@OP, perhaps the activities of your "new" left can best be explained by a generation of white political actors who do not identify first and foremost as "white people" and see no reason to protect or play favorites with European cultural institutions and European cultural heritage. The people who control these offices and reap the benefits of imperialism now and in the past are very removed from me or you or anyone else here. They do not have my sympathies just because we share skin tone, and they shouldn't.
Well, they are. The whole regressive left stuff is pretty much the product of the seedier parts of the internet (a certain image board that can't be mentioned here), and KiA, and Sargon of Akkad. All of them spout neonazi-derived rhetoric about cultural marxism, extreme immigrant paranoia, paint absurd caricatures of feminism, and demand the left to basically not be the left anymore.
The term was coined by Maajid Nawaz, not by anychan, not by KiA, not by Sargon. As much as I agree that the people you mentioned go overboard on certain topics your description of what the term means is just as much of a fantasy derived from "I want this to be true!"-land as the stuff they tend to spread. You're merely pointing to the other extreme to deflect from the correct criticism of people on your side of the issue, intentional or not.
Not buying it. A bunch of not-progressives are telling us we have a split coming so we better fight our own now. Seriously? This "fight" has been going on for 50 years, the only reason it's so loud is because everything else is so quiet.
No, the main argument (and it is a good one btw) is that traditionally the left stood for personal freedom and free speech and that is a very good thing. Sadly, many of today's leftists are too young to remember those days and they mistakenly believe being a liberal means being politically correct and trying to silence anyone who is not. That is the exact opposite of traditional liberal values.
BTW Princeps the phrase "regressive left" was popularized by David Rubin who is a liberal and a former co host of the podcast The Young Turks which is also a liberal program. Mr Rubin now has his own tv show and podcast. He popularized the term to point out how many self declared liberals don't know the classical history of liberalism and he criticizes them for being both ignorant and the type of regressive authoritarians which liberals opposed in the 1950s and 1960s.
So, no, the term did not start on the right but was invented on the left to criticize other leftists who weren't practicing what they preached.
The stupidest part of this is that the premise is that people conform to easily identifiable labels, such as "leftist".
It's a bunch of stupid people whining about stupid BS, let them. And if they break the law, deal with them accordingly. The worst thing to do is to give them any sort of attention.
Don't take it personally, but virtually everything you say is just factually wrong to the point of being downright ridiculous. Middle Eastern culture has nothing to do with Islam? Sharia is a subjective matter? Poverty is the reason for Muslims supporting the death penalty for apostasy? There are no political aspirations within Islam? Islam is a race? (I mean WTH?!)
Look into these matters more, please, with an open mind. That is all I can say.
No, the main argument (and it is a good one btw) is that traditionally the left stood for personal freedom and free speech and that is a very good thing. Sadly, many of today's leftists are too young to remember those days and they mistakenly believe being a liberal means being politically correct and trying to silence anyone who is not. That is the exact opposite of traditional liberal values.
If we accept the premise that this main argument describes something real, what role, if any, do you think our present incarnation of technology-aided communication plays? Specifically real-identity social media networks? Just watching my wife deal with everyone from her parents, to her friends, to some of the crazier cousins on my side, and how to selectively block people who post ideas that either are patently absurd or that my wife thinks are patently absurd.... it just seems like the communication of this environment easily builds into something mob-like in temperament and tone. And it seems like the one thing you don't want to do in a mob is stand out. Which could, theoretically, make for one hella perpetually judgmental vibe? I mean, do HR people still stalk prospective employees personal social media profiles? They used to. I knew of one guy that didn't get hired in 2008 since he didn't have one to snoop and his competition did. So, if true, I think that perpetually judgmental vibe has teeth. Just like the parts of "conservative" culture we should despise as "freedom loving peoples."
No, the main argument (and it is a good one btw) is that traditionally the left stood for personal freedom and free speech and that is a very good thing. Sadly, many of today's leftists are too young to remember those days and they mistakenly believe being a liberal means being politically correct and trying to silence anyone who is not. That is the exact opposite of traditional liberal values.
BTW Princeps the phrase "regressive left" was popularized by David Rubin who is a liberal and a former co host of the podcast The Young Turks which is also a liberal program. Mr Rubin now has his own tv show and podcast. He popularized the term to point out how many self declared liberals don't know the classical history of liberalism and he criticizes them for being both ignorant and the type of regressive authoritarians which liberals opposed in the 1950s and 1960s.
So, no, the term did not start on the right but was invented on the left to criticize other leftists who weren't practicing what they preached.
The stupidest part of this is that the premise is that people conform to easily identifiable labels, such as "leftist".
It's a bunch of stupid people whining about stupid BS, let them. And if they break the law, deal with them accordingly. The worst thing to do is to give them any sort of attention.
I let people self identify how ever they want. After all who are we to tell them what their position is? WRT the term "regressive left", yes, it is kind of dumb and it was started by one group of self declared leftists who thought other self declared leftists weren't authenticly left enough.
I follow this as well, but the only people I see self-identifying as "leftists" are those who are head over heel involved in some nonsense or other. There's a ton of people who lean left who just don't give a crap, they don't self-identify as much really, should we exclude them from the "The left is dying" discussion?
I'll agree to suspend use of the word "leftist" provided we can also suspend the word "conservative" followed by some explanation of policy that resembles nothing I would ever think or support
but I can't speak for others. Any agreement we come to only applies towards myself and is pretty much useless lol
Don't take it personally, but virtually everything you say is just factually wrong to the point of being downright ridiculous. Middle Eastern culture has nothing to do with Islam? Sharia is a subjective matter? Poverty is the reason for Muslims supporting the death penalty for apostasy? There are no political aspirations within Islam? Islam is a race? (I mean WTH?!)
Look into these matters more, please, with an open mind. That is all I can say.
The answer to the problems of the Middle East is found in historical economics and policy. I recommend reading the economist Timur Kuran. His answers are a bit different from mine, but his work is an excellent place to start.
Or you can go on with the "religion dun did it" line.
In its original context it stands for the people who, while being progressives on most topics, decided to almost religiously defend Islam and find excuses for everything to make sure the idea that not all cultures are on equal footing at any point in time is discredited. Or, a bit broader, people who willingly give up their liberal and progressive ideas for the sake of cultural relativism. More broadly speaking it describes people who are regressing back into illiberal values (often going hand in hand with becoming more authoritarian) because they think it is the path to social justice.
Not buying it. A bunch of not-progressives are telling us we have a split coming so we better fight our own now. Seriously? This "fight" has been going on for 50 years, the only reason it's so loud is because everything else is so quiet.
The 'Regressive Left' was coined by Maajid Nawaz, and can refer to anyone who is on the general left-leaning side politically (i.e. those who traditionally fights racism, supports labour rights, social equality, etc.). From Wikipedia:
In an October 2015 interview with political talk show host Dave Rubin, Nawaz elucidated further the reasoning behind his choice of the word "regressive". He hypothesized that a section of the leftists "genuinely believe" that they are fighting an "ideological war" against neoconservative and neocolonialist foreign policies of Western governments which promote state-organized violence and chaos in the form of wars and military invasions. On the contrary, when it comes to denounce the randomized acts of violence of theocratic extremists such as Islamists, the same leftists forego their duty to criticize such acts of violence and prioritize to focus on the bigger evil of state-sponsored violence and war. Sometimes, they even "make alliances" with some of the most regressive, theocratic and murdering regimes and organizations. Nawaz labels these people regressive leftists.
And @Hygro:
I wouldn't say that people Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris, Maryam Namazie, or Dave Rubin are 'not-progressives'. They're all rather liberal and progressive as far as I understand the terms.
The reason I feel like naming them [the regressives] is so important, is because I now view these regressives as the left's version of the Tea Party. The Tea Party went unchecked by the right until it was too late, and now the Republican Party is a fractured mess often only held together by its worst beliefs. I really believe these regressives are doing this to the left, and if we don't have the courage to stop them, then a year or two from now, we'll wonder why our system is screwed up even more than it is now.
I don't know how you would interpret it in the USA, but considering how the Left is losing political ground all over Europe these days, and that a lot of it is blamed on the Left not handling the Islamist problem properly, there seems to be a lot in that analysis.
And @warpus:
For examples of some of the people I've seen labeled as 'regressive leftists': Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, and Noam Chomsky. I haven't followed what Chomsky has opined, so I can't speak for that, but I've read and heard both Aslan and Greenwald argue positions I find quite reactionary, and I've read stuff from Greenwald about Nawaz which, frankly, was literally racist! Which is a shame, cause on most other topics they're just as liberal and progressive as I'd expect from someone on the left.
How can Sharia law be liberal? I've never heard of that possibility. In general, religions are usually conservative and at best reactive when faced with cultural or social changes.
College, a bastion of free speech? College is just a place where kids go to get worthless degrees, it's not some special place where intellectuals sit down and have high-brow discussions about human civilization.
Colleges are also a business, first and foremost, and right now they are really focusing hard on getting more funding and more $$$. To assume that colleges are some sort of a sacred place where free speech reigns supreme is just weird. They have other priorities.
There are also so many entitled brats being enrolled and so many helicopter parents, that it's all really a big joke.
There's no such thing as a 'new' or 'old' atheist. The term 'New Atheists' doesn't mean anything, and is really only used as a derogatory term against people one doesn't like. Apparently 'atheist' wasn't bad enough anymore, so someone added 'new' in front of it to make it seem dangerous again. It would be polite to stop using it.
I used to think Atheists were somehow more logical than theists, but it took me going on the internet to realise that they're just as susceptible to bigotry and spouting nonsense as theists.
Outspoken atheism? Unashamed atheism? Proud atheism? Or simply 'atheism'?
Note that no one is forced to listen to what Harris, Dawkins, et al. has to say, and that they do not simply march up to the closest religious congregation and yells at them. They're calmly discussing science, beliefs and religion in private or at venues and meetings they've organised or been invited to. And they're also polite and behaved when talking to religious people (and at least far more patient than I could possibly be).
Furthermore, 'religion is a malady' is a perfectly acceptable position to hold. The bonus is that such a position can also be rationally argued.
I used to think Atheists were somehow more logical than theists, but it took me going on the internet to realise that they're just as susceptible to bigotry and spouting nonsense as theists.
Nah, the position is more logical, but any sufficiently large group of people will have members who rather regurgitate poorly understood ideas than think for themselves. To understand a position it's usually helpful to discuss the arguments, and not the messenger.
None of this is real. This very NSFW rap, 2nd verse, is real. The "regressive left" is just trying to get the object of that verse, the cute in the face, broke by the waist woman represented. Her oppressor isn't Mistah FAB despite his rancorous demeanor, quite the opposite actually, but rather the system that squeezes those outside the moneyed core.
We can't indiscriminately expand the freedom of the core to the world, especially in places where people don't want it bad enough, without losing the core's fusion reaction keeping us warm. But what we can do is expand freedom to the real margins.
Are you a woman person of color attending an elite university? You are almost completely enfranchised! But she's not actually there yet. So of course she grabs the tarp edges of the Privilege Tent and stretch em a little further. And the process that moves the keys to privilege from education, sex, and race, to just education means we're two loops closer to untying the oppression knot.
The woman spoken to in the song is facing layers of oppression, but has one privilege (good looks) and is squandering it, when she could be using her one privilege to escape another oppression (poverty).
This is a piece by piece process where we are just going to pick low hanging fruit while someone makes a ladder, pick higher fruit until someone makes a hydraulic mobile ladder, and then pick the highest fruit. We gotta eat before we wait for the tallest best ladder. It looks messy.
tl;dr the "regressive left" is saying that we break oppression by having oppressed people with some privileges use what they got to demolish their oppression, aka take/share more privileges. You don't foist it upon others, standing in for them.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
