Essay talk:Brogressive/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 20 October 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

How do we do this?

Honestly, I don't know anything about this apart from the fact it describes either "Economically Left, Socially Right" types or people not socially progressive enough. I do know it isn't necessarily a snarl word, but it does have a wide definition like SJW does. It's more nuanced, thus not a snarl word insult.

But yeah, apart from the usage, I don't think there are many articles on the word itself, outside of forum, reddit and tumblr posts explaining it.

As far as I could tell, it's never used in anything other than hostile contexts. That does make it a snarl word. It does seem to be used exclusively on those sorts of forums; the citations are to relatively permanent blog posts. You do have to wonder how seriously this is intended, though. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This page is awful

"Brogressive" can have two meanings.

1. A snarl word that is used to dismiss a white male who says anything.
2. A term to explain the behavior of the likes of Thunderfoot, The Amazing Atheist, Reddit, the political side of YouTube, Sargon of Akkad, etc. who really are economically leftist, New Atheist types who are nonetheless socially right-wing and support things like GamerGate and Men's Rights activism. It's a left-wing version of vulgar libertarianism in that they really do endorse far-right causes if it benefits them personally. ClothCoat (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this seems more like a someone dismissing the very existence of brogressives instead of considering it as a criticism of certain viewpoints. I mean our SJW article dismisses the concept, but still asserts that there are overzealous, authoritarian people who believe in social justice.--Owlman (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree on this. The thing is that the Snarl Word and second use are one and the same, since it all boils down to "Left, but not left enough", It's an inequal opposite to SJW which had definition creep from "Left winger who is hateful to others" to "Left wing". There should be more on the origins and hw it changed, much like SJW needed.Keter (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I understood the term went beyond (or maybe used to) "not being left enough", such as just being indifferent to feminism. Plenty of groups vote by their pocketbook and are indifferent to social issues, and there's nothing wrong with a young progressive male whose heart doesn't skip a beat when he hears a feminist speech and is basically indifferent to it. A "brogressive" (in my mind) goes beyond that and actively opposes all feminism to extreme absurdes along with other liberal social issues, calling everyone else an "SJW" or a "regressive" or "not a true liberal". They aren't just indifferent they are actively supportive of right-wing and neoreactionary causes on many social issues. I do agree though that the quotes on this page seem to fit the more shallow definiton better (of "anybody who isn't 100% excited for my agenda is a bloke") and are themselves absurd though. ClothCoat (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The way it's used in actual practice appears to be pretty much exclusive to that subset of overzealous and authoritarian advocates for their version of social justice. The strongest impression I got from reading the first few hits from the search engine was that it was a term of abuse for people who supported some aspects of social justice but who weren't down with every item on my personal checklist. So if you think that the people who came to hear Bernie Saunders ought to be able to hear Bernie Saunders, or you suspect the charges against Julian Assange are a ruse and a scam, you're not only wrong about those things, you're vile, selfish, privileged cishetwhite trash, our "worst enemy", and worse than Donald Trump. At minimum, that's what the sources I found suggested; if someone is using this epithet with more nuance I han't seen it yet. If this is indeed the underlying concept, it deserves nothing but mockery. And yes, it's also an illustration that shows how "intersectionality" is totalitarian and divisive; you must be on the right side of every item on its long checklist of issues. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Practically everything you wrote in that paragraph you managed to get arse-backwards. Well done. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 21:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know enough about intersectionality to comment and I think we should keep the part you wrote for the "snarl word" version, but the term is also used around Reddit to describe a specific political sub-culture on the internet that has basically overtaken libertarianism. If I was going to comment on specific positions a "Brogressive" is:

