Regressives and SJW themselves operate with the hegemony of interpretation. One common way, used throughout the RationalWiki, is to declare a word usage as indicative of a persons conviction, and which is itself code for bad/evil/wrong, so that our True Believers can fend off criticism with ad hominems. Say, Fuzzy has certain ideas detractors come to call “Fuzzyisms”. He makes an article where he says that people who point out his Fuzzyism are fascists (which is in itself a ridiculous non-argument), and hides this statement in a seemingly neutral sounding: “fascists use Fuzzyism as a snarl word”. Now it's clear that fascist means “bad people”, he's really saying that no good person can criticise him, as that is hidden in the formulation, and everyone gets it. Once that's in place, he can also cultivate that criticism of Fuzzyisms, even without saying the word “is what fascists do”, and this gets reinforced each time someone tries. This is what several editors are doing, with the real example (alongside injecting names and people, MRA, Roosh, etc and the inmates here think it's not obvious what they do). Even though the actual content plays no role here, Fuzzyism can be any belief system, this principle works.
fnordWith that explained, it was of course only a matter of time, that this article would show the same intellectual decay as everything else, as if readers were all imbeciles and wouldn't see through such things. The section “as a conservative snarl world” has the audacy to provide a source that says no such thing, at all. It doesn't even discuss the term, but is about “political correctness” and not apparently about conservatives, either. Further, the section then quickly makes the dishonest move and switches to New Atheists, asserting “Some liberals [liberal conservatives?] have been accused of using the term to mask reactionary attitudes, in particular New Atheists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris.” — but only Hirsi Ali, through her think-tank-marriage connection, the case of conservatism can be made (even this is dubious, but at least not outright fabricated). It's also a Fox News style “some people say” argument.
fnordAs if that wasn't enough, thought-terminating-cliche-trickery, faking sources, outright declaring those New Atheists as conservative (liberals?), the sentence also accuses them of “masking reactionary” attitudes. Here, the RW itself takes a regressive editorial position, which is of course no surprise. I still don't get why you refuse to write it on the tin, when it's dead obvious, e.g. RegressiveWiki. And since a complete imbecile wrote this, we can safely assume that the editiors don't know what “reactionary” even means. Of course, it is again a code for “people we hate”. Where words actually mean something, the criticism of a traditional, arch-conservative religion (and on these grounds!) can never be “reactionary”. The defense of such tenets is precisely what makes it backwards, that is regressive, and in reaction to progress, i.e. reactionary! Projection seems to be a pathological condition for SJWs. The New Atheists want Islam to change, and Hirsi Ali wrote a book about reforming Islam. In other words, the editor and the RW are textbook reactionary, not the people who want reform and progress. The level of idiocy and malevolent dishonesty in this small section alone is astonishing and a great example of the Orwellian intellectual rot and disinformation that is now commonplace. And finally, it also implausible why Conservatives of all people would use regressive as an insult, since they are themselves not progressives. It is only conceivable that they use the term A) because its commonly established, and B) because they want to appeal to a leftist-centrist audience. The correct discussion would point out that they are hypocrites then, but of course the purpose of the section is smearing and trying to discourage the usage of the term (like with SJW, to doubleplusgood the vocabulary of oppononents). ~ Aneris ✻ 03:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
First, a couple objections:
- By definition, Liberals aren't left.
- By definition, Reactionaries aren't left.
- Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 14:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Disregarding the purism in the first two points, I would say that intersectionality wouldn't completely solve this issue. For example, just because I empathize with Afghans who join the Taliban doesn't mean I should praise the Taliban; the question is, should I criticize Afghans for supporting a reactionary while they are brutalized by an empire? Where does the apologise and handwaving begin and anti-imperalism end?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- The troll image is unwarranted. Withoutaname is correct, Regressive Leftism can be understood as a failure to apply intersectionality, but the crux is that SJWs generally have a poor understanding of intersectionality (causing this problem) yet at once consider themselves intersectional. They're like vegetarians-in-name who crusade against meat production, yet who enjoy hamburgers, somehow thinking that hamburgers don't contain meat. To make matters even more complicated, the terms “SJW” and “Regressive Left” are heavily contested. Even though this ideology really exists, and even though attempts have been made to name itself (e.g. Atheism Plus), most SJWs/Regressive Leftist see themselves as generic leftists, progressives and feminists, and are in denial about specific tenets (RationalWiki is a prime example). This adds another complication, because intersectionality is an addendum to the postmodern-tinged identity politics beliefs. If you don't buy into the anti-Enlightenment premises in the first place, you don't need intersectionality. And to add yet another layer of complication on top, the sheer ignorance and unwillingness of SJWs (on board and elsewhere) to educate themselves, or even attempting to understand what detractors say also leads to a corruption of ideas outside of intersectionality. They are not really left wing, and their views are composed of a vulgar tumblrized version of once academical concepts. In proper terms, it's a crank magnet and one headquarter is right here. ~ Aneris ✻ 11:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
What's this nonsense about "failing to apply intersectionality?" The SJWs apply intersectionality quite a bit, that's how they pick and choose when to stand for their professed values and when to pretend everything is ok. The whole point of "not punching down" is to engineer a massive popular front against whoever is the biggest boogie man today, by uniting otherwise disparate groups that share a common grievance. That's as intersectional as it gets. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Correct in context, but false at once compared to the original intersectionality idea. I am not sure what to make of this. What if a large number of vegetarians decide that eating meat in hamburgers was okay. Should we update what vegetarianism means, or insist that they are all mistaken? How many of such vegetarians does it need, until the definition is updated? Crenshaw's original intersectionality is — irony alert — similar to the “regressive” charge: she critizises feminists and antiracists for downplaying black-on-black crime against women of colour, i.e. out of fear to help the “wrong side”: such activists would systemically overlook domestic violence and rape against women of colour. In the feminist context, they're just “women” and in the antiracist context, they're just “blacks” — yet, it is obscured that both racism and sexism act together and hurt those women the most. That is to say, antiracism and (white) feminism conspire and perpetrate and defend patriarchal violence against black women. This is grimly ironically the exact charge levelled against Regressive Left, but here it is the “Dear Muslima” that gets overlooked. It's hard to describe just how bizarre this is, because Richard Dawkins unintentional intersectional approach gave rise to a faction of Regressive Atheists, who who think they are intersectional, but are at once strongly against Dawkins. I can't quite describe how idiotic this is. It's like Dawkins saying workers need to own the means of production, and then a faction emerges who calls itself “Marxist” but who hate Dawkins for this statement ever since. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Article still missing the goddamn point
The regressive left are not the people who think we should avoid 'punching down' by not focusing on the atavistic or regressive trends in non-heterochristomascuwhatever groups, but the ones who promote those trends under the guise of "diversity" and other pseudo-leftist rhetoric. For example, gangsta rap. It's an art form that contains quite a few disturbing memes, many of which are ironically conservative considering who hates it the most. However, in the grand scheme of things, it's a relatively minor harm and the people on a crusade against it are mostly trying to oppress black people in a roundabout way. But because of those memes, it's not something that should be encouraged. StickySock (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Zionists "New McCarthyites"
I know the slide depicted towards the bottom of this article has been taken out of context, which is why I want to ask: What is the proper context in which Zionists and Neoconservatives (emphatically not the same thing, even if there is overlap) are "New McCarthyites"? Evil Zionist (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
This may have little relevance for the American and British use of the term, but "regressive left" is used by antideutsche sympathizers to refer to leftist positions that they consider reactionary (nationalism, left populism, Stalinism, anti-Zionism or TERF's). — Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk