Jump to content

What's wrong with Progressivism?


Airbrush
 Share

Recommended Posts

In summary re. Polievre  vs Canada: Without labelling anyone, I've narrowed the situation to four possibilities:

1. He's aware of the political climate and, signalling to a far right audience ("I speak your language.")

2. He's flipping off French Canada. ("I'm with the Anglos.")

3. He thinks Anglo Saxon words means coarse language (the common touch; man of the people, tough guy.)

4. He's using his short direct English words in blissful ignorance of their cultural and political significance. (Thick as two hot dog buns, me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm guessing a comprehensive list of people who will never go on a Jordan Peterson program and lie about their language.

Cute.
But that was originally brought up because Stringy said the difference between 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'Native American' is that one is ancient/extinct while the other is current.
And our buddy, Pierre, did not claim to be Anglo-Saxon, but use the Anglo-Saxon language.
Would you have objected if he had said he used 'the King's English' ?
There hasn't been a King since Feb 6/52.

Why not just admit that P Poilievre is a Conservative, a 'weasel', and not very likeable ( and on a podcast with J peterson ), so some of you naturally assume he is also a racist, and hear everything he says in that context ?

Almost 'prejudicial', isn't it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Cute.
But that was originally brought up because Stringy said the difference between 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'Native American' is that one is ancient/extinct while the other is current.
And our buddy, Pierre, did not claim to be Anglo-Saxon, but use the Anglo-Saxon language.
Would you have objected if he had said he used 'the King's English' ?
There hasn't been a King since Feb 6/52.

Why not just admit that P Poilievre is a Conservative, a 'weasel', and not very likeable ( and on a podcast with J peterson ), so some of you naturally assume he is also a racist, and hear everything he says in that context ?

Almost 'prejudicial', isn't it ?

You consider J Petersen a racist? I haven't paid much attention lately, and I think he's gone through some health issues, including perhaps mental health issues, but from everything I've seen he's been outspokenly a free speech advocate, anti-marxist,anti-fascist, and anti-nazi. He does speak well outside the Overton window (and is willing to espouse on areas he's not necessarily expert on as CY has pointed out) but measures his speech fairly carefully outside of the fact he will think and answer on the spot. 

Here he's explaining, or at least discussing, being photographed behind a Pepe flag.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You consider J Petersen a racist?

Peterson is a weasel and has cast himself in many, often opposing roles. And his understanding Nazism or Marxism is, let's say not necessarily mainstream. For example, he often uses the term cultural Marxism, which is actually an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Wiki puts its root in the 90s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Origins), but some academics have argued that it is just an updated version of the Judeobolshevik myth, which is at least 100 years old. But of course it is always impossible to ascertain whether Peterson just doesn't know something or knowingly pretends not to know.

One of the few areas where he kind of makes a stance is subscribing to the idea that of a patriarchal world social order as the natural state of thing (where men bring and determine the order of things). Where the borders are blurry is because a lot of modern racist and fascist ideologies also have this strong man at the center of things type of ideology. So while there is not direct overlap, there is some adjacency that makes it quite appealing to the fringe. 

I think there is also some discussion to be had in terms of asking (or claiming) that some one is racist, sexist or any other short-hand label. It is quite possible to have ideological stances that would promote things like racial disparities without subscribing to any overtly specific racial theories. I think society is used to shut down the outliers (or hammering down the nail that sticks out, comes to mind). Historically this could be folks of with a given sexual orientation, non-mainstream ideologies, but also minorities who do not know their place. 

I therefore think we has society have never been good with dealing this types of nuances, but in the past it was easier to walk away or just to keep your mouth shut and no one will know. Or folks just accept it (e.g. they are one of the good guys) as positive personal interaction can override ideological issues. With interactions being much wider and increasingly impersonal that is no longer an option. The big issue that I see is that we then fail to educate each other of these nuances and discuss why certain things may or may not be harmful. In short, we do not have a pathway of change (or redemption). 

