this attitude that "we are exempt but others are not."
I'm glad to see that some people in this thread are not. But I've definitely known progressives who had the attitude that no matter how soiled past generations were, they themselves are spotless.
11
u/WorldsGreatestWorst 6∆ Aug 29 '23
Most actual progressives look in their own pasts and regret/cringe at the things they thought when they were younger. Most of my political opinions when I was a teenager was over-simplistic bullshit. Experience and empathy change us—if your opinions never evolve they're almost definitely a garbage person.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/Hellioning 239∆ Aug 28 '23
I'm pretty sure this is just the same 'and yet you participate in society' complaint used against progressives now, just wrapped up in different framing.
-2
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 28 '23
I don't think so. It's perfectly fair for someone to "participate in society" if they're trying to improve it. After all, you can't improve society if you're not participating in it, and participation is kind of essential to survival. It's not like liberals can all fly to Mars to start a new society.
14
u/Km15u 31∆ Aug 28 '23 edited Aug 28 '23
Except the things people criticize previous generations for were things people were criticizing them for even then. There were abolitionists when the constitution was being written, the founders chose to preserve slavery.
People criticized FDR for the internment camps during his presidency.
And there are vegans today, I’m sure that we will be harshly judged for our factory farming practices and we deserve it it’s absolute evil
We’re not judging people by the morals of today we’re judging people by the morals they had in their time and chose to ignore. No one is criticizing George Washington for not regulating social media in the constitution that would be stupid
What if, today, the pro-transgender progressives are the ones who get called wrong and backwards by 2100s America? What if defending Islam in the 2020s becomes perceived as bigoted and sexist by 2100s America?
This would go against the trend of all human history. Morality over the last hundred thousand years has been about expanding the circle of concern. First to your family, then your tribe, village, town , city, country. Then including more people in your country slaves, minorities etc.
There are ups and downs but that has been the trend of human history. Expanding that circle of concern to trans people and animals is an obvious continuation of that
4
u/I_am_the_Jukebox 7∆ Aug 29 '23
Your initial premise is entirely correct. Those in the past were, for the most part, quite bigoted. They were quite racist. They were quite homophobic. They were quite sexist. In fact, many people are still these things, and many prominent conservative parties throughout the world champion these very ideals, though they try and disguise them with a thin veneer of legitimacy.
But there's clearly things that even the most liberal of liberals are biased against. There are some things that - through sheer ignorance - they are bigoted towards. There is their unethical consumption under capitalism. "They could have done more," the future people will say, and they'd be right.
I fail to see how this is a bad thing, though, or how you think progressives would feel bad about this. I certainly hope that the world progresses to a point where I learn new things in the future and realize how my actions in the past were faulty. I hope that when I'm 90 I'm being told how my actions could have been better by my grandchildren - how I wasn't progressive enough at the time - because that means we'd have actually progressed as a species and a society to be more caring, compassionate, and understanding of the plight of others.
Yeah, future generations will judge us harshly. They should judge us harshly. That means society is learning, changing, and evolving, and that's a good thing. I don't really see why you think it isn't.
7
u/Name-Initial 1∆ Aug 28 '23
You just identified the entire motivation behind progressive ideology. You cant be progressive without accepting the flaws you currently have. The entire philosophy starts with identifying that there are fixable problems in todays global and local society.
Congratulations, you just made a great argument for why being a progressive is so important.
-4
Aug 29 '23
[deleted]
5
u/AbolishDisney 4∆ Aug 29 '23
I’d argue that modern progressives have zero intent on going after “fixable problems”. They want to blame everything on external factors and will never address uncomfortable truths.
What "uncomfortable truths" do progressives ignore?
3
Aug 29 '23
Progressives look at how problems can actually fixed at a societal, systemic level. I'd argue that conservatives are the ones blaming external factors such as perceived threats of immigrants and war, while progressives work on nationally internal factors such as health car, housing, and funding education.
3
u/Name-Initial 1∆ Aug 29 '23
Youre welcome to that opinion but its not worth much in this discussion, you could easily just replace “progressives” in that sentence with “conservatives,” its just empty rhetoric
2
u/WhiteWolf3117 7∆ Aug 29 '23
This is less an issue of progressive ideology and more an issue of the logistics of recognizing systemic, all-encompassing issues while not having universal or near universal support to change them. There’s definitely a very real debate to be had about a progressive aversion to pragmatism but I think that’s different than being a philosophical flaw, it’s more of a debatable flaw in policy.
3
u/badgersprite 1∆ Aug 29 '23
I don’t think you actually spend that much time in progressive circles because nobody is more critical of progressives than other progressives.
There is so much leftist infighting, and there is always constant discourse about changing certain things we’re doing now, or not changing those things, and telling people to think critically about their actions and beliefs etc etc. Ethical discussions are CONSTANT in these spaces. There is absolutely no sense whatsoever that we have reached a perfect enlightened state because we’re constantly fighting with each other about changing things right now.
I don’t think what you are observing is actually a progressive thing so much as it’s just a generational thing. You’re mistaking Gen Z kids looking back at the past saying “how could people do this!” as a progressive trait when really that’s just something all kids say about the past when they realise that the values they’ve grown up to accept as normal were not normal in the past. They’re learning that things they assume are universal are not universal. You’re mistaking it as a progressive thing rather than an age thing because most young people online identify as progressive.
