Talk:Regressive left/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 August 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Substantial Disagreement[edit]

Hello all. There is substantial disagreement about this page, between
a. People who think the term is mainly a snarl word, and
b. People who think the term describes a legitimate concept, but gets used as a snarl word often.
Instead of having an edit war (they never work anyway) I think we should try to work this out here. I'll start.
I think the idea of a "regressive left" is real, and refers to liberals who seem to support and/or tolerate reactionary ideas in certain contexts. The common example is how intersectionality is often applied in practice by a section of liberals in such a way as to ignore or devalue certain causes in favor of others. I think this idea is real and should be discussed. Hence, I think "regressive left" should not be treated as a snarl word, it should be examined fairly with sections detailing how some people use it as a snarl word. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but I've only seen the term used by people like you, Aneris, Slymepitters, MRAs, and others who have a chip on their shoulders towards what they like to term as the EVOL SJW CABAL CONSPIRACY. In fact, the term only first began to be used in August 2015 at earliest, was invented by Maajid Nawaz, and is just an insult much like "cuckservative".
Really, the Urban Dictionary description shows the viewpoint of those who use it exactly - "A term coined by anti-extremist activist Maajid Nawaz, to describe far left zealots who defend and support extremist ideologies, cultural and religious relativity and pander to absurd sensitivities. You'll often find these SJW type plonkers screaming racist or bigot at anybody who dares challenge their one size fits all view of the world."
Nice try, though. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The term has been used by plenty of respectable sourcesбрэндэн (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Like who, exactly? What can you name? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all, regressive left was coined in 2012, not 2015, and second of all, there have been many respectable sources on the matter - I would suggest reading Timothy Cootes excellent essay on the subject, for one. Also, referring to those who disagree with you as people "who have a chip on their shoulders towards what they like to term as the EVOL SJW CABAL CONSPIRACY" looks much worse on you than anyone else. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I mistyped. 2012. I'll leave it uncorrected, for historical posterity.
So, who's this Tim Cootes fellow? What's this Quillette? Let's see...
Quillette. Publication started by Claire Lehmann, libertarian publication under the guise of "free thought" and "dissident expression". Part of Sam Harris' clique. Not a good start. Severely anti-Islam, also noted for articles like "Feminism Is Dead", an article promoting eugenics called "Heritability and why Parents (but not Parenting) Matter", and "To Rape Is To Want Sex, Not Power". On further investigation, generally anti-Islamic, anti-feminist, and anti-social sciences. Oh, and pro-MRA as well.
I especially love the article Does modernity require monogamy? How religious violence is driven by an excess of sex-starved single men. They're just against anything in feminism past 1980, aren't they? Charming.
On we go. Timothy Cootes. Professor at the University of Manchester. Leaving aside his professional work in computer imaging, he seems to like to rail against women in politics - especially Hillary Clinton - and is generally anti-Islamic. Admires Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz, very much a Sam Harris type.
I'm sorry, but I find such publications and people unconvincing. Do you have anyone who ISN'T with the Sam Harris Islamophobe Atheists in Britain? An American source? Or someone who is neutral towards women, Islam, or so-called SJWs? Slymepit residents really do not impress. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Quillette publishes articles from across the political spectrum, the point is for interesting ideas to be displayed; but I see that's irrelevant when we can cherry pick things instead of addressing them. I could cherry pick such articles as "Paris Aftermath: Conflating Daesh with refugees won’t stop terror" or "Authoritarianism is a matter of personality, not politics" to dismiss you with this logic. More importantly, you wanted a serious look at the concept of a "regressive left," since you feel it's entirely a populist snarl word, so I gave you one, and you apparently failed to read it in favor of this silly posturing. If Cootes' piece suffered logical flaws or was an apparent cover for reactionary ideas, I'd be interested in hearing this.
I could try to give you sources you would find acceptable, but it seems you won't accept anything that doesn't already agree with you, else it is "generally anti-Islamic, anti-feminist, and anti-social sciences," however those terms are defined. Could you give me a list of sources you would find "respectable," or authors you would find, I suppose, pro-Islamic, pro-feminist and pro-social sciences before we move the goalposts again?
Your argument seems to be some people use the term as a catch-all snarl word for "SJWs," whatever those are, and liberals. Which is precisely why the page has two subsections about this kind of misuse. But you're insisting the entire page focus on this, as if any real criticism of a reactionary left must be coming from faux liberals or conservatives, and you've backed this up with personal insults, appeal to motive fallacies, shifting the burden of proof, anything but a real argument. I've tried to be as civil as I can and received nothing in return. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
With a minimum of research, one can easily find out that Quillette's biases match those of the AEI/Christina Hoff Summers/Christopher Hitchens crowd. Not impressed.
As for viable sources, give me something by Paul Krugman, Susan McCue, David Rief, James Carville, Eric Alterman, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Doug Brand, Matthew Yglesias, Sasha Abramsky, Christiane Amanpour, Franklin Foer, Eric Schneiderman, David Brock, Rachel Maddow, Bill Burton, Jonathan Chait, Mary Kay Henry, or Marko Moulitsas. Shit, I'll even be nice enough to take a blurb from Jon Stewart.
I don't accept sources like Sam Harris because he's already a loon, just like Christopher Hitchens was. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz are biased as fuck too - they're more interested in destroying Islam than anything else. Just like Pamela Geller would shove her own family in an oven while screaming "HEIL HITLER!" if it would allow her to genocide Islamic countries, those two would not be far behind. Their devotion to other atheist issues is lukewarm at best; it just serves their purposes for the moment.
Do not pretend you do not know what SJWs are. Your edits and verbiage show that, like Aneris, you are familiar with or adhere to Slymepit politics. Also, don't complain about me being uncivil; as well as being a tone argument, I'm never fucking civil when I argue. Verstehen Sie, Kameraden? --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Dont worry about, castaigne's notorious for being a pov-pusher, and is rather defensive about his preconceived views. брэндэн (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Says the man who likes to whitewash for Hoff Sommers. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, you mentioned Johnathon Chait as a "viable source," so here you go. Now, I really hadn't heard of social justice warriors before this, but I looked into it and the term seems to apply to bloggers and such who advocate gender and LGBTQIA+ equality, especially in localized contexts. Now this leads me to believe we are completely missing each other, because my definition of regressive left would be those opposed to such people, on the basis that the concepts they advocate are unacceptable to many cultures. You're claiming "regressive left" is a snarl word against them, which doesn't make sense to me. How could they be described as reactionary?
I think all of this stems from your firm position that a reactionary left is an invalid concept. It becomes necessary to shoe horn the entire idea into a snarl word, even when its proposed usage as such doesn't really make sense. I have always agreed that the term has been inappropriately used as a snarl word, I don't see why you refuse to acknowledge any legitimacy in the concept despite the theoretical framework and sources presented to you. Perhaps, as I said above, we simply have vastly different visualizations of the term. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Reading the Jonathan Chait article you linked, I find no mention of a "regressive left" at all, merely a complaint when a university in Michigan decided to exercise their perogatives in what content is allowed in their paper. Really, Mahmood should have chosen which paper he wanted to write for, the conservative one or the liberal one, and avoided his violation of bylaws and conflict of interest thereby. I have little pity for the man.
So, where does Chait refer to the regressive left in that article? Perhaps my reading and word search missed it.
Also, you're lying again about not knowing what [SJW]s are. I've already traced you to the Slymepit - nice use of an alternate name, btw - and it does no good to dissimulate. At any rate, no, if you notice, all of the users of that term are against the so-called SJWs.
I think all of this stems from your firm position that a reactionary left is an invalid concept.- Lord Aeonian
I've never said that. And for the record, a "reactionary left" would be tankies, Maoists, Shining Path, types of that sort. That's the reactionary left. Do you even understand what the left is? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I have been convinced by Typhoon's argument, so I will no longer argue with you. I would, however like to emphasize that there are problems with your criteria for sources - saying a source has to both describe the concept of a regressive left, use that term explicitly, and be from a list of course you already agree with is the equivalent of a creationist asking you prove evolution without any scientific sources, because of liberal bias. You're only allowed to use the Bible and papers from the Discovery Institute. I hope you see how problematic that is.
Also, I have never been affiliated with the groups you keep saying I am. I don't care if you believe me or not, but consider that fact that even if I was, that would be an appeal to motive at best and a simple ad hominem otherwise. Have nice day :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to declare it as a desciptive but pejorative term, which it is. But I don't believe that the term is used by right wingers, reactionaries and conservatives. a. It makes no rhetorical sense to them, for they have no desire to single out some leftists when they can tar the whole left. Some might want to cash in on the current controversy, at best. b. It makes no sense politically, since they don't promote progressivism themselves, so why would it be a pejorative term to call someone essentially anti-progressive? Their audience would not really appreciate this direction either. c. the people who are most known to actually wield the term are left-liberals — maybe not "left" (scarequotes intended) as much as the politically confused teenager SJWs here on RW would like, but they are nontheless not conservatives, right wingers and reactionaries. Those are terms that have real meaning and produce a lot of nonsense from editing creep. The first delcares people as not SJW tribe enough slaps a reactionary etc in the article, because it makes sense to the Tumblerina. The next helpful editor links it to the article and in the end such terms seem all they hay among people who are into appealing some obscure laws in the US. I find notable and highly informative though what SJWs are doing: everyone knows about their Orwellian tendencies that add to the overall creepy atmosphere these people have around them. You cannot even name the beast without essentially othering yourself, but of course this trick has its limits. One can invent language all day long and re-define what political terms mean, and re-assign people by following confused-teenager whims, though the majority of people will not follow. At the end of the day, the articles become useless and normal readers learn that the RW is using a Private Language, which only erodes the credibility of the rest. Why is it such a hassle to simply write down what people who say the term mean by that? ~ Aneris 09:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me read....*falls asleep*
Really, do you ever write terse sentences? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
"But I don't believe that the term is used by right wingers, reactionaries and conservatives." Except for when they do. Here are a few examples from just 1 right-wing website of either using "regressive left" or "illiberal left", where "Regressive Left" is even a tag.
That took me about 30 seconds of google and a site i'm familiar with. I'm looking forward to the wall of text explaining why my postmodernist interpretation of your statement is wrong. Since you insist on using ridiculous and reductionist chan language, try this: get rekt.Petey Plane (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, big talk on credibility from someone who just used the terms "Tumblerina" and "SJW". The only Private Language being used here is your instance on renaming "Straw Man". Petey Plane (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Breitbart is exactly the example that cashes in on the controversy and is well known for its pro-GamerGate articles. Their angle is libertarianism vs authoritarianism. Usually the term is associated with Nawaz, Maher, Dawkins, Rubin Report and so on. Also, which term is okay to use then: I really want to know, because if these terms are also verboten I'd pick one: maybe plain old “fascist”, as is apt for identitarian race war gender warriors. Should we perhaps use this term then? ~ Aneris 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Dem goal posts. Petey Plane (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Breitbart is a conservative tabloid that's just slightly less hysterical than WND. Who's leg are you trying to pull? Libertarian, my ass. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Only that they explicitly push the “cultural libertarian” idea for a while to win over people to their (otherwise isolated) camp, which is their proposed counterpart to the Regressive Leftist. Other than that “cashing in” was mentioned above and is the obvious-is-obvious example. ~ Aneris 11:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Three uses[edit]