1. Vaguely economically leftist (virtually never communist or anarchist though) but is anti-corporate power and usually endorses social democratic economics.
2. Socially rightist. While they are more libertarian on issues such as drug legalization they are very much in favor of conservative internet movements such as GamerGate and Men's Rights Activism. Highly hostile towards feminism, "black lives matter", etc. and is prone to conspiracy theorizing about it. They have an utter hatred of anyone who is even slightly sympathetic to social justice causes, calling them "SJW's" or "regressive".
3. A sort of obnoxious New Atheism that thinks anybody who disagrees with Sam Harris on Islam or religion in general is a "regressive".
4. Sympathetic towards neoreaction.
5. Hates traditional progressive outlets (e.g. The Young Turks), accusing them of not being "true liberals". ClothCoat (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mazal tov, you have a nice and clean definition of this term, but if you want to edit the article, you'd have to show sources, that prove, that it's not just you using this term in such a nice and clean way.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Major revision

I've made an attempt to salvage this from idiocy. Still needs plenty of work, but I've eliminated the worst parts (such as the weird tone and odd obsession with Seth MacFarlane). The 'quote with snarkly discussion' is a weird choice of format for this, so it has gone. Could use some more refs for the paragraphs currently without them. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 22:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This is remarkably flattering for a blatant snarl word, but I guess it only counts as such if it offends your (generic you) precious little sensibilities. As for me, I see no contradiction between striving for racial equality and harshly criticizing people self-righteous enough to interrupt a presidential candidate because their particular idée fixe was More Important^TM. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not solely a blatant snarl word; it has plenty of utility. In fact, I've only rarely seen it used as a snarl word. Was it deployed w.r.t. Sanders getting interrupted? If so, I missed that invocation. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 22:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't coined until some time later. Up until then, you can replace it with "Bad Ally" or the equivalent, depending on issue.Keter (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

First reference: 2013. So, it was coined well before then. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 22:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought the Slate article coined it. Oh well, I'm going to look for a trend search that has it on the list.Keter (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is the diff in question. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Brogressive&curid=178692&diff=1589966&oldid=1589961 Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I still prefer my quotes-with-commentary version strongly. It struck me as a reasonable approach to explain the usage of a somewhat ambiguous and contested slogan. I'd question the extent to which gamergaters fancy themselves progressive allies or try to pose as such. And the article went on about Seth MacFarlane because several of the sources seemed hung up about Seth MacFarlane. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 23:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The quote-and-answer format is best used for extended passages from one source, not multiple sources saying basically the same thing. Also, best used when the source is some obvious garbage, i.e. not in this case. Notice that 'gamergate' isn't mentioned as definitive; brogressive is a much wider term. There are certainly supporters of GG that fit the bill (depressingly, some people I know IRL). MacFarlane is the go-to example as he's a figure that people are likely to know and be familiar with the work of, hardly a hang up. It's also neither contested (what does 'contested' even mean in the context of a descriptor? Even if you would argue that it's not a phenomenon frequent enough or important enough to warrant its own term, the only thing to contest is whether a given person fits the bill or not. Calling the term itself 'contested' makes no sense.) nor a slogan. The article before flatly contradicted the general editorial tone of RW in general. Frankly, the text was was neither as insightful nor as amusing as it seemed to think it was. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 00:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What interested me in the topic in the first instance is the apparently microscopic level of tolerance of disagreement the people using this descriptor have, when confronted with people who say they agree with them on subjects they claim are important. The assumption of bad faith is interesting, to say the least. So is the assertion that these flawed wannabe allies are literally "your worst enemies", not the racists or corporations. This is quite simply a profoundly flawed and silly idea, and the article needs to focus on that. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