 

Going to Peterson, he  might not be racist or at least from what little I have seen he does not openly promote clearly racist ideologies. However, he often rages against the idea of structural or systemic racism (without being specific enough to really nail down what he means with it, which is kind of his modus operandi). This leads (fake) academic credence to certain folks to discredit the quite well established understanding that there are structural elements in society that can lead to racialized outcomes. He then retreats to right-wing talking points that by talking about racism one only pits groups against each other. Implicitly the idea is that if we do not acknowledge the issue it somehow will vanish, which it clearly does not. Again, not saying that the ideology is racist, but it is valuable fuel for racists. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MigL said:

And our buddy, Pierre, did not claim to be Anglo-Saxon,

You kind of appropriated that culture on his behalf - and the Windsors' too, It seemed to me. 

Quote

but use the Anglo-Saxon language.

He did claim that. Falsely, as I have previously pointed out. In ordinary colloquial modern English. 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Would you have objected if he had said he used 'the King's English' ?

I would have asked, "Which king?" If he answered Harold II, I'd have given him a lot more credit.

In any case, I didn't object to whatever he did say; I merely questioned his motives for saying it.

I did object to your giving the present royals Anglo-Saxon heritage.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Why not just admit that P Poilievre is a Conservative, a 'weasel', and not very likeable

 

I've never disputed that. But since you brought him to us and presented his little contretemps for consideration, I gave it due consideration.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

so some of you naturally assume he is also a racist,

Which of us did that? After very thorough - far more thorough than the case merits - consideration, I have come to no conclusion at all. I posited four of the most likely motives for him to have said that where and when he said.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

 For example, he often uses the term cultural Marxism, which is actually an anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

What term should be used to refer to or describe the leftist academia phenomena so as not to suggest any conspiracy theory or especially an anti-semitic one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must everything always boil down to overly simplistic monolithic labels as if the sum total of people and concepts can be adequately represented with a few letters?

What term should be used? How about Loretta. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I did say not specifically you, Peterkin.
There have been others in this discussion.
 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I did object to your giving the present royals Anglo-Saxon heritage.

The ruling lineage was once Anglo-Saxon.
The present lineage is actually German, of the houses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
That all changed to 'Windsor' in 1917, because of anti-German sentiment.
( I do know a little history )

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You consider J Petersen a racist?

No. I believe we were both part of the previous discussion concerning J Peterson's views, some of which I consider valid.
Some of his other views ... well ... lets just say he has found his niche, and is milking it for all the profit he can.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, MigL said:

I do know a little history )

 

Apparently you client doesn't.

His whole statement was less than 10 seconds. Why'd you do him all that production with culture-appropriation and the king's Anglo Saxon?  You haven't proved he's not a racist, or that he wasn't intending to appeal to them; you haven't shown any alternative motive for choosing such an unusual expression in just that situation, having been supplied just that perfect cue. I've given him three escape routes more than you did, and I'm the prosecution.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What term should be used to refer to or describe the leftist academia phenomena so as not to suggest any conspiracy theory or especially an anti-semitic one?

First of all you would need to define what you refer to. Peterson use it as a catch-all phrase of things he dislikes socially, so it is not particularly helpful. Marxism in the modern academic sense (I believe, it is not my field so I might get it wrong) incorporate some of thoughts of Marx, especially the issues of capitalism and its impact on society. It still rather influential and is one of the reasons why there are no purely capitalist systems without social components. I doubt that Peterson means that thought.

If you refer to what many folks using that term mean is research and investigation of things we believe to be true without much evidence and potentially undermining deep-held beliefs. You know, science.

Unless you refer to what students are doing. This is called being young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

First of all you would need to define what you refer to. Peterson use it as a catch-all phrase of things he dislikes socially, so it is not particularly helpful. Marxism in the modern academic sense (I believe, it is not my field so I might get it wrong) incorporate some of thoughts of Marx, especially the issues of capitalism and its impact on society. It still rather influential and is one of the reasons why there are no purely capitalist systems without social components. I doubt that Peterson means that thought.

Is it simply Marxism? I certainly never considered Marx to have been evil or for that matter pure communism to be. I just consider it to tend toward totalitarianism just as would fascism.

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

If you refer to what many folks using that term mean is research and investigation of things we believe to be true without much evidence and potentially undermining deep-held beliefs. You know, science.

I am certainly not referring to science. It would be closer to espousing what we would like to be true without questioning it.

But it would be a particular variety of it. 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Unless you refer to what students are doing. This is called being young.

More what many older tenured professors in the humanities are doing. Ones with no real interest in scientific method unless it supports their ideas.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

No. I believe we were both part of the previous discussion concerning J Peterson's views, some of which I consider valid.
Some of his other views ... well ... lets just say he has found his niche, and is milking it for all the profit he can.

Sorry. Just from what you wrote between brackets I thought it might be assumed that he was.

He might be a bit of a sensationalist but he seems like a tormented one and not evil, or malicious toward any group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

s it simply Marxism? I certainly never considered Marx to have been evil or for that matter pure communism to be. I just consider it to tend toward totalitarianism just as would fascism.

Isn't that true of every ideology? Monarchy, Theocracy, Oligarchy, Technocracy, Corporatism, Martial Law, Imperialism all become dictatorial. Has anyone seen a pure Democracy that's not dominated and eventually subjugated by a special interest group for its own benefit at the detriment of the citizens? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In systems where a corporate sector grows and buys up power bases, wealth tends to concentrate at the top, the bottom half tends towards impoverishment, and crime and violence results.  Then people want law and order, and the dictatorial "strongman" arises, promises law and order, and delivers on that (often in brutal fashion).  Authoritarian government almost seems like the most natural evolution of late-stage capitalism.  Often accompanied by theocracy, as the high priests promise that stern imposition of their moral code will also bring safe streets.  (and they will have dogmas that exalt wealth, and make predatory capitalism okay with Gee-Hovah or Whoever)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

In systems where a corporate sector grows and buys up power bases, wealth tends to concentrate at the top, the bottom half tends towards impoverishment, and crime and violence results.  Then people want law and order, and the dictatorial "strongman" arises, promises law and order, and delivers on that (often in brutal fashion).  Authoritarian government almost seems like the most natural evolution of late-stage capitalism.  Often accompanied by theocracy, as the high priests promise that stern imposition of their moral code will also bring safe streets.  (and they will have dogmas that exalt wealth, and make predatory capitalism okay with Gee-Hovah or Whoever)  

Gotta like that capitalization of "Whoever"...no pun intended.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Isn't that true of every ideology? Monarchy, Theocracy, Oligarchy, Technocracy, Corporatism, Martial Law, Imperialism all become dictatorial. Has anyone seen a pure Democracy that's not dominated and eventually subjugated by a special interest group for its own benefit at the detriment of the citizens? 

Democracy certainly needs a firm foundation. It can't just be taken for granite...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 11:14 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is it simply Marxism? I certainly never considered Marx to have been evil or for that matter pure communism to be. I just consider it to tend toward totalitarianism just as would fascism.

Marxism at its core is not a ruling system, but philosophy encompassing social, political and economic thoughts. There are also theories of histories embedded in it, which are mostly discarded in the more postmodernist intellectual system, where folks became highly skeptical of grand narratives of modernism (which includes for example Marx' historic view or simplification of class struggles and his predictions- something that seems to confuse Peterson as he likes to conflate those things). 

In its modern form it is has become more of a framework to look at social aspects, typically in a capitalist society. Neo-Marxism for example clearly state that the freedom of the individual is a a paramount political value and also acknowledges that capitalism provides these liberties of multiple levels. However, it also explores where limits of autonomy might arise e.g. due to inequalities. As such it does not tend more to totalitarianism as, say capitalism.

On 5/22/2022 at 11:14 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

More what many older tenured professors in the humanities are doing. Ones with no real interest in scientific method unless it supports their ideas.

That seems to disparage a whole swath of scholars without really any argument. Of course there are idiots in each profession including in humanities (take Peterson for example...https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve), but using those to disparage the whole discipline is a bit silly.  

  

On 5/21/2022 at 6:25 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

In your opinion or impression though, is it fair to say you believe systemic racism is more of a factor than systemic wealthism? Or am I reading you wrong, or do you feel they haven't been factored out enough for you to say or feel you know?

It depends on precisely what you are mean. In terms of impact on health? If so, these two are not interchangeable while being somewhat connected. First in capitalist societies we will always have wealth disparity. It is just how the system works. Associated with that, we have found in pretty much any country, including those with socialized health system that there those with lower education and lower income are disadvantaged in terms of health measures including life expectancy. In Canada, Statscan has for example data that shows that this gap has increased over time (1996-2011). So this definitely has an impact. 