  1. Snarl word by conservatives to say liberals can't criticize Islam and thus aren't patriotic, etc.
  2. Snarl word by liberals to say other liberals can't criticize Islam and thus aren't fully liberal etc.
  3. Legitimate description of Islam-whitewashing etc. among liberals.

I've seen all three in roughly equal proportions. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've never seen any Islam-whitewashing among liberals.
I have seen lots of that Sam-Harris-style "Let's nuke the Islamo sand niggers and make their hijab women our rape slaves." rhetoric amongst liberals, though. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Fuzzy is quite right, and as a matter of fact, I've seen number 3 used the most, probably by old-style liberals on the Guardian, etc. брэндэн (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Like. Who. Name names. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
"I've never seen any Islam-whitewashing among liberals." - on the contrary: [1],[2], comes to mind... брэндэн (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
also: [3], used in here, [4], people use it all the time. брэндэн (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
So you just proved my point. Lots of that Sam-Harris-style "Let's nuke the Islamo sand niggers and make their hijab women our rape slaves." rhetoric, as I said. Including that whackjob Sam Harris himself.
I don't know what you consider liberals, but I don't consider those Brits to be liberal at all. Centrists, definitely, but not left as defined by political science here in the states. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Liberal is not necessarily a good thing, but that's neither here nor there. Many people consider them to be liberal, and that's really all that matters when it comes to rating people "liberal". брэндэн (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Many people do NOT consider them liberal.
The people you've mentioned are all of the conservative branch of atheist skepticism, and yes, we righties claim them. And Dawkins.
I also think you have confused me with a liberal. Please try again. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I dont know about you but I'd definitely put them as liberal (seeing how pro-liberties they are). брэндэн (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Libertarians are pro-liberties too. Doesn't make them liberal. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
So, who is a liberal? And what's with this "Islamo sand nigger" and "make their hijab women our rape slaves" straw man bullshit, this isn't snark anymore, this is foam-at-the-mouth ranting and raving.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Who is a liberal? What does current political science define as liberal? There's your answer.
Also, if you don't like my hyperbole, I recommend you toughen up. Remember, it's only the Regressive Left that are sensitive delicate flowers! --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
As if it were that simpleWikipedia.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I do think there are different currents on the US left[edit]