They're the worst because they end up causing Splitters (Like the fucking Popular Front), but that's an issue that boils down to other issues, like the ideas of "Tone Policing" and "Free Speech" being used to justify being an arsehole who refuses to have good faith at all. It's all a complex mix of ideas and no single thing is caused solely by another. "Brogressive" is (or eventually will be) a Thought-Terminating cliche (Like SJW is today) that's the love-child of the Left's history of splitting up and losing and the ideas of "no bowing to your betters" and "our anger is justified" that builds the hostilities to perceived Tone Policing.Keter (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It may be a lone voice in the wilderness, but what the hell. This article will never be relevant to Rationalwiki; I would encourage those involved to reflect on which of the 4 mission statements the article is relevant to. Tielec01 (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"the assertion that these flawed wannabe allies are literally "your worst enemies", not the racists or corporations" Very few people actually self-identify as racists/misogynists/bigots etc. To my understanding, brogressives are those who identify with (some?) progressive causes while still (likely unintentionally) being racists/misogynists/bigots etc. What cements them as 'brogressives' is that when problematic issues are brought forward, they'll get super-defensive and/or will proclaim themselves as knowing better than the victimized/disadvantaged party what their fight should be about. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Major revision, round 2

I've gone over the article generally, and tried to make it clearer why this idea seems at least partially wrong-headed, and an example of the sort of integralist thinking that is counterproductive in a political movement. And I put back Seth MacFarlane. The focus on him seemed too loopy to omit completely. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Round 3 is in. I took out one ref as it was in support of a highly tangential point that had very little to do with the article (although there must be another article somewhere where we can put that ref). The new MacFarlane placement makes much more sense and is less passive-aggressive. I've tried to break out the main section into two with coherent purposes. The 'A brogressive might, for example, support abortion rights and other feminist causes, while being indifferent or hostile to feminist theory and jargon.' bit was complete bobbins, as it grossly misrepresented what the term actually means. A few more examples in general seemed like a good idea. The final bit before noted brogressives was weird and made little sense. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Needs a whole lot less of "anything 'progressive' is always right". - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 13:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? That's pretty much the angle taken by the rest of RW. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Shit, you must be new here. This is more or less the unwritten guidelines of all RW.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 07:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Aye, and it's one of the most frustrating things about this site. Here we have another of those perfectly toxic ideas that come out of online slacktivism. An idea that elevates ideological purity over real world results. A judgmental idea that demeans potential supporters, accusing them of selfishness, when in fact most genuine political commitments are motivated by self-interest; and ignorance, "marginalizing their lived experience". (Am I doing it right? Probably not.) An idea that will be counterproductive in any movement in which this kind of thinking takes hold. And our article treats this bullshit with kid gloves, and even hesitates to call it a 'snarl word'. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"Here we have another of those perfectly toxic ideas that come out of online slacktivism." Bullshit. It has zero to do with slacktivism and it makes you look a fool to claim so. It's a descriptive term of a phenomenon; and while they are plenty of ways such things can be sensible criticised (is the term needed, does the coinage reflect what it's supposed to mean, is there already a suitable term), you hvan'et managed to hit on any.

"An idea that elevates ideological purity over real world results." Bullshit. It's well established that a desire for idealogical purity above all else is an almost universally right-wing phenomenon (nothing in US political discourse makes any sense without that fact, for example).

"A judgmental idea that demeans potential supporters" Bullshit. It assumes that people called brogressives are potential supporters; when in fact they already are supporters (As per def 1) or never will be (as per def 2).

"accusing them of selfishness," Bullshit. It can equally be a result of imperfect perception of real world problems. In any case, this criticism falls foul of the 'it's worse to call someone X than for them to be X' fallacy.

"most genuine political commitments are motivated by self-interest;" Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Not everyone is as narcissistic as you seem to be. Nice use of the weasel word 'genuine', there, too.

"An idea that will be counterproductive in any movement in which this kind of thinking takes hold." Bullshit. You only have to look at the horrible mess movement scepticism has become thanks to refusing to deal with toxic behaviour within itself to see where the alternative leads.

"even hesitates to call it a 'snarl word'." Because it isn't. A snarl word is a coded way of dismissing someone using language that is superficially not critical. 'Liberal' is used as a snarl word, because the plain meaning carrying no critical connotations makes no difference to the implied criticism when it's used as a snarl word. There's more to being a snarl word than 'a mean thing to call someone'.

