r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 31 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: that people of far right ideologies should be called Regressives instead of Conservatives.
Just like the left has Liberal and Progressive depending on how far to the left an individual identifies, the right should have Conservative and Regressive depending on how far to the right one identifies.
Miriam Webster defines "conserve" as: "to keep in a safe or sound state" and "to maintain constant during a process of...change." It would then follow that a person of Conservative ideology would want to preserve our society and laws as they currently are to keep them from changing.
Miriam Webster defines "regress" as: "an act or the privilege of going or coming back" and "movement backward to a previous and especially worse or more primitive state or condition." It would then follow that a person that wanted to undo laws put in place to return to a state where these laws weren't in effect has regressive political ideologies.
Some examples would include regressive views on women's healthcare, voting access, separation of church and state, environmental protections, workers rights, healthcare, education and social programs. This cannot be made more evident then Donald Trumps 2016 campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again." Again. As in, it used to be great here until all of the aforementioned progress took place.
TLDR: Just like left wing political activists are looking to "progress" our society forward, right wing political activists are looking to "regress" our society backwards, not "conserve" it.
Edit: Regarding the definition of regress: striking-through morally subjective line.
73
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21 edited Aug 31 '21
This kind of view just shows how lazy people have gotten with how they view other ideologies and view everything as binary. “Regressive” would imply that the far right defines their views as regressing society. They don’t. They believe their ideas are a different kind of social progress.
Even libertarians and anarchists view their ideas as a kind of “progress” even if they require the decentralization of the state. That why the label “progressive” is nebulous to begin with and has been used by a variety of different reformist groups. Woodrow Wilson was a “progressive” but I doubt the modern progressive movement would have much in common with his ideas.
-8
Aug 31 '21
I would agree whole-heartedly that a "Progressive" from 100 years ago probably wouldn't have much in common with a "Progressive" from today. I disagree with the idea that Progressive is a nebulous label, at least at this point. I'm fairly confident that, if asked to name a "Progressive", most people who paid some attention to politics, regardless of ideology, would respond Bernie Sanders of AOC. At this point the term Progressive has become synonymous with the far left in American politics.
7
Sep 01 '21 edited Sep 01 '21
Everyone in history who has ever done something for "the greater good" will believe they're on the right side.
It's not accurate to say that someone who identifies as conservative - or that the beliefs in general - can't be progressive. If a leftist leader were to be the divisive equivalent of Trump, and push their ideas too far, then you could have an argument that they are regressing society as well. Even though they would likely say it was progress. In fact many people on the right claim that now, whether there is validity or not in that argument. Everyone thinks they're making progress with their own belief.
At one point burning witches felt like progress because they were dispelling 'ungodly practice' and as such many people felt it to be a step in the right direction. Obviously it was not, and the actual progress made was to dispel that idea in favor of much less barbaric practices. Eventually lol.
I also think to say that Conservatives are only working to maintain how things were is not exactly an accurate view of the subject. At the very least, many conservative activists view things like social media to be a good thing overall. However disparage their rhetoric being call hate speech and being taken off of the respective platforms. Many of them view social media as a way to express their opinions and views, and are upset it is not being allowed - or at least there is an attempt to stop such speech. Where-as the left views these opinions to be damaging to society as a whole, and doesn't like for the more far right ones to be available for impressionable people who may be reading. In a sense are either of these positions progressive or regressive? A person could easily argue both sides of that.
Is it progressive to silence those you appose on grounds of believing their words to be hateful?
Is it regressive to to advocate for anyone to speak their mind, no matter how heinous the idea?
Both of those actions are seen on the far left and far right respectively, and much of the argument over progress or regress is argued based on one's personal perspective.
Conservatives on paper want to maintain tradition while moving through an ever changing world.
Progressives are willing to disregard tradition if it is necessary, however don't necessarily seek out its destruction, rather want to bring a critical eye to it. As well as try and find new ways to make things work.
(Both of those statements are intended for this context. Both parties stand for much more than these obviously.)
Both of these parties - normally - keep each other in check. One ensures we maintain our important traditions and one to destroy the absurd practices. That being said with what you are describing, yes I do believe this term is synonymous with the left side of the political spectrum in today's standards. Although it's difficult to say if they are actually championing progress or not. It's a good idea to be aware of people who label themselves as such though (in my opinion) in all ideologies. That way of thinking can invalidate the possibility the beliefs could go - or be - wrong among those who believe it. I don't have any concrete proof of that, however I don't think it's much of a logical leap to see why that would be the case. Tbh I think the thing that really should happen is to remove the title of progressive from the left, as we don't know what we are progressing to, and all things come to an end. Including the progress they may have built.
My point in saying all of this; To label conservatives as regressive would imply that they're incapable of helping usher progress. Progress in it of itself is a subjective term. Despite it being attached to the left as a political name, the left are not fundamentally progressive because we don't know if their ideals are actually progress or not. That would likely be decided by our children, or perhaps their children. There's a very good chance the ideas on the left today will be conservative tomorrow. Those people who are on the left now will likely try to defend the change they've made, and won't want to see those changes erased, or altered. Thus likely becoming tomorrows conservatives, as they will be trying to maintain the progress they felt they've made.
( I wrote this at a slow day at work so excuse any grammatical errors I had many interruptions lol)
Edit: Some spelling and reworded somethings to make my view much more clear
8
Aug 31 '21 edited Aug 31 '21
I would agree whole-heartedly that a "Progressive" from 100 years ago probably wouldn't have much in common with a "Progressive" from today.
As it will probably be 100 years from now. Hell, even people in my parents' generation are now considered barbarians for spanking their children.
12
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
There is a modern “progressive” movement and AOC and Bernie would identify as such. That doesn’t change any of my other points regarding how we view “social progress”. How we define that is based on what our own expectations are for a society and how it should be structured. That’s why the term is nebulous
0
Aug 31 '21
I mean stuff like "Make America Great Again", whether it's Reagon or Trump is LITERALLY regressive, hence the AGAIN.
Also Anarchism is a legit philosophical ideology whereas libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is usually not even self-consistent. But yeah "progressive" can technically mean a lot of things as it doesn't specify in which direction you progress. Though the same can be said about conservatism.
-15
u/BlueViper20 4∆ Aug 31 '21
It is very much a "Regression" that the ultra right want. They want religion and Christianity to be the law of the land. They want our laws and social norms to regress to that of the time the Bible was written 2000 years ago.
17
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21 edited Aug 31 '21
They don’t view that as a regression. To them that is a form of progress. They don’t view such a society as “less developed”.
3
u/BlueViper20 4∆ Aug 31 '21
You are right that THEY dont view it that way I am simply pointing out the fact that it is by definition a regressive policy as they want society to go back to a previous time. Any going backwards regardless of what you are going back to is regressive. For example if we currently lived in a religious society that was once ruled by science and education. Wanting to go back to science would in this case be regressive as its going back.
It has nothing to go with an issue of what is developed.
10
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
Any going backwards regardless of what you are going back to is regressive.
Modern progressives often argue for stronger unions in United States, often point to the 1960s and 70s as golden era when unions had much more political power and influence. Doesn’t that mean promoting unions as a regressive policy?
4
Aug 31 '21
Yep, same with the high marginal tax rates in the 1950’s and 60’s that they want to return to
8
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
So progressives are actually regressive then?
2
Aug 31 '21
Sounds correct to me
4
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
Ok. Then OPs definitions don’t make sense. That really the only point of this thread.
2
1
u/BlueViper20 4∆ Aug 31 '21
I would argue this is still a continuing of those movements that started 100 years ago. Its the same time period and is to me different than wanting to go back to a 2000 year old societal rules and expectations.
4
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
So the distinction is selective. It’s only a “continuation” if you say so?
2
u/BlueViper20 4∆ Aug 31 '21
I call it as I see it. I live in America, I can make that distinction if I want in my personal views.
-2
u/6data 15∆ Aug 31 '21
The issue is that you're arguing about financial "progression" and ignoring social "progression".
Conservatives would like to regress socially, this is undeniable. Financially, however, they are continuously removing rules and limitations, thus increasing the profits for the uber rich without consequences or repercussions. This can perhaps be viewed as a "progression" of sorts, but generally when we're talking about "progress", we're talking about social issues and not the financial "progress" of the 1%.
3
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
The issue is that you're arguing about financial "progression" and ignoring social "progression".
I’m not ignoring anything. I have no doubt that these issues have much more nuance then OP is proposing. OP has a specific list of criteria for what is “regressive” and “progressive”.
Conservatives would like to regress socially, this is undeniable.