However, when we intersect it with race, things are complicated. There are several levels where it impacts the outcome. On the highest, we can simply talk about bad medical science. Here, there are racial assumptions (e.g. assumptions that there are racial differences in creatinine levels, which eventually resulted in specifically black folks being undertreated for renal issues). These are not necessarily malevolent, but because minorities are considered different, limited studies (or even without studies) the medical community is more ready to believe and treat folks differently and even ineffectively. 

A very prominent example of medical make-believe is sodium glutamate, which got an incredibly bad rep without any medical data. It was enough that it was a staple in Asian, but not in Western cooking. 

Then there are biases on the treatment level- medical professionals at least used to treat foreigners often pretty badly. In part because of communication issues, but in part also because of personal biases. Some example of such mistreatments could be forced or coerced sterilization, but there are also many other examples (even from my family). 

Moving on from there, there are also structural issues. Often folks of a given race live in similar regions, and there you might simply not have access to good care, even if it was free. Then there are issues with access to affordable and healthy food, transportation and so on. Another factor that has been identified is that of environmental racism- areas inhabited by low income minorities are more likely to be close to environmental hazards (in the US these include superfund sites) and poor access to clean water and similar issues. There are overlaps with certain under-serviced communities, but minorities are typically overrepresented. 

Then, we have the issue of lived experiences. Many minorities face some level of societal discrimination. It is similar to what e.g. a white person of low status might encounter, when predominantly interaction with folks of higher status. The difference is that this discrimination also happens among social peers. This is not only theoretical, but can actually be measured. Studies looking at health biomarkers of stress show that e.g. black folks with the same status as white folks have higher stress markers which are associated with a range of long-term health issues. Conversely at least theoretically (as studies in that regard are still lacking) minorities who grew up in a privileged environment and have control over where they go to (e.g. ex-pats vs working class immigrants) are likely to be better off. This complexity has resulted in more efforts to look into intersectionality of these parameters, but these are relatively new efforts (as historically such work was underfunded) and require quite a bit of effort to in order to get the data from sufficiently large cohorts.

So on the question whether racial disparity can be fixed entirely by giving everyone money (which, is kind of funny, because fixing wealth inequality is some original Marxist thinking...) is a bit tricky. It will alleviate some aspects of it, certainly. But studies still show that many minorities (especially black and Hispanic folks) are still disadvantaged at equal wealth (and with African Americans specifically the difference is really big) so the other factors mentioned above (plus potentially more yet undiscovered ones) are likely going to factor in. And this is only when considering health outcomes (and not e.g. why there are racial wealth inequalities).

Many things we only start to understand now. The historic (one could potentially say "modernist") way to look at it was to blame the minorities. There is something wrong with them, that is why their outcome is different. This has been a pervasive narrative for a long time. In the 90s for example maybe a few dozen articles were published looking at racial inequality and quite a few of those were either historic studies or argued that racial inequalities are tied to cognitive capabilities. Since maybe 2010 the number of studies have increased and diversified, providing counter-narratives. Only after that, funding became more accessible for this area of research, though quite a few reviewers were still disinterested examining cohorts who are not considered to be representative (aka white).

Given the recency of this information, it is not very surprising that society is struggling to catch up with these new narratives and also that most folks might (on either side of the issue) do not fully understand it yet. We have ignored the issue and now we are just barely intellectually catching up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not allowed to use J Peterson to tell you what is wrong with ( popular ) progressivism.
How about Bill Maher

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What's wrong with it, primarily, is the word itself. It implies anyone who disagrees with the ideas associated with it doesn't value "progress". Or that "tradition" is the only reason to disagree with them on policy, or even where you agree on policy, the only reason to doubt the motives they ascribe to those who disagree with them.

 

For instance, I disagree with gender quotas for federal cabinet. I think if male and female voters combined prop up the gender role of men in politics and women in other professions, that's their right in their capacity as voters and the few the voters do elect shouldn't have a higher probability per capita to be assigned cabinet positions. That's not "representing men and women equally" that's representing the voters who voted for the (generally fewer) female candidates who won disproportionately.

 

I agree with "progressives" more on, let's say, abortion rights, but even then, I question the certainty to which they attribute opposition therein to "misogyny." Partly because that's the same thing opposition to gender quotas is attributed to, but also because the voters who oppose abortion rights are the same ones who oppose embryonic stem cell research despite its potential to save their own lives one day. They are, however tragically, living their values. They are, however tragically, behaving like people who believe life begins at conception.

Edited by ScienceNostalgia101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

I agree with "progressives" more on, let's say, abortion rights, but even then, I question the certainty to which they attribute opposition therein to "misogyny."

I think the issue here is that it is a fairly one-dimensional view. There are many different reasons why folks are against abortion, and conversely, there are plenty of folks who acknowledge but disagree these notions and do not simply break it down to misogyny.

Saying that all pro-choice folks think about it in terms of misogyny is a clear oversimplification and at best. 

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Partly because that's the same thing opposition to gender quotas is attributed to, but also because the voters who oppose abortion rights are the same ones who oppose embryonic stem cell research despite its potential to save their own lives one day.

I am not sure what that means, though. You oppose folks that oppose abortion because they oppose stem cell research? Wouldn't it better to be for or against these ethical problems not because what certain folks think about it or whether they are hypocritical about it, but rather think about the issue based on, well the issues themselves?

Like in case of abortion the right of the unborn vs that of the mother? Doesn't basing ones own value system based on whether you like what or how someone thinks about something seem a bit backwards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I think the issue here is that it is a fairly one-dimensional view. There are many different reasons why folks are against abortion, and conversely, there are plenty of folks who acknowledge but disagree these notions and do not simply break it down to misogyny.

I am aware of that. I am one of them. However, those who self-identify as "progressive" tend to, at best, not actively distance themselves from the implicit accusation that millions of voters are just "misogynistic".

 

Quote

I am not sure what that means, though. You oppose folks that oppose abortion because they oppose stem cell research?

No, I regret the label "progressive" because they accuse people who oppose stem cell research that could save their own lives of faking their "life begins at conception" worldview to oppress women.

 

Quote

Wouldn't it better to be for or against these ethical problems not because what certain folks think about it or whether they are hypocritical about it, but rather think about the issue based on, well the issues themselves?

To a point. However, I also don't think the negative aspects that tend to come with self-identified "progressivism" should be written off as just a coincidence. I think framing opinions as a package deal and everything outside that package deal as anti-progress is a slippery slope to writing off everyone who disagrees with you as a bigot of some kind or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

I am aware of that. I am one of them. However, those who self-identify as "progressive" tend to, at best, not actively distance themselves from the implicit accusation that millions of voters are just "misogynistic"

Why do you think that they need to do that? Do you expect conservatives to line up when and decry every lack of nuance they their folks bring up?

And this point is not defamatory as such either. After all, there are a range of studies that have shown that indicators of sexism (and racism) were the strongest predictors of Trump voters (i.e. we are looking a sizeable proportion of folks).

Likewise, surveys have shown that anti-abortion voters are those most opposed to measures of equality. Looking at folks who want abortion to be illegal in all or most cases for example, we find that 54% of them think that men are generally better political leaders, and only 47% think that the same number of women as men should be in positions of power. Note that women were oversampled in this survey

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1647-supermajority-survey-on-women/429aa78e37ebdf2fe686/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

Likewise studies looking at left-right divides in matters of abortion to be associated with sexism (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.044). 

So instead of the right decrying sexism in their group, you think progressives should be more nuanced and perhaps state that up to 50% of anti-abortionists are sexists?

14 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

No, I regret the label "progressive" because they accuse people who oppose stem cell research that could save their own lives of faking their "life begins at conception" worldview to oppress women.

Sorry I still am unclear what this means. Are "they" the progressives? Who is faking what? Not trying to be obtuse, but I find it difficult to figure out who is doing what in your sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

Why do you think that they need to do that? Do you expect conservatives to line up when and decry every lack of nuance they their folks bring up?

I guess no one really expects it with your two party system, Moderates from both parties seem at times to be the ones ostracized the most.

But one can hope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2022 at 2:57 PM, CharonY said:

Why do you think that they need to do that? Do you expect conservatives to line up when and decry every lack of nuance they their folks bring up?

You say this as if "conservative" were the sole alternative to "progressive". Why should I have to choose between aligning with those who decry opposition to abortion as "misogyny" and aligning with the scum who voted Trump?

 

I don't expect conservatives to line up and decry every lack of nuance, because my expectations for conservatives are already through the floor. They spent the 80s pretending to have a problem with the Soviet Union and the 00s voting for a guy who accepted help from a dictator who wants to restore the Soviet Union. The question is how the rest of us deal with these people ethically. Do we claim to know their motives, despite the lack of rhyme or reason to them? That's dicey, at best.

 

Even your study only refers to a gender role, not to outright hatred of either sex. Is it "misandrous" to prefer that teachers or nurses be women? If not, why is it "misogynistic" to prefer that politicians be men? And if so, isn't it hypocritical of them to condemn these gender roles, if only for that reason, let alone the fact that many of these people can in other contexts be caught using gendered insults anyway? We all have our own notions of gender roles in mind, and what counts is the sex of the voter, not the representative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Even your study only refers to a gender role, not to outright hatred of either sex. Is it "misandrous" to prefer that teachers or nurses be women?

Yes, if you think men are not suited or should not be teachers or nurses, it is clearly discriminatory (and society clearly does not see it that way, male nurses and teachers have on average a higher salary than their female counterparts).

 

3 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

If not, why is it "misogynistic" to prefer that politicians be men?

And this is even worse as we are talking about positions of power. Excluding groups from access to power can lead to pretty bad and discriminatory policies, of which we have plenty of examples. Many of these have been explored in various threads, so I am not digging them up again.

3 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

You say this as if "conservative" were the sole alternative to "progressive". Why should I have to choose between aligning with those who decry opposition to abortion as "misogyny" and aligning with the scum who voted Trump?

I did not mean to imply that there are not alternatives. However, it seemed to me that progressives seem to need to fulfill a way higher standard than folks apply to conservative views. As a matter of fact, I do not see a lot of nuance in any group. Where do we see moderates distancing themselves from anti-immigrant sentiments and associated implicit assumptions regarding foreigners? We can ask those questions all day long, but the truth is that if oversimplify groups (does not really matter which leaning) we are going to criticize a caricature which adds little substance.

One also could ask who in your mind is a progressive vs non-progressive? Ultimately attitudes overlap in various segments of the population. You complained about folks associating anti-abortion sentiments with misogyny, I provided evidence that there is at least some overlap. So depending on where you stand you could agree more or less how important it is, but dismissing it, is at this point not supported by evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Yes, if you think men are not suited or should not be teachers or nurses, it is clearly discriminatory (and society clearly does not see it that way, male nurses and teachers have on average a higher salary than their female counterparts).

It was not my own opinion, it was that of everybody else. I wouldn't claim to know why male nurses and teachers have a higher salary than their female counterparts, but frankly it sounds like a fair enough exchange for how much more serious an accusation a sexual relationship with a student / patient would be depending on the sexes thereof, and in turn, the leverage those invoking this as an accusation would have against male teachers compared to against female teaches. (See also; male teachers smeared as pedos for enforcing dress codes.) I'd think of it as hazard pay.

 

Quote

And this is even worse as we are talking about positions of power. Excluding groups from access to power can lead to pretty bad and discriminatory policies, of which we have plenty of examples. Many of these have been explored in various threads, so I am not digging them up again.

And yet, it is the plurality of voters, half of them female, who chose to exclude them from "positions of power." Do they not have that right in their capacity as voters?

 

Quote

I did not mean to imply that there are not alternatives. However, it seemed to me that progressives seem to need to fulfill a way higher standard than folks apply to conservative views. As a matter of fact, I do not see a lot of nuance in any group. Where do we see moderates distancing themselves from anti-immigrant sentiments and associated implicit assumptions regarding foreigners? We can ask those questions all day long, but the truth is that if oversimplify groups (does not really matter which leaning) we are going to criticize a caricature which adds little substance.

One also could ask who in your mind is a progressive vs non-progressive? Ultimately attitudes overlap in various segments of the population. You complained about folks associating anti-abortion sentiments with misogyny, I provided evidence that there is at least some overlap. So depending on where you stand you could agree more or less how important it is, but dismissing it, is at this point not supported by evidence.

Your point hinges on also counting certain other notions as misogynistic, a point I dispute.

 

Also, the anti-immigrant thing is clearly the main selling point. It's the only thing that really stood out about Trump during the primaries. They can't afford to throw their market-worshipping crap under the bus to save their anti-immigrant crap. If anything's going to get thrown under the bus, it's the market-worshipping crap. (Hence the being okay with a guy who accepted help from Putin, who's trying to "restore" the Soviet Union...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.