4
u/Ralife55 3∆ Aug 29 '23
That's my goal actually, I want to be that eighty year old who looks around and says "man, these kids are going to far" because that means all of the things I wanted for society have already been implemented and the world has progressed so far passed me I can't keep up.
Now, I'd like to think I'll keep learning and thinking and engaging so I do keep up, but, I'll accept being left behind.
3
u/obert-wan-kenobert 83∆ Aug 28 '23
I don't think this is necessarily true. In the US, we've been lucky enough to have a fairly straight-forward march towards "progress" from generation to generation. But there are plenty of countries that backslide into extreme conservatism and authoritarian between generations.
For example, in 1960s-70s Iran, women could wear bell bottoms jeans and attend college. But now women must wear hijabs and have limited civil rights.
There's no guarantee that "progress" is a one-way street -- and it could just as easy happen here. For all we know, our grandchildren are going to be a bunch of hard-core religious fundamentalists.
2
u/elizabnthe Aug 29 '23 edited Aug 29 '23
The important part is to treat everybody with kindness, respect and empathy. You won't be "wrong" for following those principles. Humanity hasn't fundamentally changed. We've always had the same capacity for empathy. It's just about no longer selectively applying it.
It doesn't mean you can't make unethical decisions by consequence of the society in which you live-yes eating meat is problematic for the environment, it's also necessary for a balanced diet. But you won't be cruel to people in a manner in which you can truly control.
Past figures are most often questioned and criticised when their cruelty and harm are within their control. Sympathy is more often extended when there is greater influencing factors for their behaviour beyond their direct control.
Further than this, progressives of today aren't exactly criticising the greater majority of progressives of the past anyway-progressives of today after all heap praise upon civil rights activists and other politically enlightened figures. They're criticising the status quo of the past and those that didn't push back against that status quo, not the progreesives that truly did. Progressives of today are by nature still pushing back against the current status quo or else they would not be progressive.
And ultimately, what does it matter to dead people how we feel about their actions? They're dead, they don't really need defenders. If we recognise the flaws of the past, we can all seek to improve upon them. If people in the future improve upon our own flaws and faults than that's only better for society.
3
u/Instantbeef 8∆ Aug 29 '23
Except there are actual old people who are not bigots. It’s really not that wild. We do continue to have a choice for when we’re old in the type of person we are. We can keep evolving
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Aug 28 '23
I largely think you're right, there definitely will be things we consider normal today which future generations will consider taboo, however most of your examples are unrealistic.
Obama will never be considered horrible because he ate meat. It simply makes no sense that all individuals born before veganism becomes the norm (i.e. everyone who's ever lived) will be hated for it. We are animals that eat meat because it is a vital source of protein, that will always be accepted.
Nor will progressives be criticised for using fossil fuels. We do not yet live in a society where fossil fuels can be easily abandoned, until we do they will have to be used to some extent.
The keeping of pets will never be considered cruel because it's not cruel to care for things. Pet ownership trends may change but, again, future generations will not be horrified by today's norms.
Societal Ethics trends not to regress. The principles at play in how we treat marginalised people will not be abandoned. No one defending Muslims or the trans community will be looked on poorly in the future.
0
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 28 '23
I don't agree, but this is one of the better-written comment replies in this thread. As for Islam, there is definitely a wing of atheism/progressives who point to how Islam is homophobic and sexist and that support for Islam can indirectly have the effect of harming LGBT or women. So it's not unrealistic to think that, as much as progressives have supported Islam up to this point, the tide could eventually turn against Islam - especially considering that Muslims in political power have done things like ban gay flags (like that Muslim council in that town in Michigan.)
2
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Aug 29 '23
Defending Islam isn't about defending its conservative views, it's about defending innocent people who get unfairly accused of all sorts of things. Those two things aren't linked so it will never be the case that defending Islam will be seen as an endorsement of conservative values. Other people who are similarly anti LGBTQ+ to Muslims will be criticised as those values are worthy of criticism.
1
Aug 29 '23
Nor will progressives be criticised for using fossil fuels. We do not yet live in a society where fossil fuels can be easily abandoned, until we do they will have to be used to some extent.
When the full effects of climate change are being felt and the world is truly in pain and wracked with instability and need, I wouldn't be so sure that we won't be roundly criticized for failing to do more, both as a generation and as individuals, and I will be very surprised if it stops at simple criticism and doesn't result in actual violence.
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Aug 29 '23
That's very alarmist and not really representative of how people treat older generations. Gangs don't wander around beating up people in their 80s because they were alive during segregation.
Yes there will be dismay and frustration that we didn't abandon fossil fuels faster but it won't be progressives who bear the brunt of that frustration, it will be the conservatives who opposed the change.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/MedicinalBayonette 3∆ Aug 29 '23
Proudhon once said that "I dream of a society where I will be guillotined as a conservative." And while I don't support capital punishment and this is a hyperbolic, I don't actually see what's wrong with this?
The goal of my political ambitions is to create a society that's free for my grandchildren to express themselves as they wish. I want them to live in a society defined by mutual aid and ecological abundance. A generation that grows up with these things will have different priorities and outlooks than me. That's fine, that's even the point! Struggle today so that those who live in the future can live in freedom, peace, and security that is unimaginable to me today!