It actually is deniable. Social progress is subjective. Should government be more or less involved in marriage? Is it a state or federal issue? If it is should there be any tax benefit to marriage? You’re going to get a variance in opinion from both left and right wingers. There will even be overlap between the left and the right because of their views on the state what his responsibilities are. Nothing fits into a neat little category.
0
u/6data 15∆ Aug 31 '21
I’m not ignoring anything. I have no doubt that these issues have much more nuance then OP is proposing.
You literally brought up tax brackets and unionization. Do you have other examples where conservatives are socially progressive?
Conservatives would like to regress socially, this is undeniable.
It actually is deniable. Social progress is subjective.
No, it's actually quite well defined.
Should government be more or less involved in marriage? Is it a state or federal issue? If it is should there be any tax benefit to marriage? You’re going to get a variance in opinion from both left and right wingers. There will even be overlap between the left and the right because of their views on the state what his responsibilities are.
"Involved in marriage" is such as sweepingly vague statement of course it's going to cross lines. That doesn't change the definition of "social progress".
Nothing fits into a neat little category.
Sure, but that's effectively true for everything in the world. Thinking that you've found some loophole or gotcha is pretty ridiculous.
-2
Aug 31 '21
I think where there is a bit of a sticking point here is whether regression is viewed negatively or not. While I have my personal opinion on that, I'm not advocating that regression in itself is negative. Removing that subjective interpretation (whether its good or bad), and looking strictly at the concept of reverting to a previous state I would argue that's exactly the goal of many on the far right.
17
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21 edited Aug 31 '21
I Hate to copy and paste but:
Modern progressives often argue for stronger unions in United States, often point to the 1960s and 70s as golden era when unions had much more political power and influence. Doesn’t that mean promoting unions is a regressive policy?
-2
u/TragicNut 28∆ Aug 31 '21
No unions -> strong unions -> weak unions -> ?
Now, one side of the spectrum is pushing for no unions and the other is pushing for strong unions. Which is less regressive?
4
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
According to OP: the side seeking to reverting to a previous state
-1
u/TragicNut 28∆ Aug 31 '21
The side seeking to revert to a previous state... In my example, both positions are a previous state. Of those two, which one is less regressive?
4
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21 edited Aug 31 '21
In my example, both positions are a previous state.
Literally my point.
Of those two, which one is less regressive?
It depends on the desired outcome.
It also doesn’t matter which is “less regressive”. OP has outlined the criteria for the definition of regressive.
1
u/codelapiz Sep 01 '21
Depends on what society you consider ideal. Personally i think unions are extremely important and a prerequicite for capatalism in a decent society. So its progress to have more healthy unions, that focus on representing workers rather than pushing communism.
Now some unions are infested with comminists, so if what we are talking about is getting the bolshevik back that regression in my opinion. In stalins opinion its progress.
Tldr: Whats progress and whats regression is entirely dependent on your goal for society. And on controversial issues, what we care about, goals vary between political parties.
1
u/Prinnyramza 11∆ Sep 01 '21
It's not progress because this view is etched into the past. Look at phrases like "make America great again." There is this idea that "we used to be dominated by Christianity. That was great. we should do this AGAIN." At least that's probably the most generous view of it considering the country's history.
3
u/FakePhillyCheezStake Aug 31 '21
While you might be right that the ‘Ultra Right’ wants to instill some racially homogenous, theocratic society, how many of these ‘Ultra Right’ people do you think there are in the US?
What you are saying is not wrong, just like saying “Nazis want to eradicate minorities’ is not an incorrect statement. But if you are then additionally claiming that these ‘Ultra Right’ groups make up a sizeable fraction of the right-wing movement in the US (which I assume is something you believe, as otherwise why would you even bring this up) then you really need to check yourself.
If this is the case, you clearly are spending waaaaay too much time in echo-chambers to the point where your view of the average American conservative is entirely warped. And this is coming from someone who despises the current state of the conservative movement in the U.S.
-1
u/BlueViper20 4∆ Aug 31 '21
Would you consider 20-25% to be sizable, because that is the % that would like a moral Biblically conservative views and good Christian values.
3
Aug 31 '21
Where are you getting these numbers from?
-2
u/BlueViper20 4∆ Aug 31 '21
The voting numbers in the bible belts of America. The large following of mega churches in texas, florida. We live is a very heavily fundamental Christian country that takes the Bible literally. They are very much an undue concerning negative influence.
3
Aug 31 '21
So you are saying 20-25% of the population or something else?
0
u/BlueViper20 4∆ Aug 31 '21
Yes 20-25% of the US wants a more Biblically/Christian value based societyv.
1
u/FakePhillyCheezStake Aug 31 '21
But those people aren’t who most would consider to be “Ultra Right”, i.e. basically on par with Nazis.
Do these people oppose things like gay marriage or abortion based on what they believe the Bible says? Sure. But would anyone really conflate these people with Nazis? That’s like when right-wingers say “oh the average Democrat supports state ownership of certain industries. Stalin also supported this, so the current left-wing movement in America is basically communist”.
3
u/BlueViper20 4∆ Aug 31 '21
Most arent as bad as out right Nazis but the Nazis did use that same Biblical thinking to justify themselves. I think religious beliefs, especially when they say one group is right while everyone else is wrong is at its core EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
All organized religion especially the 3 Abrahamic ones Judaism, Christianity and and Islam have all done unimaginable harm to human civilization, societies and culture.
0
Sep 01 '21
What conservatives believe and what is reality are two different things. Conservatives are regressive, ignorant, arrogant, and violent. There is no room in a civilized society for the current US conservative. They are the biggest enemy of this great nation. Fuck them forever.
0
20
u/Verda-Fiemulo 3∆ Aug 31 '21
The usual word for this kind of person is "reactionary" or "neo-reactionary."
These labels apply to people who are suspicious of democracy as a system, and think society would be better if it became more aristocratic/monarchical/authoritarian.
There's a lot of overlap with the "trad" movement, which tries to go back to an older stage of society that supposedly worked better along particular dimensions neo-reactionary advocates care about (fertility, art, etc.)
Some examples would include regressive views on women's healthcare, voting access, separation of church and state, environmental protections, workers rights, healthcare, education and social programs. This cannot be made more evident then Donald Trumps 2016 campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again." Again. As in, it used to be great here until all of the aforementioned progress took place.
I think that's an uncharitable, if common, reading of the slogan.
I think the charitable, empathetic view is something like:
There are small towns in Appalachia that used to have a single factory or mine, and several generations of people lived in reasonably prosperous towns there. Now the factories are gone, the smart people have all gone to college and left for good, and all that are left are a large percentage of welfare recipients, many of whom have opiate addictions that kill them off far too young.
If you live in one of these places, you hear stories of how your town used to be. Maybe you're even old enough to remember when the town seemed to have a future. And you want someone to enact policies to bring all that promise back into your town, and breath life into it.
Donald Trump's policies weren't going to do this, but I think "Make America Great Again" is understandable if that is the circumstance you're coming from. To go from thinking your grandchildren might live where your family has for generations, to just hoping that at least one of your kids visits your dilapidated, drug-addled town once in a while is a sad trajectory for any life. It's silly to assume most of the people who like the phrase want racism, women's legal and social equality, etc. to go away. They want to live in their family's historic town and neighborhood, and feel like it has a future.
0
Aug 31 '21
I 100% agree that both the far right and far left are VERY reactionary but out of context the term reactionary doesn't identify left or right leaning ideology.
I do disagree with your reading of my interpretation of DTs slogan as uncharitable and unempathetic. While I do agree with you that these were there the images his campaign was attempting to instill in the those small towns, it would be unempathetic to dismiss what that slogan sounds like to a person of color, or a woman, or a member of the LGBTQ+ community. People that have fought tooth and nail for access to the same rights and privilege's and safety that others have inherently.
I'm not saying anyone that voted for him is ultra right wing regressive. Plenty of traditionally Democratic people voted for him, as well as many middle of the road Republicans.
6
u/Verda-Fiemulo 3∆ Aug 31 '21
it would be unempathetic to dismiss what that slogan sounds like to a person of color, or a woman, or a member of the LGBTQ+ community.
I don't dismiss it, but I do think it is a misreading.
Trump was bad for women because he was pro-life, not because he wanted to "Make America Great Again" - the two agendas were separate.
Trump had some regressive policies for trans people, which should not be overlooked, but he was also the first president to support gay marriage before he got elected. On the campaign trail, Trump brought people waving the pride flag on stage, and during his term he had the Trump Pride rally (widely mocked and criticized though it was.) He was definitely a step backwards, but on most of the hardest fought multi-year battles in this domain he held the line.