That's seven examples of utter poppycock in six sentences. I'm not even mad, it's so funny. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Queex, You're very, very wrong in some points, yet correct in others. "It's well established that a desire for idealogical purity above all else is an almost universally right-wing phenomenon" If this was true, there wouldn't be countless jokes and discussions about the in-fighting of left-wing and far left groups. The Judean Front skit from Monty Python isn't joking about Right-wing Authoritarians. There are tons of examples of Left wing voters and people splitting up because they don't like how the other group worked. Even in the US, there are frequent examples of the Left splitting up over issues of pragmatism and ideological purity that had actual consequences, like Ronald Reagan winning because of people no longer voting for Jimmy Carter because he wasn't doing enough, meaning that the Veitnam war would have continued and allowing Reagan to create the "Southern Strategy". Left wing Voters Flocking away from the Scottish Labour Party to the SNP. The splits plaguing the Liberal Parties in the UK. Serious infighting of Socialist and Communist schools of thought. Queex, you are very wrong on that point.Keter (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

My definition of a brogressive

I feel like this page is being WAY too charitable to those who fall under the label. I believe that a brogressive can be defined as anyone (usually a white male) who supports left-leaning politics on select issues (usually socialistic economic policies), but ONLY those that they stand to directly benefit from. Otherwise, they are staunchly reactionary in regards to complicated social issues such as race and gender relations. They have a seething hatred for "SJWs," will declare that racism and sexism are no longer relevant issues - or take it a step further and insist that white males are the REAL victims, and will happily associate with far-right groups so long as said groups emphasize their shared hatred of feminists and BLM.

In short, these are the guys you see waving the flag for Bernie Sanders and decrying the evils of big business at the same time they're passing around the latest hit piece from Breitbart about some woman/minority on the internet who bruised a white guy's ego. Blitz (Complaints Box) 19:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And thus everyone pulls their personal definition of this word out of their asses to take hits at people not leftist enough for their tastes. Congrats, you use this word as a snarl term to hit people over the head with.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I use it to describe a consistent set of behaviors across a large group of people on the internet. I don't just assign it to ANYBODY who is "not leftist enough." I give it to people who like socialistic policy prescriptions but who are also obsessed with "the SJWs" and try to claim victim status for the majority demographic. In other words, socially reactionary, fiscally liberal. No clue why you're so upset about it. Blitz (Complaints Box) 22:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We're not the only ones saying this Arisboch see here. ClothCoat (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What a word is supposed to mean and how it is used are two different things, as anyone who has known about the word SJW has seen happen.Keter (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually think SJW was used in any way other than the way it is now, despite what people say. And if it was, it was for an incredibly insignificant timeframe. It's a meme-like defense of the word that doesn't actually mean anything. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've never seen anyone say 'SJW' other than pejoratively. At minimum, it had very little currency until it was used as an epithet for hostile and condescending leftists, usually online. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the phrase had a quarter of a year before it got popular on reddit along with the sudden growth and publicity of "e-Rightwing" communities like MRA subsects, FPH, Coontown banning and everything to do with SRS.

Really?

is a "brogressive" actually, you know, a fucking thing? It reads like a stupid fucking label for people whose beliefs are slightly different to mine but they a wrong so I'll apply what will wind up being a perjoritive term to them. It's kinda silly. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It is both a fucking thing that is used as described and perhaps kinda silly. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

instead of "brogression" being counter productive I find labelling those of a different perspective counter productive. But then again, what the fuck do I know. I'm just some asshole from NZ sitting on a couch puffing an e-cig and drink 8% alcohol extra strength beer. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This page shouldn't exist