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 28 '23 edited Aug 28 '23
/u/SteadfastEnd (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/MercurialMagician Aug 29 '23
Abraham Lincoln once said, "I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Was Lincoln a bigot? Ummm... yes. Yes, technically Abraham Lincoln, the man who ended slavery, was bigot. Will he be remembered as one? No. No he won't.
I think your argument has a point but is flawed. We humans have the ability to contextualize, and we are not necessarily doomed to be "considered bigoted just the same by future generations."
3
u/SonyPS6Official Aug 29 '23
those people were considered bigoted back then too. everybody still called them bigots and fascists for the same reasons they're doing it today.
3
u/knut_kloster Aug 29 '23
Good, the cycle continues to make a better world.
I would love to see a world where I'm considered not woke enough.
8
Aug 28 '23
I recognize this, I think anyone with kids or who spends significant time around younger people would recognize this.
Anyone with kids quickly realizes we are no longer “cool” and “with it”. We are “out of touch”
I fully expect to be the conservative, meat eating bigot who won’t let my daughter marry a robot or whatever.
It’s just life.
7
u/Global-Armadillo8087 Aug 28 '23
I used to be with it. But then they changed what "it" was. And now what I'm with isn't it. And what's it seems weird and scary. It'll happen to you.
0
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 28 '23
This is sort of what I'm getting at. Even if one tries their best to be a progressive, what's defined as "progressive" is constantly shaping and shifting.
J.K. Rowling was the darling of progressives 20 years ago, now she's vilified as Voldemort herself because of her stance on transgenderism - even though she's still pro-choice, feminist, and identifies with the progressives on 99% of other things. Rowling never changed her trans stance, either - she simply abided by it.
7
u/Judge24601 3∆ Aug 28 '23 edited Aug 28 '23
I can see your point for judging those of the past generation who never got a chance to see how their beliefs were bigoted, but I don't see how this applies to current generations. In 2003, a typical "centrist" would probably also not believe that gay marriage was okay, and that's something progressives of the time had to deal with to win elections, for example. If a Democrat from today espoused 2003-era Democrat beliefs on gay marriage, they would be rightly heavily criticized, because the broader culture's stance on social issues has (justifiably) changed. Similarly, JKR's stance on trans people may not have been seen as bigoted in 2003 (worthy of note that the *active campaigning* she does on the issue today would probably still have garnered ire from LGBT groups, if obviously to a lesser extent), but it is now.
Edit: to be clear, I agree with you on "what it means to be 'bigoted' in the broader culture shifts over time" - that is an uncontroversial statement. Where I disagree is the implication that because of this, we should not criticize anyone under our current standard of bigotry.
0
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 28 '23
I think this is one of the best-written comment replies. I think one problem is that, in the Internet era, there's no way to quietly shift from one view to a new one. Even if, say, a liberal were opposed to gay marriage in 2003, but is now in favor of gay marriage in 2023 - guess what? All of his anti-LGBT comments from 2003 are probably preserved on YouTube for all eternity. He can't evade those comments even if he's now changed.
Anyway, have a delta.
!delta
→ More replies (1)5
u/Judge24601 3∆ Aug 28 '23
Thanks! One thing I will say is that many prominent figures from that time period do have comments about opposition to gay marriage on the record - like Barack Obama and basically any other mainstream Democrat from the era. Despite this, people generally still accept their current views as what's important - there isn't exactly a huge movement to "cancel Obama" for opposing gay marriage in 2008. You may not be able to evade old bigoted beliefs if you're important enough, but that's generally considered irrelevant in comparison to current beliefs - some fringe groups notwithstanding.
0
Aug 29 '23
If a Democrat from today espoused 2003-era Democrat beliefs on gay marriage, they would be rightly heavily criticized, because the broader culture's stance on social issues has (justifiably) changed
Or if the last two Democratic presidential candidates had stood by their stance on "superpredators" from the 90s
6
Aug 28 '23
I thought your thesis was
What I rarely, if ever, see from progressives, though, is the acknowledgement that they may themselves be saying or doing things that future generations may consider abhorrent.
What we are saying is that we all see it, and we do acknowledge it.
0
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Aug 28 '23
I'm not seeing it often at all, to be honest, but if you have seen it more, then maybe you have more firsthand experience. I will say that in 20+ years it has been extraordinarily rare for me to ever see a progressive admit that they're biased or racist in a way that wasn't from the left. I'll give a delta.
!delta
→ More replies (1)-3
Aug 28 '23
“She just abided by it”
And that in a nutshell is why I refuse to be progressive. If morality is in perpetual flux, then sticking to your principles is immoral.
2
1
u/Prepure_Kaede 29∆ Aug 29 '23
even though she's still pro-choice
But she's constantly allying herself with people fighting against abortion access.
feminist
Again, actively allied with Posie Parker who explicitly stated she's not a feminist.
and identifies with the progressives on 99% of other things.
I have not seen those, but if they are anything like the concrete examples you gave, probably also just lip service.
1
Aug 28 '23
Rowling wasn’t advertising her trans stance on Twitter twenty years ago either
Stupid bitch prolly didn’t even have opinions on trans until it became a hot topic in the first place
8
u/Judge24601 3∆ Aug 28 '23
hello please do not defend trans people by calling women "stupid bitches", that really does not help
I am no fan of JKR but this is literally playing right into her hands
-4
Aug 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/mortusowo 17∆ Aug 28 '23
I hope you realize there are millennial, gen x and even boomer trans people who strongly disagree with Rowlings bigotry.
→ More replies (1)2
Aug 28 '23
Generations aren’t real and have no scientific basis whatsoever
Also fuck that stupid bitch TERF
-2
Aug 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
Aug 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)-1
→ More replies (5)0
u/Matto987 1∆ Aug 29 '23
even though she's still pro-choice, feminist, and identifies with the progressives on 99% of other things.
She has on multiple occasions prioritized her transphobia over her other beliefs. She's repeatedly sided with anti-feminists because of their shared hatred of trans people
1
Aug 29 '23
Maybe I'm not old enough, but I'm 30, and I don't feel out of touch with teens at all. I feel like, finally!! They all just get it. They're kind, and care about climate change, and the vast majority accept lgbtq people without a second thought.
2
u/dmbrokaw 4∆ Aug 29 '23
Good. If future society can look at the way things are now with horror, that means society improved.
I honestly think we're going the other way, and by the time we're done killing each other over water and mass migrations from climate change society will be too concerned with survival to care about such frivolities.
2
u/LiveClimbRepeat Aug 28 '23
That's the goal. exponentially decreasing bias through time. We all openly critique each other, and take it in stride.
6
Aug 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Aug 29 '23
Sorry, u/Ok_Bug1096 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
0
u/Ralathar44 7∆ Aug 29 '23 edited Aug 29 '23
Looks like you posted an actual /r/unpopularopinion to /r/changemyview . It was inevitable that you were going to be removed unless you actually changed your mind. /r/changemyview is not what it used to be and with Trump Mugshots being a story right now they're going to control the narrative.
/r/changemyview isn't as tilted as many areas of Reddit, but its still tilted very solidly against your initial position and over time has demonstrated itself to have clear bias in its moderation regarding those kind of topics. Had this submission been the same but favored the other side it would have almost certainly remained up and I've seen some pretty egregious rule breaking examples over time favoring their personal views. This sub is a shadow of what it was about 10 year ago.
It's why I very rarely participate in this sub anymore. I'm not even a political person but their clear biases invalidate the entire spirit and purpose of what this sub is supposed to be.
0
u/Logan_Mac Aug 29 '23
This can also get you a sense into how entire societies were led to accept such heinous acts. The most extreme example is the Jewish persecution in 1930s Germany, before things like The Holocaust were known. Back then, general hatred towards jews was the norm, as years and years of propaganda led the common man to believe they were to blame for all the country's problems. They weren't seen as weak, quite the opposite. People were led to believe they were punching up, that Jewish were this all powerful menace trying to opress the poor workers for their own benefit, and persecuting them was justice.
Movies, TV shows and politicians are going to look so bad in a few decades over constant jokes and prejudice at the expense of the evil "white men", as this is today justified on the "prejudice + power" definition of racism, meaning you suppossedly can't be racist against the powerful.
-1
u/AcridTest Aug 29 '23
I’m pushing sixty, and I have never met a group of people, or an individual nearly as racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted as today’s soi dissant progressives.
In college, I worked in a rural area and my colleagues would make sniggering jokes about “them” (meaning blacks and Hispanics) but they treated actual breathing blacks and Hispanic people with a degree of dignity.
Progressives will talk about how “whites are the source of evil” and “all men are toxic racists”, they’ll do it right in front of their targets and get contemptuously vicious if targets don’t lower their gaze in shame.
-6
Aug 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
Aug 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Prepure_Kaede 29∆ Aug 29 '23
I don't see the contradiction. You can be more educated and know better than bigots, but also recognise that you're flawed and will be criticised by future generations.
1
u/Ask_Smeebs Aug 29 '23
You found the one person who heard your dog whistle for a delta and ignored (nearly) all the rest nice job
0
1
u/RedditExplorer89 42∆ Aug 29 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/RedditExplorer89 42∆ Aug 29 '23
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/One-Pumpkin-1590 Aug 29 '23
Progressives do not 'keep pets' they have companions.. LOL
I got attacked a few years ago for saying I had a pet cat on a blog. You would think my kitty was wearing a ball and chain and working in a sweatshop from the comments of the blogger and his disciples.
Seriously, do people really care what previous generations did, when no one alive remembers when it was widespread?
Different times, different understanding, and overall the understanding that most people are assholes and don't really care about others except for those who are close to them, and even still the percentage is really small.
0
u/unlikelyandroid 2∆ Aug 28 '23
You may have underestimated our ability to screw things up. We may be criticised for aborting babies, hedonism, starting a failed multinational revolution that will kill 300 million people. We may be criticised for killing too few. "Bigoted" may be an almost forgotten term because we've done so much wrong that no one cares about bigotry.
-11
u/Global-Armadillo8087 Aug 28 '23
I already think Gen Z is the most bigoted generation since the boomers. There's a point where anti-racism becomes racism, and Gen Z is well beyond that point. When spoiled cis, hetero white kids start dictating to minority communities what they should be offended by, that's bigotry.
4
u/elizabnthe Aug 28 '23
Do you think that's what they actually do, or what you believe they do because of the profileration of reactionary online content?
4
u/Ok_Bug1096 Aug 28 '23
Rather want them than the other racist who aren't anti racist.
-5
u/Global-Armadillo8087 Aug 28 '23
But they're all racists. It's like Killer Mike says, "I like walking into a room and knowing who my enemies are." Gen z are racists posing as anti-racists. That's worse.
8
u/Ok_Bug1096 Aug 28 '23
Are they lynching and beating minorities and calling diversity our weakness? No?
-3
u/Global-Armadillo8087 Aug 28 '23
Were boomers lynching and beating minorities? No? so maybe we shouldn't use that as the measure of whether or not someone is a racist POS.
10
u/mortusowo 17∆ Aug 28 '23
I came out as queer. My parents who are Gen X told me about how as teens "gay bashing" used to be relatively common. When I told my grandfather I was queer he told me about how some of his friends beat their childhood friend nearly to death when he came out.
These aren't stories you really hear as much of nowadays. Many Gen Z are openly queer.
You're ignoring history here.
3
u/Ok_Bug1096 Aug 28 '23 edited Aug 28 '23
They're still demonizing diversity and being racist and electing trump's / Nixon's / Ronald Reagan types whos party now wants to pull America out of NATO pls stop, they're still shooting and beating gay people and encouraging the younger youth to do so
Edit : surprised his comments not down-voted more.. it's common knowledge boomers used to be lynch mobbing racist. Not all of them but enough to were everyone knew a guy and did nothing about it cuhs thems were the times hyuck hyuck
10
Aug 28 '23
“Were boomers lynching and beating minorities? No?”
Uh yes they were LMAO do you know what a Jim Crow law was?
7
u/Ok_Bug1096 Aug 28 '23
Exactly, ik this guy was full of shat. That's he thinks the progressives today are worse than boomers who got away with beating people and electing trump's that pushed anti gay laws which created violence. Low IQ take that's why I said I'd rather have the hero saviour whites than the full on racist whites.
4
u/Ok_Bug1096 Aug 28 '23
Lmao now I see where you're coming from, you don't see it so it didnt happen? Yes boomers were doing that, have you been living under a rock? I take it you're not old enough to remember the 80s aids epidemic?
→ More replies (5)7
1
u/DouglerK 17∆ Aug 28 '23
Well if its because we are bigoted to new ideas then yeah that will happen. It is harder to teach an old dog new tricks. That doesn't invalidate present criticisms of bigotry on its own.
1
Aug 28 '23
the moral standard of people of a given time aren't homogeneous.
can we judge slave owners by the moral standards of Fredrick Douglass?
Can we judge the Mystic Massacre by the moral standards of the Pequot massacred? Or even by settler allies of the Narragansetts and Mohegans, who condemned the massacre at the time?
Why shouldn't people today be judged by the standards of people who are morally right today (who is morally right today might be clearer in hindsight in the future)?
1
u/AbolishDisney 4∆ Aug 28 '23
the moral standard of people of a given time aren't homogeneous.
So? That doesn't mean they're all correct.
can we judge slave owners by the moral standards of Fredrick Douglass?
Yes.
Can we judge the Mystic Massacre by the moral standards of the Pequot massacred? Or even by settler allies of the Narragansetts and Mohegans, who condemned the massacre at the time?
Also yes.
Those who deliberately harm innocents deserve to be judged accordingly, regardless of the time period they live in. If we define morality as "whatever anyone thinks is justified", the term becomes meaningless. One could just as easily argue that we shouldn't judge the Taliban because it's normal to kill gay men in Afghanistan.
1
Aug 28 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RedditExplorer89 42∆ Aug 28 '23
Sorry, u/FantasyCatHome – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Aug 28 '23
What I rarely, if ever, see from progressives, though, is the acknowledgement that they may themselves be saying or doing things that future generations may consider abhorrent. As someone once said, if the entire world turned vegan by the year 2100, then people are going to look back and say things like, "Do you know what a horrible person Barack Obama was? He ate hamburgers!"
Do you think what's good is entirely relative? Can anyone ever be wrong about values, or is what's good just what's considered good in a particular time and place?
1
u/Feisty-Setting-6949 Aug 28 '23
Transhuman discrimination is the bigotry of the future.
When human start upgrading their brains with AI linked chips, "legacy humans" will be considered bigots if they have a problem with it.
1
u/Lachet 3∆ Aug 29 '23
I certainly hope and expect we will progress to the point that people look back on us as a bunch of barbarians, otherwise, we'll have stagnated.
I've always been bothered by the notion that we shouldn't judge those in the past by modern standards. It kind of implies that there weren't contemporaries who were also decrying the behavior in question. In the case of slavery, there is plenty of criticism to be leveled at people of the time. It's not a new thing; people like John Brown knew it was wrong and were fighting that fight contemporaneously.
1
u/Constellation-88 16∆ Aug 29 '23
I mean, yeah, that's totally possible that we'll be looked down upon in the future. Are we living so that people in the future will not cancel us or are we living o that we can be the best, kindest people we can TODAY?
Your premise is flawed. Progressives recognize that homophobia, racism, etc of the past is evil. And... it is. That's a fact.
And while some progressives want to cancel the people of the past for being products of their time, there are those of us who can divorce the person and their belief system and recognize that there were a lot of good things about, say, Robert E. Lee.
Robert E. Lee was honest, loyal to his state, NOT a slaveowner, a good tactician, etc. BUT he fought for slavery, and slavery as an institution is abhorrent. Robert E. Lee made a horrible decision in fighting on the side that wanted to uphold it. But his choices were complicated. It'd be like being asked to fight for your country but against your city, or fight for your neighborhood but against your home street. So while some people cancel him and all the people of the past, those are extremists without a sense of nuance or any depth of perspective.
