Essay talk:Brogressive

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

<1>

Move to essay space

This barely survived AFD with a revert to the old version. It's Smerdis ranting about feminists. I suggest it go to essay space, else it still needs an axe taken to it per the problems noted above on this very talk page - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes

• If I'm allowed to vote, then based on the stubborn resistance to explicit critiques in the section below, I also think this should go back into essay space. Totally regardless of whether it is pro- or anti-feminism, it's definitely not an article that is pro-honesty, and it does the wiki no favors to have an article that is so totally bereft of anything resembling a rational argument against use of the term.KrytenKoro (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No

1. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 15:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• I really don't care at this point. This was a requested article. I went looking for explanations of the word, and pretty much let the sources I found speak for themselves, even if what I found is 'problematic'. I know, anything claiming the 'feminist' label is axiomatically right, no matter how divisive or priggish it seems. The AfD'd version wasn't really about the ways the people who coined the word meant by it. If someone defines this differently, let them show their sources. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

A misogynyist article?

This article was not be perfect but it explained clearly the meaning of "brogressive". However, it was completely edited and replaced by an anti-feminist article. If this was the action of a single user, I'd just consider them some troll. But when even admins condone this, it's really disappointing. --Redsjw (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I told you that this was a community decision, based on an AfD vote. Rather than respond on my talk page, you simply started a new thread here. I wonder why.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And rather than waiting to see if someone replies, you simply chose to revert the page to its pre-afd status for the third time.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Pointing out feminists making stupid claims is not "misogyny". - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The lead section of this article implying that "extreme radical feminists" are somehow bad directly contradict the lede of the radical feminism article, which claims it's a legitimate school of thought outside its pejorative use as continuous hand wringing by reactionaries. Withoutaname (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If mentioning 'radical feminism' in this context gives offense, I will take it out. That doesn't change the fact that the mindset revealed by this bit of cant is integralist and authoritarian; they'd prefer to call people who agree with parts of their agenda names. This suggests that they'd rather be rulers of their small ponds rather than make a difference in a wider world. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Like I said in the AFD, I don't see at all how calling people "brogressive" is "authoritarian". You might get criticized as being a very ineffective ally, but this hardly involves government interference or complete subservience. So I'll repeat, what's totalitarian about it? Withoutaname (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a way of saying 'my way or the highway'. What's even more odd, these imperfect allies become "your new worst enemy" to people who adopt the mindset inherent in the term. I would call that totalitarian, or at least authoritarian, as well as severely wrong-headed. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 23:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Naw, the wiki medium is just terribly conservative when it comes to making large scale changes to articles. You can change single sentences one at a time but changing anything as large as a paragraph or bigger will earn you an instant revert. Also it's a good idea to bring up sources to back up all your claims. Withoutaname (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If a user registers solely to undo a decision that was agreed upon in a vote, rollback is what they get.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone "agreed upon" the decision so much as scrambled for mob rule. Try to keep this wiki less strict than Wikipedia, and make less vague appeals to what "the community" wants. Withoutaname (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Smerdis, Noir, Owlman and I all voted in favour of this (I didn't formally vote but you may count me in). That makes for three "delete" votes, three "keep" and four "rollback".--JorisEnter (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I also think it's missional, but in the AFD I only see Smerdis and Noir explicitly calling for rollback to the earlier version. Regardless, and my advice applies to Redsjw as well, I think David Gerard is right in suggesting we develop a draft version, since the article as it is looks incomplete. Withoutaname (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Owlman also supported the rollback (though not by any formal vote, but in the "goat" section he seems fine with returning the page to its original state).--JorisEnter (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It was a decision without clear consensus for any particular direction, not a landslide vote to return the article to its old version - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Smerdis and Joris, how are you two so consistently and massively misunderstanding the meaning of the word? It's been amply explained before. This article is purposefully misconstruing the comments of each "Feminazi" it's quoting, when even bereft of their larger context, you can tell they're talking about the parts of the movement who consistently urge inaction despite nominally agreeing with the goal. That's not in any way equivalent to the parts of the movement which simply disagree on which goals should be pursued. The Brogressive is not the liberal who thinks that pot should not be legalized, he's the one who says he does but as soon as his group isn't getting arrested for using marijuana, tells everyone to stop caring that minorities are having their lives destroyed over it. In other words, he's the "fuck you, got mine" of progressives.107.5.194.72 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Show me some blogger who is using the word your way, and I'd be happy to include their views as well. I went looking for people explaining the word. This is what I found. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 00:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"The Brogressive is all defensive wonk talk and no action, because at the end of the day, he does not need to work towards justice, since he already benefits from systems of power."