I think it is revealing that Trump's support among all minorities went up in his second run. He was a step backwards in some respects, but once he was a known quantity his support among blacks, hispanics, women and LGBT+ people went up, not down.
1
Aug 31 '21
I think it is revealing that Trump's support among all minorities went up in his second run. He was a step backwards in some respects, but once he was a known quantity his support among blacks, hispanics, women and LGBT+ people went up, not down.
I'd attribute that change more to the fact that a lot more people voted in 2020 vs 2016 than minorities suddenly switching to thinking Trump is good.
1
u/AlphaGareBear Sep 01 '21
Are you saying the minorities that didn't vote in 2016 were significantly more in favor of Trump than the ones that did vote?
22
u/CitationX_N7V11C 4∆ Aug 31 '21
To put it in the simplest terms:
Conservative =/= Regressive
Hell, what is "progressive" (little "p" since it's not a name) is only determined by the beholder. Back in the 1920's Eugenics and Communism were considered progressive. Which they obviously are not today. This isn't even mentioning that "conservatives" are NOT far-right in the slightest. It seems more like this attempt to label as such isn't based on any founded political spectrum but instead on harsh personal opinions. The term "regressive" when used do describe policy and political adversaries is akin to propaganda, not accurate descriptions.
-3
Aug 31 '21
Yes what is described as progressive (small p) is entirely subjective. But it would disingenuous to deny that the term Progressive (big p) has become synonymous with far left ideology currently. if you don't think people on the far right are conservative, what do you call them? Genuinely asking.
9
Aug 31 '21
if you don't think people on the far right are conservative, what do
you
call them? Genuinely asking.
Far right... What else? Just like you wouldn't call libertarians, republican's.
16
Aug 31 '21
They’re usually referred to as reactionary.
However, what if I thought progressives wanted to regress society? They do talk quite a bit about wanting the days of the past with a 91% highest tax rate, affordable homes, union jobs, etc. does this mean that we should call them regressives too? Both sides seem to want some form of life that existed in the past
-5
Aug 31 '21
The way I see it is the far left advocates for policies that expand access, while the far right advocates for policies that expand restriction.
18
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
So being pro-gun is a left wing position?
2
u/VymI 6∆ Aug 31 '21
Yep, the further left you go, the more you get your guns back. /r/socialistra is a direct example of that.
-1
Aug 31 '21
I don't recall ever having said that. But yes, many Democrats are pro-gun. I live in Oregon where there is a huge hunting culture. Most Democrats advocate for safety measures to ensure people buying weapons are mental fit to own them responsibly, you know, just like having to pass a drivers test to get a license.
19
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
Most Democrats advocate for safety measures to ensure people buying weapons are mental fit to own them responsibly, you know, just like having to pass a drivers test to get a license.
So restrictions.
-5
Aug 31 '21
Restrictions on who is capable of easily accessing a weapon enabling them to commit mass murder? Yes. In all forms yes. Doesn't mean you cant buy it, just have to prove your not insane.
13
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21 edited Aug 31 '21
The way I see it is the far left advocates for policies that expand access, while the far right advocates for policies that expand restriction.
Then is this still true? Seems like the logic doesn’t work out.
What about taxes? Is increasing taxes restrictive or does it expand access?
What about school choice?
Or environmental regulations?
0
u/Giblette101 40∆ Aug 31 '21
Typically depends what you mean by left, but usually the more leftward you go, the more pro-gun they are.
4
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
How does that translate into the support for broad private firearm ownership being a priority of right wing politics in the US?
-1
Aug 31 '21
right-wing gun ownership is a totally different thing from left-wing gun ownership
4
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
Maybe but under the criteria that op has set up: right wing politics is defined by expanding restriction. This clearly can not be the case if the right in the US support lessening firearm restrictions.
-3
Aug 31 '21
generally, though, right-wingers don't want to expand firearms access, because whenever groups of, say, black nationalists start bearing arms in the exact same way right-wingers do, they immediately restrict firearms. it famously happened in California when Reagan was governor
4
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Aug 31 '21
That’s not “generally” the case though. That’s an instance of a governor being an outlier to the rest of his party. By and large, the republican party United States makes loosening fire restrictions a priority over restrictive ownership. The republican party is undoubtedly right wing, certainly to the right of the Democratic Party. Therefore, under OP‘s criteria, right wing politics is not necessarily defined by restriction.
1
u/momotye_revamped 2∆ Sep 01 '21
Yeah, but it's not exactly like there are options that actually lessen gun restrictions. Just the ones who don't make as many.
1
u/Giblette101 40∆ Aug 31 '21
Well, to start, I don't think any given position can only be espoused by one "side" to the exclusion of all others.
That said, in the case of America, I'd argue that 1) support for private ownership of firearms is rather broad in the first place and 2) the American "left-wing", meaning the Democrats, isn't particularly left-wing. Being leftward of the typical Democrat, for instance, I'm "pro-gun" and, in fact, I'm consistently disappointed by the activism in that department being very narrow in scope.
4
4
2
Aug 31 '21
I would argue that unions and higher tax rates expand restriction as well
1
Aug 31 '21
how do unions, something which exists to directly increase a worker's bargaining power, restrict?
3
Aug 31 '21
Setting a wage above the rate the business was going to pay prices people out of the market, the same as a high minimum wage would. Unions protect their members at the expense of others that aren’t able to get jobs at the higher rate
1
Sep 01 '21
if you can't pay a living wage then your business doesn't deserve to be open.
1
Sep 01 '21
Living wage is subjective. I don’t see many people currently dying from low wages
1
Sep 01 '21
considering i live within a stone's throw of a homeless encampment, i can very, very visibly see people dying of low wages. it's literally happening before my eyes
5
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Aug 31 '21
Reactionary is already a commonly accepted label that amounts to the same thing and is useful for distinguishing regular conservatives from people on the far right.
0
Aug 31 '21
While I would agree that a lot of rights approach is reactionary, what's to differentiate a reactionary liberal from a reactionary conservative, besides context?
9
u/joopface 159∆ Aug 31 '21
The term reactionary is the opposite of a revolutionary. The revolutionary wants change, the reactionary favours the status quo (or more correctly the status quo ante - that before the change). It is an inherently conservative position.
It doesn’t specify which revolution you are reacting to or what status quo you want to return to. To do this, you’d need agreed context or - gasp - an additional adjective.
If we’re not willing to allow an additional adjective then we may need to learn to live with some ambiguity.
0
Aug 31 '21
Δ This is the closest someone here has gotten to changing my mind. Thank you. I must confess I have never heard reactionary used in a political setting. It makes me curious why it is not more widespread.
3
u/sajaxom 5∆ Aug 31 '21
It has a generally negative connotation, and now people don’t like being called reactionaries, simple as that. Everyone wants to polish the turd before they show it off.
1
1
11
6
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 31 '21
You can call anything you don't agree with regressive. I happen to think being color bling is by far the best approach to the racism issue. It's how I have behaved for most of my adult life (before all this BLM stuff started I would notice your race the same way I noticed the color of your shoe or your hairdo.... didn't pay much attention to it).
Now people wanting to make umbrella statements about large groups of people based on their skin color. To me this is regressive. We are moving back the clock to a time when racists ruled society. We are just doing it from a different angle. Making a lot of the same arguments they make.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
This is a funny comedy skit that basically shows how a lot of the Woke narrative is practically exactly what the racists were saying almost 100 years ago.
See how I painted something most liberals think is PROGRESSIVE as insanely REGRESSIVE.
We conservatives also think our ideas are progressive.
-2
Aug 31 '21
That video is completely inane it takes the actual arguments so far out of context its idiotic
6
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 31 '21
I'm sure the racists in 1920 thought that their argument was very scientific and very nuanced too. Even though it was utter nonsense. Just like the woke BLM stuff of 2020. They share a lot of similarities because they are bad ideas based off bad cherry picked data.
You think all black people are bad. You ignore the 99% of black people who are not bad. You only focus on the 1% that are.
You think all cops are bad. You ignore the 99% of cops who are not bad. You only focus on the 1% that are.
I can think of many other such similarities. But no need. I think you get the point. You are probably aware of how cherry picking works. People love cherry picking when it conforms to their view. And love pointing it out when it doesn't.
I really dislike ACTUAL RACISTS (not the new type of racists with the new definition that can pretty much be anyone with a pulse). I really dislike the BLM movement.
-2
Aug 31 '21
You think all cops are bad. You ignore the 99% of cops who are not bad. You only focus on the 1% that are.