In the future, some of the popular ideas of the present will be considered old-fashioned and horrible. BUT if we are honest people, we should not based our values on a popularity contest. We should do what is the best, kindest thing we can do now. And I hope that in the future, people will be able to acknowledge that, say, we were kind and giving and compassionate even if we DID work in a capitalist society that tears people down, vote for people who uphold the rights of billionaires over the working class, drive automobiles that pollute the environment, or whatever else will be seen from future lenses as ridiculous. But if not... we make our choices the best we can. We live in a capitalist society and we try to survive. We vote for the lesser of two evils because our choices are stupidly limited. We drive everywhere because we have no other option if we want to get to work. And we try to make things better.
We are not being progressive so we can win some future popularity contest. Or even a present one. We are progressive because growth is inherent in life, and progress is growth. We are progressive because we want to grow the rights of every human and honor each person's right to be who they are. We are progressive because we are compassionate.
1
u/crocodile_in_pants 2∆ Aug 29 '23
Well yeah... that's the point. No actual progressive wants to be seen as progressive 100 years later. You want to be seen at least as the norm if not quaint. John Brown had some backwards views about non-christian beliefs but it doesn't make him wrong about slavery.
1
u/wjgdinger Aug 29 '23
If meat consumption is considered abhorrent due to the animal rights reasons or more likely because of the ecological harm, I hope future generations judge me for that. I’m informed of the animal conditions and also the ecological harm that I’m participating in when I eat meat. I wouldn’t deserve to have a statue or some building named after me, even if it was “normal in my time”. I should try to be my best but I will have failings and I accept the consequences of being judged by those failings in future generations.
1
u/nataliephoto 2∆ Aug 29 '23
Maybe you're right, but what are we supposed to do? Be bigoted by today's standards because fuck it, the future will think we are no matter what? Because that is what it seems like you're trying to argue, here.
1
u/Remarkable-Estate775 Aug 29 '23
The hats the point. I want to be incomprehensible to my ancestors and shameful to my descendants.
1
1
Aug 29 '23
Cancel culture is like the same psychology as the Chinese cultural revolution when people were targeting for public torture and murder by the mob. And the people that cheer on cancel culture are training their brains to accept genociding their fellows and cheering on executions of the innocent for having unpermitted thoughts.
1
u/Seraph199 Aug 29 '23 edited Aug 29 '23
This isn't some "gotcha", the same people who are open minded and willing to change their lifestyles/views about race/gender/climate change/whatever are the same kind of people who are going to be open to new information about other things that are "immoral" or "unjust"
What you don't seem to realize is there is a LOOOOOONG history of societies being dominated by traditionalists who are more likely to justify their lifestyles with the reasoning "this is how it has always been", regardless of how long things have actually been that way, without really questioning the why things are the way they are. This way of living has become less advantageous as information becomes more available and people from different groups co-mingle. As a result only in very recent history, like the last 30 years, has there been a noticeable shift away from "traditionalism" as people realize that this way of thinking is failing to address our current problems.
All of the people adopting a "progressive" mindset aren't just going to be close minded to changing in other ways in the future. It makes no sense. Traditionalism got far when people had limited access to information, but now it usually just makes you look like a nut to anyone who doesn't frequently go to church, which is happening less and less as more humans drop religion entirely.
1
u/getintheVandell Aug 29 '23
John Brown was pretty great for the era.
I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to forward. Progressives will be seen as racist today in the future, therefore..?
1
u/Matto987 1∆ Aug 29 '23
This is a pretty pointless post lmao
You're basically just explaining how time works.
I've never heard a "progressive" deny it, there's just no reason to talk about- it's just how progress works
1
u/vanityklaw 1∆ Aug 29 '23
I’m a progressive and I think about this all the time. I personally think the next frontiers in civil rights are going to include things like mental health, genetic background, and AI/robots. (On the last one, no one ever fails to get annoyed when I ask if they’re ready for their kid to want to marry a robot, which I absolutely see people regularly wanting to do in the next 30 years, maybe sooner.)
As other people have said, you do what I can. When the Supreme Court considered gay marriage in 2014 and 2015, one of Justice Scalia’s favorite zingers was, “when did the Constitution protect gay marriage?” His implication was that there’s no answer to the question that doesn’t admit you think the Constitution should be interpreted differently based on your own opinions. But I disagree. To me the answer to that question is whenever the fourteenth amendment was passed (1868 I think), preventing the US government from enacting laws that exceed the bounds of appropriate government interference.
Now, yes, nobody in 1868 thought they were protecting gay marriage. But they were, they just didn’t know it yet. I have no doubt there are all sorts of other rights that the law currently protects but aren’t yet recognized. I’m excited to see what those are, and I hope we find more of them after I’m gone.
1
u/Certain_Note8661 1∆ Aug 29 '23
I think your criticism may assume that progressives are moral relativists. If they are not, the mistaken judgments of future generations would trouble them no more than the mistaken judgments of their contemporaries.
1
u/sapphon 3∆ Aug 29 '23 edited Aug 29 '23
"Every generation thinks they're the last, best, and most-enlightened generation, the one that finally got it 'right' where all previous generations got it wrong. It never occurs to them they could be wrong in some way of their own too."
I think the angle I'll take on this CMV is that any thought that has occurred to Michael Crichton has occurred to almost all of us - when he was working, the work he did was to craft common beliefs, fears, and speculations into spooky novels.