The response, made in rationalwiki's voice, is so incredibly missing the point of the quoted text that it borders on parody (hint: the bit about reddit and tumblr isn't meant as a "Nintendo vs. Sega" fanwar). It makes the author of the article look just...massively blinkered and defensive. It has the exact same tenor as "Anita can't be right about there being a trend of anti-woman tropes in games, because Dead or Alive Volleyball exists and the protagonists are all women!"107.5.194.72 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Also "The Brogressive is a privileged individual (most often a white, straight, cis male) who outwardly claims to support progressive causes, but insists on doing so without challenging their own comfort or ideas." and "Often, they will spend hours on Reddit discussing drone policy – but only insofar as drones serve to remind people of the Real Problems With American Foreign Policy.". Come on, chum, I didn't even have to do a google search. This is already on the article, just incompetently misconstrued.107.5.194.72 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm having a bit of difficulty grasping what your objections are. There's some kind of cosmic significance in preferring Reddit to Tumblr? How does that work? The several writers who deigned to explain the word agreed that it means someone who agrees with some but not all the items on an agenda deserves a condescending name and is "your new worst enemy". Another suggests that the word is applied to people who do the dog-work of actually organizing for the cause. I assume that these bloggers are at least articulate and mean what they say. You apparently expect me to read into it something that isn't in the text; as you note, I tried to let the writers speak for themselves. And what they have to say seems unconstructive and spiteful. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

" The several writers who deigned to explain the word agreed that it means someone who agrees with some but not all the items on an agenda deserves a condescending name and is "your new worst enemy"." Again, no. You're almost willfully missing their point, which I've pointed out to you several times.

Once again, from the quotes on which the article is choosing to hang this edifice -- "The Brogressive is all defensive wonk talk and no action". All defensive wonk talk. No action. Or in the words of MLK: "the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”". For some reason this article is insisting on the utter unreality of treating the Reddit, Tumblr, McFarlane stuff not as metaphors for this kind of person, but as literal statements of "if you like reddit, you're trying to put women back in the kitchen". No. The common theme of all these quotes, and indeed the common usage almost everywhere on the internet, is the progressive who talks the talk, but balks at any actionable policy for walking that walk.204.11.142.106 (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If the consensus on this wiki is unable to even correctly identify the argument being made, much less refute it, it really is better that the page be deleted entirely rather than misinform readers.204.11.142.106 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish I had your self-assurance. At least one of the sources I found would appear to disagree with you: Election work and party involvement is increasingly seen as the unhip, uncool, morally compromised province of social climbers and “brogressives” not truly committed to the supposedly “real work” of social justice engagement by non-electoral means. The comparison with MLK seems strained; again, the attempts at definition in the sources all had in common the notion that the "brogressive" agrees with many but not all the items on an agenda. Worse, the source suggests that the 'brogressives' are out there organizing rather than performing for an online mutual applause society. I came to the subject with an open mind, really. An article on "brogressive" was asked for. I went looking. This is what I found. If you disagree, find me something different. (And you really ought to get a user name and an account. Pretty please?) - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"There is certainly great value in persuasion, engagement and visibility model. But the issue of gun control provides an excellent example of why I find the recent and growing hostility to the Howard Dean model deeply misguided and more than a little troubling."

Yes, one source by someone critical of those who use the term brogressive uses the term completely differently than all the sources that actually use it to define those they are unsatisfied with. Surely we've never seen anything like this before.

It's bloody stupid for the article to be taking quotes from two markedly different camps, ignoring the context of both, and trying to portray it as being one harmonious definition.