I might be echoing a lot of points made earlier, but this page still basically states "if you agree with me on some points, but not all, you are just ignorant or only supporting things for personal gain", even after all of the "revisions". I don't think that the incredibly vague definition and potential for political smearing and abuse outweighs the need to have a word that documents this sort of behavior. What behavior is that even? Apparently it includes "people who profess to support progressive issues such as feminism, LGBT issues and opposition to racism, while not actually doing so, or doing so in a non-committal, half-hearted, or counter-productive way". Apparently the term "bro" has something to do with this? What exactly comprises "not actually" supporting feminism, LGBT, and anti-racism, and couldn't plenty of far-left people who would use this term but don't actually participate in anything constructive? If you're a white male, do you have to subscribe to everything the fringes of social justice say, or else you're not really supporting gay marriage? The entire idea of this term is flawed and we do not need to promote the use of a word that is useless at best and an endorsement of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy at worst.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a huge SJW myself, this article is terrible and should be deleted - David Gerard (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is another case where the original, skeptical version was better. Whatever its flaws, it at least quoted sources and attempted to analyze their message. This is not a concept worth taking seriously. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Dammit David, we have enough Social Justice Warriors. How are we supposed to deal with all the sneak checks if no one is a Social Justice Rogue? CorruptUser (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm more worried about trap finding, personally. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who gets to decide to delete articles anyway? Do only old (i.e. older than a few months) and irrelevant articles get deleted?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

We have a vote among members of the site. It's pretty standard practice, though I forget the link to the page or how to set it up, as I've only ever voted on them. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

RW:AFD will take you there. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Why delete when we could rewrite? I feel like there does need to be an article about people on the internet who consider themselves "progressive" and "on the left" and yet are terribly conservative on issues that don't affect them personally. If this doesn't meet the standard, it should be reworked to do so. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

One of the problems with this bit of jargon is that it assumes that all such people are men conforming to the "bro" or "dudebro" stereotype. The existence of that stereotype bears witness that everybody needs an Other, and that "marginalization" is something beyond the power of human beings to make go away. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, it's not the best phrase, but that doesn't mean there isn't something to it. Like I said, could do with a rewrite, maybe a different article name, and the new article could mention "Brogressives" as an example somewhere as opposed to it being a catch-all. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This term is really dumb because it is extremely common for people to accept one part of (whatever is considered the progressive agenda right now) and not another. It's simple human nature that any attempt to build political coalitions (whether on the left or the right) across multiple issues is going to pull in some people who support some issues but not others. Consider members of ethnic/racial minorities who are very on board with a progressive agenda on racial/multicultural/economic issues but not on feminist or LGBT ones, and that is going to pull up a lot of people who don't fit the "brogressive" label in any way. For example, you might find many African-American people (of both genders) who are big supporters of racial justice / anti-police brutality / etc, but who have conservative religious views opposed to marriage equality. Or many Muslims (again of either gender) who are happy to ally themselves with the left on issues like anti-war, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, multiculturalism, pro-immigrant/pro-refugee, pro-Palestine, etc, but take anti-LGBT stances at the same time. The fact that both groups I mentioned will include many women shows how silly adopting the term "brogressive" for this is. They'll also include men who have nothing to do with any form of "bro" culture; your average Imam probably has a lot of views in common with the anti-imperialist left on international affairs, immigration, refugees, etc, but his rejection of LGBT rights and feminism has absolutely nothing to do with being a "bro" - put him in a room of "bros" and I doubt he'd fit in very well. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Page says "The term is typically applied to individuals who are either ignorant but well-meaning on some topics or apply ideas of social justice only selectively, to the chagrin of the speaker". So, by that definition, TERFs are brogressive - they support the feminist aspect of progressive movements but they oppose a significant chunk of the LGBT movement (definitely the T part, but some TERFs have problems with the G and the B too - Sheila Jeffreys has said some very nasty things about gay men over the years). This is just another example of why this term is stupid; TERFs aren't "bros", and TERFs and "bros" have just about nothing in common save transphobia. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What about Brogressive Cuckservatives though? Pizzameister (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

TERFs don't support the feminist aspect of progressive movements. Current feminism in progressive issues today is based entirely on third-wave feminism, which TERFs categorically reject. I've never encountered or read of a TERF who didn't consider second-wave feminism to be the end-all, be-all of feminism. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Second wave feminism is still feminism. They still have a huge number of beliefs and concerns in common with third wave feminists, such as patriarchy, the gender pay gap, rape culture, sexual harassment, inequitable division of household labour, violence against women, etc. So, on all those issues they support the feminist aspect of progressive movements, since they take very similar views on those issues to third wave feminists. Even if on certain specific issues (anti-transgender rights) they find agreement with those on the conservative side of politics, if you look at them at a broader level they are much closer to the left than the right. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Second-wave feminism is outdated feminism, just like first-wave is. It's historical. Referring to it as current is like considering what the Founding Fathers' opinions on the Constitution were as being relevant to current caselaw. Definitions change. Methods change. Things evolve. Second-wavers ceased to be relevant in the early 1990s because their ideology didn't work. TERFs want to drag everything back to the days of Dworkin and MacKinnon. It's like modern Communists attempting to promote 1930s Stalinism. You cannot go back in time, only forward. Just as tankies are a small, outmoded, irrelevant part of today's Communism, so go the TERFs.

Secondly, whoever said TERFs weren't leftist? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's nothing like "considering what the Founding Fathers' opinions on the Constitution were as being relevant to current caselaw", since the Founding Fathers are all long dead, whereas quite a number of second wavers are still alive. And the US Founding Fathers were 200 years ago, whereas second wave feminism happened only a few decades ago, recently enough that there are still many people around who remember its heyday. And "progressive" and "left" are largely synonymous, so claiming that "TERFs aren't part of the progressive movement" yet "TERFs are left" is somewhat contradictory. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Second-wave feminists at this time have either a) dropped the second-wave doctrine and fully upgraded to current third-wave doctrine or b) have rejected third-wave entirely.
2. The statement that "progressive" and "left" are largely synonymous is a lie. That's like saying Stalinist Communism and Nordic Socialism are largely synonymous. They're really not. TERFs tend to be part of the left. They are never progressive. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to imagine second- and third-wave feminism as being monolithic ideologies, which I really don't think is accurate. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Yup, being simplistic for the simples. (Or they're anti-fem concern trolls. Don't care which.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't feminists continually trumpet that feminism is simply "the belief that men and women are equal"? Did second-wave feminists not believe this? You can't have it both ways.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Now, they do, yes.

No, second-wave feminism was more or less predicated on the superiority of the female. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's more or less bullshit. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to do more than hand-wave simplistically at the concern trolls. If they haven't read up on the subject and don't know the difference from Dworkin/MacKinnon/Etc from third-wave and the outcome of the sex wars and the issues of hegemonic feminism, then that's their issue. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No true feminist?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You know counting the waves of feminism is almost as confusing as counting which "International" of communism we're at... Is it the fifth already? Pizzameister (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Feminism --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A better alternative

Call this word out for being essentially a slur and then use the regressive left page to show how people who use that term (and "SJW") are generally "liberal with exceptions". αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think the people using this as a slur are on the opposite side of liberalism from people who use the term social justice video. Liberal without exception more like.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The left has always been a heterogeneous coalition with a big tendency to fight subcurrents of itself more than the purported "enemy". Someone made fun of this almost four decades ago... If only there was a video... Pizzameister (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This still needs doing. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Berniebros"