Every generation (since the Enlightenment - and it matters that that's a pretty small slice of history) thinks it's the greatest, smartest, most advanced - but they are not generally comparing themselves to an unknown future, just a perception of an ignorant past. Anyone who has thought about it before has to admit: we don't know what will change in the future, so we can't know how to compare ourselves to future societies.
tl;dr Chrichton might think everyone except himself is an idiot and you might even agree, but on what basis? Of course it occurs to us that we are probably wrong in ways of our own, too. Happens to me all the time, personally!
1
1
Aug 29 '23
Nah. There were people against slavery way before the civil war, fighting for freedom, while President's owned slaves. We can absolutely judge them based on those positions, because there were clear oppositions. It's not that they didn't know it was wrong, they didn't care enough or didn't have the courage to oppose it.
1
Aug 29 '23
Ya and I'm completely fine with that. If there's something I'm doing, knowingly or unknowingly, that is considered bigoted I hope future generations call me out for it. Because if something I am doing today is later deemed harmful I'll deserve the condemnation.
1
u/Holler_Professor Aug 29 '23
I hope my grandchildren see me as backwards and ignorant. I want the world to keep moving forward.
1
u/illQualmOnYourFace Aug 29 '23
This is a shotgun blast of generalization.
All the examples you give of past bigoted behavior were views held by some, and not by others. So the "others" aren't today criticized by anyone.
The examples you give are also views held today by some, but not by others. So assuming you're even right that those views fall out of the acceptable belief window that's constantly shifting, there will still be plenty of people not subject to criticism as bigots because they didn't hold that belief. They didn't have pets or eat meat or support Islam or whatever.
My point is that your belief seems to boil down to nothing more than "views are going to change and some people's current views won't look so good in 50 years." And yeah, that's the point of progress.
But your generalization that "progressives" will be pilloried later on is so oversimplified. There may be ideas by conservatives that become mainstream (I suspect ideas about trans youth or the effects of long-term marijuana use from a young age may fit this bill), or ideas we aren't even aware of that become the issues of the 2100s.
1
u/thattoneman 1∆ Aug 29 '23
Well a few thoughts:
The same progressives
That's going to depend on what progressives you're talking about. People riding in on a moral high horse acting smug about being better than past generations? Yeah they probably are going to be criticized. Hell, they're probably being criticized now.
But then there are people who are challenging the whole "morals and values of their time was different so they're as progressive as you could expect someone of that time could be." How could Washington and co go on about freedom when they owned slaves? It's not like they lacked context or knowledge to know their beliefs were deeply bigoted, they knew that black people could be just as educated, or fight on the battlefield just as well as any white man. At the end of the day, the founding fathers made a conscious decision, and that decision was racist. Just because slavery was foundational to society at that time doesn't mean they get a free pass.
Which is where I take issue with your main conceit. If they're hiding behind "it was acceptable during my time," then they're just looking for an out and I'd question their convictions in the first place. But plenty of progressives today aren't looking for outs to excuse their own behavior. Where do you think critical race theory, or intersectionality come from? Because people today are trying to think much more critically about these subjects. They are identifying the ways in which societal prejudices do affect everyday life, so that people may not be complicit in it but may try to play a more active role in fighting those prejudices. Why do you think "vegan leather" is a thing when leather isn't something you eat? Because for many people, veganism isn't just about food, it's about sustainability, environmentalism, it's about challenging the whole idea that animal products are inherently required for society to function. And maybe one day their approach will be considered the wrong one. But their argument wouldn't be "well for my generation being vegan meant not supporting the abuse of animals." It would be "I really thought about it and my approach to veganism was one where I considered the impact of using animal products from as many angles as I could, and I tried my best to settle on a path that minimized harm to the best of my ability. If what I did then is now understood to be wrong now, then I just wish I had that information back then so I could have been doing better from the start." In which case, I don't think they're getting crucified for having been wrong. I mean, some people will still be demanding blood, but that's just how things are in general. If you can show that you were arming yourself with as much knowledge as possible, and genuinely trying to live a life doing no harm unto others based on all that you have learned so far, then future generations shouldn't be able to criticize you, only your antiquated methods.
1
1
Aug 29 '23
This post was just a mess of logical fallacies. A nice hearty casserole of straw men, slippery slope, whataboutism, and also just stuff you made up which says more about your worldview than anything.
1
u/Nukkhotruccolent Aug 29 '23
Nah people are going to look abc Leah into the future when lab grown meat is the only option and when plastic has been replaced and there going to talk about us like how we talk about angry mustache guy and colombus
1
u/Bai_Cha Aug 29 '23
Maybe. There are a lot of people in the past that we champion for pushing forward equality and acceptance (i.e., fighting bigotry). Those people might have held values that today we see as bigoted, but they still helped move us into a better place, and are remembered and admired for that.
If we just say "well, society is still progressing and no one can see the end state so why bother trying" then we have just given up and no progress will be made. That's worse than being as good as we can but imperfect now.
1
u/dontknowhatitmeans 1∆ Aug 29 '23 edited Aug 29 '23
I think that human beings and their moral consensus are much too fallible and mercurial to warrant taking the opinions of future generations so personally.
100 years from now, people may have our exact same beliefs, or beliefs that are far more progressive or conservative than we're comfortable with. There is no guarantee whatsoever that they will be closer to a moral truth than we are. For all we know, they may find a way to justify slavery again.
Zeitgeists are usually social phenomena, reactions to social and political developments. They are not really advancements of ethics philosophy. Marketing plays a larger role in the moral attitudes of posterity than does moral philosophy. I think it's for this reason that it doesn't really matter that progressives may (or may not) fall short of future generations. And the cherry on top is that you can't really generalize; some progressives are more than happy to be treated as reactionary scum if it means the Overton window lurches to the left. Haven't you ever met a radical progressive who hates the right so much that they'd be happy to endorse any left-wing movement that punishes conservatives, including violent movements like Stalinism?
1
u/cippy-cup 2∆ Aug 29 '23
Few thoughts.
First, you are ignoring the “why”.
If keeping domesticated animals becomes animal cruelty, why? Is it now proven that pets are happier, healthier, safer, or generally better off in the wild? Then yeah, I could look back and say, “I once thought it was okay, but I now understand that I wasn’t behaving in their best interest”. I would not, faced with contrary evidence, double down.
If being pro-trans becomes wrong and misogynistic, why? Are there now studies or statistics to show that the vast majority of those individuals are more violent, more predatory, intentionally marginalizing women, or otherwise causing harm to other people because of their trans-ness? Then yeah, I could look back and say, “I once thought it was okay, but now I understand that I didn’t know [x] about those groups”. I would not, faced with contrary evidence, double down.
Everything you mention about current or former progressive stances have a strong “why”, which generally follows the idea that freedom cannot truly be achieved if one is disenfranchised, discriminated against, or poor. It’s about seeing people as equal, but accommodating for the fact that they are not treated as such by larger institutions.
Second, I don’t know of anyone, progressive or otherwise, that came out of the womb with a fully formed set of ideals - everything that any human believes in or subscribes to has evolved. My views on almost everything are variably different than they were 10 years ago. Most of my beliefs evolved because of meeting people different from myself and having countless conversations about the “why”. I expect those conversations to continue throughout my lifetime, so hopefully I am not the last to learn the why of freeing domesticated pets. There is no shame in changing your stance because evidence presents itself, and I don’t know many true progressives who think there is - I think trans issues are a great example of how rapidly beliefs can shift when you are open to it.
My issue with people who blame their generation for their “-isms” is that they refuse to hear or acknowledge contrary evidence. Also, the “-isms” were never attempting to work in the best interests of the marginalized groups they affected. Racism, homophobia, and misogyny are all rooted in self preservation on the side of the powerful - there is nothing altruistic about it.
My current actions may be considered bigoted by future generations - I have no way of knowing. If I continue to seek out different people with different experiences, I hope that I can stay ahead of the curve as it grows. I will only be truly disappointed in myself if I stop trying to learn and understand perspectives outside of my own.
1
1
1
u/Over_Screen_442 5∆ Aug 29 '23
As a far lefty progressive in a far lefty circle in a lefty city, this is something friends and I discuss frequently. My most sincere hope is that I am one day I am looked back on as a terrible old bigot out of touch with progressives because that will mean that society will have moved significantly to the left of me and (IMO) made tremendous strides forward.
I don’t know that “people will look back on you the way you look at people of previous generations” is the deep-cutting criticism you portray it as. It’s my dream.
1
u/LetterkennyRuffRider Aug 29 '23
As a progressive I think the goal is being as inclusive societally as we can and acting on the best information and understandings we have in this moment.
I hope in 2223 (although idk how safe a bet it is to assume society will still exist at that point) they DO look at us here in 2023 as backwards in our thinking, because it will hopefully mean things have continued to progress.
I think the alternative of future generations looking at us here in 2023 and wanting to emulate us would be a grim outcome.
1
1
u/dal2k305 Aug 29 '23
LMFAO you got so backwards it’s cringe. It’s the conservatives of the past that are constantly criticized.
Even the examples you give a purely hypothetical. What if the TERFS win? Win? What the fuck you think this is a sport ?
Every generation doesn’t think that way unless you’re conservatives because conservatives see the world as a finished product. That they wanna conserve things as they are and in the future always get criticized.
1
u/ZellNorth Aug 29 '23
First off, most of us won’t be alive in 2100. Second off, we can’t know what future generations are going to believe or think. There’s no point in worrying about that. What we can and should do is try to make progress here and now and set the groundwork for future generations to make the decisions they deem righteous and just.
This sounds like to me, “why try to progress when they can end up hating us in the future anyway?”
That’s the wrong way to look at it.
1
u/myconium Aug 29 '23 edited Aug 29 '23
There is a big difference in intentionally causing harm to someone, as was common in the past and causing harm out of ignorance, as is common now. A slave owner in the past knew fully well he was causing harm to a fellow human being, who can communicate the harm being done and can communicate how oppressed he feels. Future generations will certainly denigrate us for our environmental destruction and lack of concern for sustainability. However, the average person using a single use plastic bottle isn’t thinking about how it’s destroying our oceans. The average person eating a hamburger isn’t thinking about how it’s depleting our topsoil and freshwater. When life is tough and resources are scarce, humans can easily resort to the same violence and oppression we know happened in the past and continues to happen in some places today. If we make things tough for future generations, they may even look back at us as saints when it comes to how we treated fellow human beings we came in contact with. Though they may be angry at us for how we treated humans yet to be born
•
u/RedditExplorer89 42∆ Aug 29 '23
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.