Hey Guys

[JimC]

By "progressive", Forty Two means the authoritarian left that dominates much of the social sciences at tertiary level, and that deserves criticism for their rigid political correctness. As rEv indicates, this is not the normal definition of progressive, certainly here in Oz...

[Brian Peacock]

Every time I hear the phrase "I reach for my", I reach for my penis.

Leave it alone man! Haven't got enough trouble downstairs as it is?

[laklak]

You need to hear a phrase before you shake hands with John Thomas? All it takes is an errant breeze for me...

[Forty Two]

Well your problem is that you are unilaterally redefining a well known concept. I'll stick to the more widely accepted definition of what it means to be 'progressive'.

I'm not redefining it, you are. Well, do you have a source for your widely accepted definition? And are there prominent/leading figures who have advanced it?

Yeah me. What's your source?

I've already provided many links and sources on various threads, and named various leading figures that espouse the views I've talked about. I was looking for yours.

First, saying "yeah me" is hardly proof that I'm redefining a well-known concept. It would be more correct to suggest that your understanding is different than that which I have propounded. Certainly, you were a bit presumptuous to suggest that your own concept is "widely accepted."

"yeah me" was meant to highlight to you that your source is just as unknown as my source.

I didn't claim my definition to be the widely accepted and well-known definition. Nor did I make any claim to state what "all" progressives believe, or what the traditional, dictionary definition (so to speak) was. I have clearly referred to the leading speakers, the activists, the academe -- the movements that are taking action on campuses all over the US and UK. The folks talking about Progressive Stack, women speak first, women can't be sexist, minorities can't be racist, eliminate grades in college, trigger warnings, etc. These folks certainly do not represent the majority of "people" whether conservative, moderate , or liberal. But, they do represent a significant and influential portion of leftists.

[Brian Peacock]

How much of a proportion is a significant proportion? 3%? 33%? 76%?

[Forty Two]

How much of a proportion is a significant proportion? 3%? 33%? 76%?

Portion of what? The population? Or, of progressives?

Of the population, small, because most people don't, for example, identify as feminists or progressives. They are a minority to begin with, albeit influential and loud.

Of self-identified Progressives, I think it's a shell game, and most self-identified Progressives do accept identity politics, collectivist and anti-capitalist Progressive viewpoints, race/sex politics of the kind we've seen in the various public issues on campus and such. They do think minorities and marginalized groups can't be racist or sexist, for example. They do think that "if you're not a feminist, you're a sexist" as the popular persona AronRa has resounding advocated. They do agree with Big Red, and the folks trying to drive off people like Milo Yianopoulos from campus.

They like to advance a "dictionary" type definition that sounds milquetoast, but when you see their policy positions, they are in agreement with the Regressives. This is just my opinion from having studied the issue, and there aren't and can't be reliable stats to give us an exact percentage.

If there is a large percentage of Progressives who are flat out against the Regressives, like the Black Lives Matter folks who stormed the Milo stage at DePaul, why isn't there a movement suggesting that the extremists don't speak for the real Progressives? Where are the youtubers, the academicians, the activists, and the leaders of feminist and humanist organization, and political groups out there espousing the real Progressivism and saying "hey, wait a minute....we oppose the "safe space" garbage, and the trigger warning nonsense, the Progressive Stack, and identity politics in general....those extremist progressives don't speak for us."

The reality is, you don't see it. And, I suspect the reason why is that the "moderate" Progressives sympathize with the "extreme" progressives, and just sort of wink and nod at the nonsense they engage in. So, that's why they bellow and holler about "Trump and his hate speech and violent rhetoric," but are largely silent when Progressives are beating people up, blocking access to venues, disrupting conferences and rallies, throwing punches, turning over cop cars, assaulting and battering police officers and police animals, setting fires and the like. That's why eRv here is like "oh, come on!" when he sees the video of activists storming the stage at a Milo event, taking the microphone, disrupting and canceling the event, swinging at the invited guest, etc. -- that's, to him, very minor. Although we all know that if it was the reverse, and some white people took the microphone from a black lives matter activist invited to attend the university, resulting in the event being canceled, while threatening to hit the speaker and taking a swing at him - that would be a big deal in the reverse. And, the reason it's a big deal in that sense, but not a big deal to Milo, is the Progressive philosophy of identity politics and the Progressive Stack. It's o.k. when marginalized groups do it.

[pErvinalia]

If there is a large percentage of Progressives who are flat out against the Regressives, like the Black Lives Matter folks who stormed the Milo stage at DePaul, why isn't there a movement suggesting that the extremists don't speak for the real Progressives?

Because, outside the minds of people like you and MRAs, the regressives are such a tiny minority as to be totally inconsequential.

The reality is, you don't see it. And, I suspect the reason why is that the "moderate" Progressives sympathize with the "extreme" progressives, and just sort of wink and nod at the nonsense they engage in.

Cool theory, bro. You really are the Seth of the centre. So now we've got secret regressives and progressive useful idiots?

That's why eRv here is like "oh, come on!" when he sees the video of activists storming the stage at a Milo event, taking the microphone, disrupting and canceling the event, swinging at the invited guest, etc. -- that's, to him, very minor.

Yes it is minor compared to global warming and crony capitalism. Sorry you can't see that.

[Forty Two]

If there is a large percentage of Progressives who are flat out against the Regressives, like the Black Lives Matter folks who stormed the Milo stage at DePaul, why isn't there a movement suggesting that the extremists don't speak for the real Progressives?

Because, outside the minds of people like you and MRAs, the regressives are such a tiny minority as to be totally inconsequential.

They are small in relation to the general population, but they rule the Progressives. Heck, the Progressives aren't a majority of the population themselves.

The reality is, you don't see it. And, I suspect the reason why is that the "moderate" Progressives sympathize with the "extreme" progressives, and just sort of wink and nod at the nonsense they engage in.

Cool theory, bro. You really are the Seth of the centre. So now we've got secret regressives and progressive useful idiots?

Not really. Just that your moderate Progressive sympathizes with wackos.

And crony capitalism? Progressives love it. Bailouts - government control of industries. They are big on giant cronies.