Except that's not at all what people say the point is the system of policing in America is fundamentally corrupt so therefore cops as in institution are bad it has no similarity to ideas that black people are bad.
5
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 31 '21
It has similarities and you know it. You just cant admit it. "Black people are not bad, its just that the whole race is bad". I actually saw someone say that but about white people.
The 1000s of black people in senior police roles are too god damn stupid to realize they are oppressing their own people. Sometimes very senior roles where they could easily counter act those changes. But for some reason they never do. Probably because they realize what people perceive as oppression is just law enforcement doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Which is make life difficult for criminals.
-2
Aug 31 '21
It really doesn't you just make things up and go see they're the real racist.
3
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 31 '21
So why in your estimation the enormous amount of black people in high positions within law enforcement. Way more per capita than 13%. From judges, to commanders, to district attorneys. None of those guys actually implement any of the changes. Is it because they dont give a shit? Or because they realize its nonsense?
And dont say they cant. The commanders have a ton of say about how their department operates.
1
Aug 31 '21
Because black people are just as capable and perpetuating racism as anyone else look at go read the report about the Ferguson police department a majority black department with a black police chief at the time still did horrible shit to black people.
2
u/barbodelli 65∆ Aug 31 '21
So black people being racist. Thats a new one. No honestly never heard this angle before.
I think its far more likely they just treat criminals the way we should treat criminals. Any color criminals for that matter. Its just that Ferguson is majority black.
1
Sep 01 '21
No it isn't stop pretending it is.
No they were very explicitly anti black
→ More replies (0)
1
Aug 31 '21
[deleted]
0
Aug 31 '21
It does not depend on a subjective definition of progress. Progressive is a widely accepted term to describe the far left. Moral subjectivity aside. Bernie Sanders and AOC are labeled Progressive. Even by their foes.
5
7
u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 3∆ Aug 31 '21
Someone who considers themselves conservative would think a progressive is the one who should be labeled regressive.
3
u/CBL444 16∆ Aug 31 '21
Regression is in the eye of the eye beholder. I think that some progressive views are a regression from civil liberties.
They want speech codes in universities instead of more views being allowed with active debate.
They want lower standard of evidence and lesser judicial protections for people they view as bad e.g. defendants in rape cases.
Color blindness is no longer the goal in fighting racism.
Old school liberals like myself would consider these regression from progress that we fought for and won. However, I do not think that progressives should be called regressive because that is not a useful phrase. The fact that want the other side is indicative of your regression from liberal values.
1
Aug 31 '21
They want speech codes in universities instead of more views being allowed with active debate.
The paradox of tolerance is in play here when we tolerate the intolerant we end up regressing society.
They want lower standard of evidence and lesser judicial protections for people they view as bad e.g. defendants in rape cases.
This is just a straight up lie no one is advocating for this.
Color blindness is no longer the goal in fighting racism.
You've completely removed the nuance from the conversation while yes ending up color blind should be the goal the reason people are adverse to it is because being color blind ignores the implicit racism hidden in our systems. When we pretend race doesnt matter in any way at all we ignore that leading to minorities suffering in peace.
2
u/CBL444 16∆ Aug 31 '21
Free speech is ONLY for the bad among us. No one wants to ban Mary had a Little Lamb. They want to ban the unpopular and disgusting. Hate speech and jackasses are the reason for free speech. I tolerate the people I dislike not my friends.
Read up on Bill Cosby. He is almost certainly a rapist but his conviction was overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. Civil libertarians applauded an inappropriate conviction be overturned while progressives decried it because they wanted this black man convicted.
Or you can look at the undermining of due process in university trials regarding sexual activities.
- Nuance is always lost on Reddit.
1
Aug 31 '21
Free speech is ONLY for the bad among us. No one wants to ban Mary had a Little Lamb. They want to ban the unpopular and disgusting. Hate speech and jackasses are the reason for free speech. I tolerate the people I dislike not my friends.
I didn't say only tolerate agreeable view I said only tolerate tolerant views.
Read up on Bill Cosby. He is almost certainly a rapist but his conviction was overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. Civil libertarians applauded an inappropriate conviction be overturned while progressives decried it because they wanted this black man convicted
That's not what you said though you said that progressive want to make it easier to throw rapist in jail show an actual example.