Seeing that term a lot in my Twitter/FB feeds -- worth a mention? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is already mentioned on the Bernie Sanders page. I fail to see the analytic value of either that term or "Brogressive"... Pizzameister (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's just US campaign spin: if you oppose the coronation of Queen Hillary, that must be due to sexism. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Gloria Steinham and Madeleine Albright believe you are a gender traitor for supporting Sanders. I guess questioning Clinton's record on 'welfare reform', tough-on-crime bs, gay rights, and war hawking makes you a shitty feminist because she is a woman. They are suggesting all the women who support Sanders are doing it because they are after boys; so now women who support Sanders are either thinking with their sexuality (e.g. not rationally) or they suffer from delusional hope (e.g. false consciousness). I have heard the term 'white feminism', white women who dismiss minority opinions because a decision is more beneficial to them, before and this is probably the best, mainstream example of it.--Owlman (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's an impressive amount of straw you've set up there. I don't really think it's debatable that there are a non-insignificant amount of Sanders supporters out there who are reminiscent of those who supported Ron Paul back in 2012, reactionaries who don't have a real candidate who isn't an eldritch terror. It's all in spite of Sanders's actual policies and beliefs, of course. The real question is whether or not they're significant outside of internet communities like Reddit and Twitter. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I find that a bit hard to swallow. Ron Paul supporters tend to be conspiracists and gold-bugs. I don't see a whole lot of overlap between that demographic and Sanders apart from anti-establishment themes. Now, apart from being an extreme social libertarian, I'm a quite old fashioned Republican who largely agrees with Pat Buchanan on economic and trade issues, and Ron Paul on foreign policy. And because of these rather outsider beliefs, Sanders is not a hard sell for me. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Kitsunelaine, how was I strawmanning? Madeleine Albright literally said that there is a special place in hell for women who don't support other women in the context of supporting Hillary and her record which would mean that any woman who questions Hillary's record is not a true woman. Steinham, on the other hand, said that young women are not acting rational by supporting Sanders because they are being too horny and she later apologized for that comment.--Owlman (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You presented it as if it were a particularly relevant majority opinion, in what appears to be some misguded effort to lash out at people who prefer Hillary over Sanders. It wasn't her you were strawmanning, but you were using her to put words in others's mouths. Though as I've said in the Saloon, I don't particularly go either way myself, and would personally pick Bernie if having to make a choice. I just find this whole thing kinda ridiculous. Though perhaps I've done a bit too much reading between the lines. It can be hard to judge proper intent based on text alone, and if I've misread you, I apologize. It just seemed like a weird thing to bring up like that. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wait then who was I strawmanning then? Also I am no devotee of Sanders and I readily believe there are sexist supporting Sanders which is why I don't oppose your edit of my comments on his supporters.--Owlman (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. (And I do think there is some question to be had over how much this bleeds over from the internet to real life, which is why I didn't really contest your additions either.) I think it was the "I guess questioning Clinton's record on 'welfare reform', tough-on-crime bs, gay rights, and war hawking makes you a shitty feminist because she is a woman." bit of what you said that sounded too generalizing to me. It just seems to be the viewpoint of one asshole and definitely not the majority. As someone who considers herself a feminist, I'm pretty sensitive to the kind of things people say to tar feminism. Too much bad faith up in that business, yo. Again, apologies for misjudging. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that comment was directed towards Albright and Steinham, but mostly Albright. I still like Steinham and her comment,, to me, was a more misguided jab will Albright's was more unforgivable. I am glad Steinham apologized because I think it hurts third wave feminists, who tend to be younger, when the second wave heroes attack them like that; I think there has been enough problems from some of the big second wave feminists, who were mostly redfems (mind you Steinham also calls herself a redfem and I like her), who have attack third wave feminists as lazy or submissive to men because they are sex positive or accepting or transwomen. I think what makes Albright's comments even worse is that I know MRAs and antifems will use her comments as a rallying cry for how crazy feminist are just like they do with Dworkin or Greer, for example.--Owlman (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the word you're looking for is TERF. It's sadly not uncommon. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say they agreed with his policies. Indeed, it's in spite of them. That's what makes what I've seen so baffling. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you actually proposing to live-blog Twitter trends? O.o 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Isn't that what WIGO is for? Pizzameister (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really. And this article isn't a WIGO anyway. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well if something relevant to our mission happens on Twitter where else would you put it? The saloon bar? Pizzameister (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There is relevant and then there is notable/important/newsworthy. Really, we don't do live-blogging here. If you think it's important, add a paragraph or two to the article. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"We don't do live-blogging here?" Were that were true. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, ideal situations and all that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Category?

Perhaps this should become a category?--S.H. DeLong (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't... Pizzameister (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)