"If you disagree, find me something different." That's some dishonest shit right there. I've pointed out, in the quotes, how the quotes disagree with the interpretation you've given them. "agrees with many but not all the items on an agenda" -- no, they don't. Most of them talk about the brogressive not being willing to walk the walk -- one of them very concisely says "all talk, no action". You have consistently refused to discuss the actual quotes that I have given as examples, whereas I have discussed the quote you give above and provided its context.204.11.142.106 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What is it that you want? That the idea that a 'brogressive' is all talk and no action be fronted somehow? I've tried to do that now in the article text. I still don't see much of an argument that this label is anything other than sexist, divisive, and authoritarian. It remains something deserving of mockery, based on the way its proponents have sought to define it. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• "to refer to men who agree with some, but not all, left wing opinions. " - should be corrected to match what quotes are actually saying.
• Strawmanning of Laura Jensen quote should be removed, and replaced with something vaguely related to what she said.
• "secret selfishness" is silly -- there's no "secret" being implied, it's a direct accusation of selfishness.
• "Her issue, again, is that by not agreeing with each item on her checklist, he becomes "annoying". " -- inaccurate strawmanning should be removed and replaced with something that shows RW actually understands the context and intent of the quote.
• "Anderson suggests that this "brogressive" possesse" -- cliche scarequotes should be removed.
• "Michael Darer is more succinct in his attempted definition" - remove attempted.
• "He votes for progressive causes and supports them by his words, but like most people, he has a comfort zone he prefers to stay inside!" -- nowhere in the quote does Darer actually indicate the Brogressive even votes in line with their words. In fact, almost every quote is describing what the SJW article insists is the "legitimate usage of the phrase" -- someone who talks the talk, but with no sincerity or actual desire to follow it up with action such as voting, and does it solely to make themselves look good. It is fundamentally a case of the euphemism treadmill in action, since SJW has become such a dogwhistle. The examples used in Darer's article are also fairly explicit -- a brogressive says he's against transphobia, but cheerfully engages in it. A brogressive says he supports gay marriage, but wants the gays to be quiet about asking for or engaging in it. In short, it's not "this person only supports X and Y out of my X, Y, Z, W, A, and B", it's "this person says they support issue X, but in their actions actually works against issue X." Here's the rest of the paragraph which the article takes out of context in order to portray the quote as being about not agreeing with a laundry list of issues, rather than being a specific accusation of hypocrisy:
  • " It’s the guy who says he supports gay marriage, but really doesn’t like how “they” need to be so “in-your-face” about it. It’s the guy who claims to be opposed to domestic violence, but can’t address the issue in his work without laying heavy blame on the victim. It’s the television writer who says they oppose transphobia, but also perpetuate the stereotype of transwomen out to deceive straight men. "
• " This writer, too, holds up Seth MacFarlane, famous chiefly for The Family Guy and Ted, as the canonical brogressive" -- what is the point of this line? Seth MacFarlane is well known for being a "public enemy" in progressive circles, due to rampant transphobia, homophobia, cheap racist punchlines, rape culture (even when used to argue against abstinence) etc. in his work. Is this line supposed to be implying that it is somehow contradictory to point to Seth MacFarlane as someone doing the progressive movement more harm than good?
• "As far as animated family sitcoms go, The Family Guy lacks the essential humanity of Mike Judge's King of the Hill. But no one will call Mike Judge a "brogressive"." -- Non sequiter. No one would call Mike Judge a brogressive because most progressives, in fact, actually complement his show on its innate depiction of tolerance and acceptance.
• "Wiktionary, the only online dictionary yet to feature the word, defines brogressive simply as pejorative slang meaning "a male progressive who downplays women's issues or displays a macho or patriarchal attitude." Among its sources, it cites a column by David Atkins, who suggests that the term is exclusive to the online slacktivist Left: " -- this line should make it clear that, unlike all the other sources used for the article, this writer is criticizing those who are critical of brogressives. The way it is written, it gives the false implication that this author's definition has any harmony with the definitions implied by the other usages.
• "Examining the "brogressive" concept reveals odd insights into the mentality of people who would use the term. We're left wondering: If real world politics involves persuading lots of people to support your goals, whether in the streets or in the polls, how does this concept help with that aim? " -- This line dishonestly and falsely conflates Atkins's definition with those who use brogressive as a term of criticism, and produces a completely nonsensical conclusion -- that those who criticize brogressives are attacking those who are trying to enact progressive policies. Which is explicitly a contradiction of what the prior quotes talk about. It makes the article sound dumb as shit.
• "Also, what did Seth MacFarlane ever do to them? " -- possibly should be retained as snark, but it's like having a line on the Neil deGrasse Tyson article saying "what did flat earthers ever do to him?" It's flatly obvious what their criticism of MacFarlane is, and the article gives up some of its credibility by feigning ignorance. Fuck, it's like someone saying of this wiki "what did conservapedia ever do to them?". It's a stupid question, and makes us sound stupid.
• In general, the article reeks of the author trying to mock an idea without once actually addressing it, so it comes off as a rather pathetic strawman. Snark is useful, yes, but here it's done with no skill, no competence, just a basic kindergarten attempt in the same vein as "Rethuglicans" or "Demoncrats". No actual argument is being made -- it's just piling on scarequotes and weaselwords and hoping that it spooks the reader. It's a junk article, filled with internal contradictions, obnoxious forced ignorance, and dishonest conflation.KrytenKoro (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote that post as an example for people shouting down others not progressive enough for them.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC) 14:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I really hate how every dispute on this wiki is viewed first and foremost through a lens of assumed tribalism. It was obnoxious when Ryulong did it, and it's obnoxious now.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I don't care. If somebody wants to turn this article into a non-missional celebration of a sexist, integralist, and divisive insult, go ahead. If you do so, please delete it before replacing it with your preferred text, so that it no longer appears among pages I'm responsible for. The resulting steaming mess will surely deserve deletion. I would add that the obsession with Seth MacFarlane is extremely odd. By all accounts, he is a progressive in good standing, using his celebrity to support LGBTQ rights and reformist Democratic candidates. He is, unfortunately, in the comedy business; as such he apparently draws the wrath of people who have made themselves deaf to comedy. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Have I at any point said it wasn't divisive, or that I want the article to "celebrate" the term? No. I asked for the page to be honest about who said what. It's pretty shitty to defend the article's blatant dishonesty on the lines that being honest would somehow be celebrating hatred. If the article can criticize the term without outright dishonesty, more power to it--I'm certainly no fan of the left's propensity for purity tests. But this article is a shit attempt at that.

"By all accounts, he is a progressive in good standing" - Oh come right the fuck on. Criticism of MacFarlane by progressives (or even conservatives, honestly) is nothing new or particularly obscure. "He is, unfortunately, in the comedy business;" -- and he's also a human being with serious opinions, and he's often criticized for those, not just what appears in his shows.KrytenKoro (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no further interest in arguing about this. I went looking for people explaining what they meant by 'brogressive', and what I found was sexism, small-mindedness, and straining at gnats. Call me dishonest all you like, but the quoted and referenced sources speak for themselves. It is true that I read them without a predisposition to give anyone calling themselves a 'feminist' the benefit of every doubt. The hate for Seth MacFarlane remains weird in a disturbing way, but it may just be a case of the amplification you get from online echo chambers. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My entire argument has been the quotes and referenced sources do not say what the article claims, so if you think they're "speaking for themselves" you're badly mistaken. I've pointed out exactly what I take issue with -- I've highlighted key sections and copy-pasted the context of the articles the quotes are taken from that demonstrate that the article's interpretation of these quotes is nonsensical. I have no qualms about the article, in principle, criticizing those who use the term "brogressive", but this article is a shoddy hack jab that does not accomplish that -- it relies instead on attacking strawmen and making woo-woo noises. There may very well be those who use the term in a sexist manner, hell, the writers you've quoted may be extreme outliers to how the phrase is used, but you picked piss-poor sources to demonstrate that the phrase is used the way the article claims it is.

And quit it with this whole "I did the best I could" act. I've pointed out explicit errors in the article, and instead of responding to any of them, you keep saying "I looked for quotes and I found sexism". Who the fuck cares what you think you found? Do the actual work of addressing the very specific, detailed concerns about your article, rather than continuously waving them off with vague excuses. Take some damn responsibility for the things you produce.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to amend the article with more text from the still-available sources; slantnews seems to have vanished down the memory hole. But for all of your accusations of dishonesty, it remains my impression that 'brogressive' is a divisive piece of insult cant. My impression instead is that the article is disliked because it calls out 'intersectional feminists' on their bullshit, and compiles examples of their prejudiced and nonsensical view of the world. And like I've said several times, I don't care any more. You may consider me to have been appropriately browbeaten. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that even though the sources don't support your interpretation at all - and I concur that they don't - you still feel it's true in some important way that needs noting. That's the point at which to move this to essay space - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

“”A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A brogressive does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

It's funny, because I see this term as having many of the same connotations "social justice warrior" has, but on the flip side of the debate, and yet somehow this label is considered "totalitarian" or "radical feminist". Withoutaname (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to add...

That I find it funny how it's apparently bad to call people "brogressive", but "regressive leftist" is completely OK. And yet, both terms have roughly the same idea behind them; they're an attempt to portray some people as not 100% following their political views. "Oh, you claim to be an X, but some of the views you hold go against X, hypocrite!" Considering the demographics of this site (white, male, angry Sanders supporters) it's not surprising that people try to push that "brogressive" is used by "radical feminists" while "regressive leftist" is totally not popularized by virulent islamophobes. Typhoon (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

What does "angry Sanders supporters" have to do with either of those terms? I don't see how someone who supports Clinton would be absent of the "brogressive" title.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 15:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Also the previous version of this article was more of a criticism of "white cishets" who hold some progressive views on economics but not on social views whereas a "regressive leftists" would be anyone who supports regimes or organizations that are authoritarian because those regimes are resisting imperialism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

'Regressive leftism' simply points out some of the complexities inherent in multiculturalism, which itself is a mostly Western Hemisphere phenomenon. To argue for the acceptance of other cultures means accepting them warts and all, whether we're talking about Islamic sexism or cockfighting. This version of the article at least went looking for people talking about 'brogressives' and let them explain what they meant in their own terms before criticizing the way they used the word as divisive and integralist. If others use the word in a more nuanced way, show me. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiculturalism does not and never has been a bout accepting other cultures 'warts and all' and it is not and never has been about accepting 'warts and all' in the places where it exists and works. You can still criticise egregious behaviour. It seems to work well in london. It should be noted that london, one of the most multicultural cities in the world voted solidly for remain. Most places that voted leave, quite abit less multicultural. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Poorly Written Article

If "Brogressive" is going to be written as a snarl word rather than a simple jargon term, the article should have the same care and thought put into it as similar snarl words like "skeleton" and "Regressive Left." Currently the article is riddled with weasel words and reads like it was written by either A) Somebody who is new to editing pages on RationalWiki, or B) some reactionary on a warpath. For a term used as a pejorative for somebody with varied political opinions, this shouldn't be this clumsily written. 24.138.25.235 (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I went looking for people explaining what they meant when they used the word. Goofy totalism is what I found. Again, if others are using it with more nuance, show me. And what on earth do you mean by 'skeleton'? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not referring to meaning, I'm referring to the actual quality of the article itself. For instance, "Brogressive is a peculiar snarl word recently generated by certain extreme members of the social justice community" should likely be changed to something like "Brogressive is a snarl word used to deride people with a combination of left wing and right wing opinions within the social justice community." I'd make the changes myself, but there was a clear edit war in the history so I thought I'd ask. 24.138.25.235 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've rewritten the opening sentence to be more aligned with the thoughts you've expressed here. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The latter - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not everything that simply feels a little to the right of your personal position is "reactionary". The KKK was reactionary. An article about a dumb phrase used by a few people on the left is not.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved to essayspace

Smerdis is adding even more uncited poetic polemic to the text. Which is fine, but makes it really obviously an essay. So I've moved it to essayspace and tagged it with the primary author's name - David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As best I can tell, people complaining about "unsourced polemic" and similar means "has the temerity to criticize my social justice idée fixe, so I'm going to whine like a spoiled child". This directly feeds into the thought process behind this irritating snarl word, it's a shame rationality goes out the window once the word "feminism" comes into play. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If anything, this is extensively sourced, and allows the sources to speak at length in their own words. I remain convinced that this is a sexist and divisive insult, and I do believe the sources bear me out. They seem to have to go to great rhetorical lengths to make a case that what the targets of the word do is somehow bad. One of those bozos even alludes to Julian Assange in support of some claim about 'rape culture', but seems utterly unacquainted with the actual facts. Any bad faith is theirs alone. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Per the above section, even the quotes don't check out on examination - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, in my recent edits I attempted to address some of the objections to the extent that they were intelligible. But, yes, this seems to be a case of the impeccability of anything claiming the name of 'feminism'. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"We're not allowed to call babysitting "babysitting" any more?" - the line is implying that the guy is unwilling to call "taking care of his children" "taking care of his children", but instead calls it "babysitting" as if it's a one-off, out-of-the-norm thing. Sure, it's hard to parse, but the interpretation the essay gives it doesn't mesh with the rest of the examples given in the list of bullet points.

babysit: "To watch or tend someone else's child for a period of time, often for money."

Seriously, brogressive is just a synonym for "SJW". It's part of the euphemism treadmill, and will surely be used harmfully just like SJW was (most likely in the vein that "white knight" or "cuck" are), and it probably is being used somewhere by puritanical progressives running purity tests, but at least in the quotes provided, it's aiming at slacktivism and political correctness in lieu of sincerity. The issue with this essay isn't that brogressive is "obviously this great term for terrible people, and anyone who criticizes it's usage is an unperson", it's that it's just not picking citations that support its argument.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. It truly is polemic; it's maundering blather that barely exists as an article and all of the "sources" are basically blog posts or opinion pieces twiddling and twaddling about. And for that matter, South Park Republicans should have the same fate. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry though, Blade's obsession with fringe black supremacists, calling Hillary a "bitch" and Sanders supporters idiots, and his need to constantly complain about how those darned SJWs are mean to him because he has mental illness and therefore cannot be privileged in any way is totally rational and not at all whiny. --Ymir (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Obsession, right... setting aside your flagrant misrepresentations, what the hell does anything else matter here? That your knickers are in a knot because I don't uncritically swallow the cant of modern "social justice" activists and am apparently concerned with the "wrong kind" of bigotry or something is proof positive of the mentality this page is intending to capture. (Incidentally, I said mentally disabled, not mentally ill; I don't consider myself "ill", merely unable to do certain things because of autism. The privilege thing was me reading too narrow, but I did something called learn from it and it's been a year and a half since) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone's been waiting for this opportunity I see. Too bad they used the MLA Standard Bullshiting Format (trademark pending): "Racists that make me mad are a reasonable thing to be mad about, but racists that make other people mad are obsessions." "Criticisms I make are okay, no matter how many personal attacks I use, but people complaining about things that I don't are whining." Notice how none of it is based on any kind of real metric distinguishing this person's behavior from the person they are criticizing.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Manarchism

Why does the term manarchism link to this essay on various articles around the site? Manarchism is an entirely separate topic from brogressivism. Manarchists are those who claim to be anarchists but for terrible reasons; e.g. "Anarchism means I get to do whatever I want" or "survival of the fittest." ^{— 67.165.180.198 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC), by: 73.50.218.215 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, long-time listener, first-time caller. 67.165.180.198 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If what you claim is correct, it should certainly be adressed. Is it, though? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

All manarchists are brogressives, but not all brogressives are manarchists, if you get my meaning. Both relate to masculinism in progressive politics but anarchism is a further left philosophy than the liberal or social democrat leaning of most brogressives; you'll find that most manarchists look down upon the socialism-lite of the BernieBro variety (it provides them an extra level of superiority complex). As to whether or not it links here, just search manarchist in the search box and you'll see. 67.165.180.198 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"The Brogressive is the college student-turned overly serious D.C. intern, who will politely clap when Senator Elizabeth Warren talks about equal pay for equal work, but is alarmingly quick to defend rapists, asking questions about false accusations."

Holy shit we actually require evidence before declaring people guilty and sentencing them to prison for dozens of years???? Fucking sexist!!!!!

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ClickerClock (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)