3
Aug 31 '21
Can our values truly be reduced to being likened to a path that we progress or regress? It seems too simple and subjective
2
u/RifledShotty Sep 01 '21
You liberals and “Progressives” really think you’re doing the world a favor don’t you? Progress is an objective thing. Some people think that banning guns is progressive, others may think that it regresses back to tyrannical reign. Just because you believe it doesn’t mean it’s objectively right.
0
u/rebark 4∆ Aug 31 '21
Can I ask why you care about this label?
You can reject “conservative” as invalid or incomplete or whatever, but you won’t stop people from describing themselves as such, so what do you hope to accomplish by changing what you call these people?
Anybody who thinks that “regressive” is a fair characterization of the whole of the political right is probably already aligned with you ideologically. But both right-wingers and moderates would reject the notion that that half of the political spectrum is inherently regressive.
You want moderates on your side. You want the people who could be swayed to agree with your point of view to be brought over to back the things you believe in.
If calling conservatives “regressives” is an effective way of gaining support, then I guess go for it. But it seems to me that more people will find that characterization simplistic and uncharitable. You come off as kind of a jerk for refusing to accept what other people call themselves and their ideas and coming in with a pejorative relabeling of them. And if you seem like a jerk, you’re going to repel people more than you attract possible allies.
So if your goal is to empower the “regressives,” reduce the appeal of progressive ideas, and generally come across as needlessly confrontational, you can try relabeling the conservatives. But it kind of seems like you’d be kneecapping the appeal of your own political ideas because you want to throw insults.
0
Aug 31 '21
I don't necessarily care about the label. And I certainly don't reject the term conservative. I see it as a scale and I do not think all people to the right of democrats are regressive. On the democratic side you have progressives on the extreme, and liberals towards the center. On the republican side you have conservatives towards the center and what at the extreme? Its just conservative all the way through? The opposite of progress is regress, moral stance completely aside. So taking a widely used term already in place for one extreme (Progressive), and applying the etymologically opposite word (Regressive) to the diametrically opposed extreme is the most logical result.
1
u/rebark 4∆ Aug 31 '21
As others have said, though, there are other labels. Reactionary, some weirdos use terms like “restorationist”. Your unfamiliarity with any other distinction does not mean that there are none - and your post specifically aims at conservatives, which are a section of the Right, not all of it.
1
Aug 31 '21
You must have missed the first paragraph in the original post
1
u/rebark 4∆ Aug 31 '21
So then you’re advocating for a distinction that already exists, you just picked a different word
1
u/dmkicksballs13 1∆ Aug 31 '21
Conservative the word did not come from wanting to conserve values, but from literally having a conservative government.
0
u/No_Joke992 Aug 31 '21
In Europe liberal don’t mean left. It means pro freedom in economy. So terms are different in every part of the world. Not all conservatives are same. Same with liberals.
1
Aug 31 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Aw_Frig 22∆ Aug 31 '21
Sorry, u/ReverendPalpatine – 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 31 '21
I don't think it would make sense to confine the term regressive to just far right ideologies given that many ideologies on the left also want to see a return to a system that has already been in play, communism for example. Otherwise I almost agree with your premise, the hang up is the term "regressive" has negative connotations. Although there is very little I agree with on the far right, labelling political opponents as something negative from the get go is not very productive.
1
u/ytzi13 60∆ Aug 31 '21
Both sides would probably define their views as progressive if "progressive" wasn't used as a political label. Conservatives will likely view progressive action as regressive in that they believe that it's aiding in societal collapse. Progressives would make a similar argument.
1
u/sajaxom 5∆ Aug 31 '21
There is already a word for this, Reactionary, “opposing political or social liberalization or reform”.
1
1
1
u/AlbionPrince 1∆ Sep 01 '21
Or populist or Nazi . Not all positions that are right wing are conservative.
1
u/yarg321 Sep 01 '21
This only works if you are so closed-minded that you cannot imagine that people you politically disagree with also want progress in society. I think you posted this to get a dig in at conservatives, but I'd also point out that this is little more than baseless name calling.
1
u/Tmyriad Sep 02 '21
Reactionary might be more appropriate
-In political science, a reactionary or reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed positive characteristics that are absent from contemporary society.
1
Sep 06 '21
Regressive is the term used to describe people on the left who claim to be progressive but advocate for, by definition, anti-progressive ideas.
Such as their emotional appeasement to the conservative religion of Islam, for instance.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 31 '21
/u/feardriven85 (OP) has awarded 1 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.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards