[Individualist]

A belief that coercion is always justified if in service of a "just" goal.

That's one of the reasons progressives are so drawn to the idea of global warming. It's a perfect excuse for them to tell other people how to live their lives, and use the power of the state to transform their "suggestions" into commands.

[raydan]

I have problems finding anything wrong with being progressive... especially since the opposite is regressive.

[Delwin]

That is a human thing, not a progressive thing. It the example you specified, the safety of the planet is the just cause on one side, economic prosperity is the just cause on the other. It's not so much about telling you what to do with your space as it is about not fucking up mine.
A society where everyone can do whatever they want whenever they want is not a society. It is anarchy.

[andyt]

We've seen the result where people did whatever they wanted. One is called the Love Canal. Examples abound.

[Lemmy]

It's not "progressivism" to suggest to people that they shouldn't throw their goddamn Timmie's cups out the car window. And if that "suggestion" isn't registering, commanding them not to do so is perfectly justifiable, along with a punch to the face.

[Thanos]

Individualist Individualist:

A belief that coercion is always justified if in service of a "just" goal.

That's one of the reasons progressives are so drawn to the idea of global warming. It's a perfect excuse for them to tell other people how to live their lives, and use the power of the state to transform their "suggestions" into commands.

Oddly enough there's an incredibly large number of conservatives who want the same thing too. Instead of using "progressivism" to do it they generally resort to a thing called "church".

[Individualist]

Delwin Delwin:

That is a human thing, not a progressive thing. It the example you specified, the safety of the planet is the just cause on one side, economic prosperity is the just cause on the other. It's not so much about telling you what to do with your space as it is about not fucking up mine.
A society where everyone can do whatever they want whenever they want is not a society. It is anarchy.

The problem is that some people take the concept of one person's decisions causing harm or increasing risk to others to extremes, such that pretty much nothing other than consensual sexual behaviour or use of recreational drugs without operationing dangerous equipment become exempt from the scrutiny or control of one's neighbours or the state.

The economic concept of externalities is often used as a justification for busybodies to stick their noses in other people's behaviour and lifestyle. "Hey, I have every right to berate that fat guy for going into McDonald's. I'm going to be helping pay for his eventual heart bypass. In fact, I'm going to try to get McDonald's banned in my city entirely, and campaign to get corporate grocery stores shut down in favour of farmers' markets selling healthy food from local producers. It's all for the good of the community, you know."

Handguns and rifles are used in crimes? Ban them. Mixed martial arts events promote violence? Ban them. Suburbs and cars cause social isolation, promote consumerism and generate greenhouse gases? Ban them, and make everybody live in multi-family housing in dense neighbourhoods and ride bicycles.

Truly optimizing a community along the lines of environmental impact, income equality, sociability, communal ownership, employment equity, racial harmony, or any of the other things progressives value would require severe curtailing of individual decision making with regards to lifestyle, purchasing choices and overall behaviour. So a society that truly believes in individual liberty and freedom of choice has to settle for being sub-optimal in any of these areas. The alternative is to use incentives and punishments to force people to behave in an "optimal" way.

I say, focus on controlling behaviour that has significant and undeniable negative impacts on the welfare of others. But stop hassling the fat guy going into McDonald's. Chances are he's also subsidizing some dumb decision you've made or will make. The quest to create the perfect society can only go so far before it runs up against the concept of individual liberty (particularly "negative liberty", or the right to be left alone). A balance must be struck.

But even leaving aside the right or wrong of progressive interventionism, one must also deal with the question of its efficacy. There is a hubris among some progressives that there is no truly intractable social problem. One need merely apply enough money, manpower and/or force. They assume that if they can access and pull all the right levers then social perfection can be achieved. But their greatest enemy in this effort is not conservatives or libertarians, but rather unintended consequences.

So progressive interventionism, as well-intentioned as it often is, falls upon two swords when taken too far:

- Individual rights and liberties
- The inability to completely model a complex social system

[N_Fiddledog]

(The same only different Indi )

Social Justice Warriors are pure prog. No, that is not the only identifier for them. Some does not mean all. And no, because you can identify traits, that are consistent powerful, and blatant in the prog, but you can kind of see similar traits sometimes elsewhere it does not mean they are the same thing.

But with SJWs we see the kind of authoritarian coercion or "power-stroking" that is fundamental in what I will now call "progism".

It may be be important to identify a distinction in terms, because Progressivism is an ideal we have no evidence actually operates in the real world so to call the Prog a Progressive may be encouraging a lie. The prog is fond of hijacking isms and the first one it hijacked may have been Progressivism (followed by Liberalism and lately the move is to co-opt Libertarianism).

My theory is the thing called prog appeals to a sort of societal narcissism that can be found amongst the favored of society or within a favored society. It appeals to the inner butt-gerbil that is convinced at its corruptible core it is "entitled". It then power strokes the ego of those individuals with belief they are following superior ideals and lesser individuals (or those who do not see things as they do) need to be managed.

Which brings us back to Social Justice Warriors. An LGBT SJW may be crying out in the name of his victimhood, but watch those like Dan Savage bully. Or with third wave feminists where their cries of equality become more about demands of subjugation to their beliefs. The conflict with the rational is fundamental with the prog, because it doesn't matter to him or her. It is about the power-stroking the ego.

The rest of us watch this and scratch our heads. We wonder why they are asking us to ignore the obvious. We can't help noticing that they are not superior at all. Once identified and observed they seem a little nuts in the way they can shut reality down and engage in fantasy thinking. If it's convenient to believe it's true it becomes true and the real world must adjust to pamper it.

Here we can use Indi's example of climate alarmism where the pause of almost 20 years of identifiable warming in the data became inconvenient so they simply rewrote the data.

Here's something though. "Progressivism" seems to be on its way out. The thing called prog can only exist until it is identified. That's the curious thing about it. It's self destructive. It can only exist until you notice it, but because it's basic need is to exert power, that power tends to eventually attract notice. There is an accompanying need to attack existing structures of actual power. Even those of us who have a 'let it be' attitude such as Liberals and Libertarians will eventually say, "Wait a minute here" and fling these self-important twisted fools from their house. The Prog thing will eventually go back to obscurity and take its BS term of "Progressivism" with it.

We shouldn't underestimate the rot or the damage that has already been infested within society by this thing though. It may be too late. The barbarians are already within the gates.

Also, the societal Parasite we've now identified goes dormant, it waits for conditions to be right when it will be reborn. Other civilizations have been destroyed by this thing. We must hope for a rebound so the cause of our demise does not become another thing future Prog revisionists will ask the unexpecting of the future ignore.

[N_Fiddledog]

And here's a thing I'm starting to notice more and more of lately.

Those once referred to as "Progressives" are starting to be identified as "Regressives".

I've even seen actual Liberals like Bill Maher and Sam Harris call them by that name.

It's spreading on the internet. Here's an example from Forbes.

Political Progressives Are Regressives

[Individualist]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here we can use Indi's example of climate alarmism where the pause of almost 20 years of identifiable warming in the data became inconvenient so they simply rewrote the data.

The conservative resistance to climate change activism boils down to the following:

1. You're trying to get me to stop doing things I like, and start doing things I either don't like or simply have no interest in. Coincidentally, these changes would all bring me more in line with your own personal lifestyle preferences.
2. I don't necessarily have the scientific background to challenge your data, but I don't trust your motives. See latter part of point 1.

The increased level of government regulation and control of economic activity and individual behaviour seemingly required for an effective response to climate change is offputting to conservatives and libertarians, but would not be seen as a problem for progressives. In fact, many progressives would see this expansion of state power as a side benefit, an antidote to the shrinking of the role of government that began with Reagan and Thatcher. In that light, they would look upon climate change not as an "inconvenient truth" but as a "convenient crisis". If climate change had not existed, they would have had to invent it.

If the environmental movement truly wants to move out of the box it currently occupies on the left side of the spectrum, it must convince reasonable conservatives that they are not looking to use climate action as a hollow wooden horse in which to pack a bunch of unrelated social tinkering and income redistribution. Getting consensus on what do to about climate change may require progressives to unbundle the climate issue from their larger statist project, and require conservatives/libertarians to accept a greater role for government in certain spheres.

[raydan]

I've always wondered why some people find it so important to put labels, not only on themselves, but on others too.

[andyt]

Yeah, those damn labellers. Can't stand them. Us anti-labellers are much better

[Delwin]

@individualist

Actually, no. Based on the current political climate, the consensus regarding climate change and no north american conservative leadership for the foreseeable future, climate change action is an inevitability. Regardless of you inability to accept the facts around it, our actions are hurting others and that's where your liberties end. If people are too ignorant to make proper choices, sometimes choices need to be made for them.

[sandorski]

Individualist Individualist:

A belief that coercion is always justified if in service of a "just" goal.

That's one of the reasons progressives are so drawn to the idea of global warming. It's a perfect excuse for them to tell other people how to live their lives, and use the power of the state to transform their "suggestions" into commands.

The "idea of Global Warming" isn't just a political tool. It is part of Reality and needs to be dealt with one way or another.

[Lemmy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

(The same only different Indi )

Social Justice Warriors are pure prog. No, that is not the only identifier for them. Some does not mean all. And no, because you can identify traits, that are consistent powerful, and blatant in the prog, but you can kind of see similar traits sometimes elsewhere it does not mean they are the same thing.

But with SJWs we see the kind of authoritarian coercion or "power-stroking" that is fundamental in what I will now call "progism".

It may be be important to identify a distinction in terms, because Progressivism is an ideal we have no evidence actually operates in the real world so to call the Prog a Progressive may be encouraging a lie. The prog is fond of hijacking isms and the first one it hijacked may have been Progressivism (followed by Liberalism and lately the move is to co-opt Libertarianism).

My theory is the thing called prog appeals to a sort of societal narcissism that can be found amongst the favored of society or within a favored society. It appeals to the inner butt-gerbil that is convinced at its corruptible core it is "entitled". It then power strokes the ego of those individuals with belief they are following superior ideals and lesser individuals (or those who do not see things as they do) need to be managed.

Which brings us back to Social Justice Warriors. An LGBT SJW may be crying out in the name of his victimhood, but watch those like Dan Savage bully. Or with third wave feminists where their cries of equality become more about demands of subjugation to their beliefs. The conflict with the rational is fundamental with the prog, because it doesn't matter to him or her. It is about the power-stroking the ego.

The rest of us watch this and scratch our heads. We wonder why they are asking us to ignore the obvious. We can't help noticing that they are not superior at all. Once identified and observed they seem a little nuts in the way they can shut reality down and engage in fantasy thinking. If it's convenient to believe it's true it becomes true and the real world must adjust to pamper it.

Here we can use Indi's example of climate alarmism where the pause of almost 20 years of identifiable warming in the data became inconvenient so they simply rewrote the data.

Here's something though. "Progressivism" seems to be on its way out. The thing called prog can only exist until it is identified. That's the curious thing about it. It's self destructive. It can only exist until you notice it, but because it's basic need is to exert power, that power tends to eventually attract notice. There is an accompanying need to attack existing structures of actual power. Even those of us who have a 'let it be' attitude such as Liberals and Libertarians will eventually say, "Wait a minute here" and fling these self-important twisted fools from their house. The Prog thing will eventually go back to obscurity and take its BS term of "Progressivism" with it.

We shouldn't underestimate the rot or the damage that has already been infested within society by this thing though. It may be too late. The barbarians are already within the gates.

Also, the societal Parasite we've now identified goes dormant, it waits for conditions to be right when it will be reborn. Other civilizations have been destroyed by this thing. We must hope for a rebound so the cause of our demise does not become another thing future Prog revisionists will ask the unexpecting of the future ignore.

Someone's been smoking way too much Rand.