Bill Maher on the one hand and the liberals he tends to criticize on the other certainly have different views on many topics, especially those related to Islam and foreign policy. Yet they both call themselves and are described as liberals. So which term(s) if any should we use to describe this distinction? Pizzameister (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think regressive left is more specific than general camps, especially considering that term originated in the context of EU politics, not US politics. Most would say the New Atheists are liberals, considering the firm association of religion with social conservatism, i.e. the BNP, PEGIDA, etc all fashion themselves are strongly Christian.
The issue is that the regressive left should be treated as a legitimate phenomena, and not a snarl word. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The three camps[edit]

  1. Multiculturalists, including...
    • (Western) liberals/progressives that acknowledge other cultures' right to self-determination
    • People that just want everyone to mind their own business
  2. Non-interventionist monoculturalists, including...
    • (Western) liberals/progressives that want to avoid patronizing people from other cultures
    • Monocultural supremacists that don't care what goes on outside their culture
  3. Interventionist monoculturalists, including...

Seems about right. Interesting how you can fit both DAESH and the New Atheists in #3. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What does a culture's right to self determination mean? Human sacrifice in the Inca culture because it is part of their culture and religion? Ten commandments in the state house in Arkansas because it is part of their culture? Do enlighten me, please. Pizzameister (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Same thing as a nation's right to self-determination: whatever it decides it means. Though obviously some multiculturalists would change their views if human sacrifice was still practiced today. Well, disregarding the sacrifice of little fetuses to the Western career god. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
See and that's where I must vehemently disagree. Nations don't have rights. Cultures don't have rights. People have rights. Pizzameister (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
And nations and cultures consist of people. And surely people have a right to have a national/cultural identity, no? (Ya know, with freedom of thought, freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly an' all that jazz.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
No. You don't. At least not explicitly. You as an individual of course have a right to do what you like as long as you don't infringe upon the right of others. But there are no collective rights. There are only individual rights. The nation state was the stupidest idea in human history. That and offside in soccer. Pizzameister (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
What are you saying? That you can't apply simple arithmetics to rights? And sure, nation-states are a lousy idea, but you can't just outlaw people from believing in lousy ideas. Freedom of thought, remember? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
First, there are no individual rights either. There are only the rights and privileges granted to you by the jurisdiction you are currently in. In nature, red in tooth and claw, there are no rights at all. Secondly, the nation state is what allowed civilization to develop. I mean, if you want to devolve to anarchy, I'm happy to help, but I don't think you'll like the results. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Nation-state/Nation stateWikipedia. Seriously, folks; know what terms mean before you use them. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
See this is where trying to apply relativism and avoid imposing "western" concepts on others gets weird. ISIS has a right to self-determination - it is a home grown Sunni group, which was not directly created by nor is supported by outside powers. It's as indigenous as you can get. ISIS follows its interpretation of Sunni Islam by killing everyone who disagrees with it. Is this a problem? If so, why? You have to make some sort of absolute statement like "groups have a right to practice their beliefs, except when that means killing others." Ok, sure. But what about Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia executes "heretics" and treats the Shia and Ibadi minorities like shit. Not to mention the whole thing in Yemen. Yet Saudi Arabia still has the West's support. Why? What makes them different from ISIS? Is it a matter of scale, i.e. ISIS kills way more than the Saudis? Or is it just politics and none of this ideological BS really matters? Oh, I know! Other people in the area don't like ISIS, so that's why Westerners can dislike ISIS - they have permission. Except...Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, India, etc. really don't like Saudi Arabia. Pakistan and Bangladesh really don't like India. The Shias really don't like the Sunnis. ISIS doesn't like anyone (except Saudi Arabia, considering their funding). Nope, trying to side with the popular opinion in the area doesn't work either.
Maybe - gasp - certain groups arn't really interested in developing a coherent framework for these things, and are much more interested in appearing tolerant and "progressive" to their (usually homogeneous) social circles. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mod-locked page[edit]

24 hours. Hash it out here. Hopefully this reduces edit-wars, even if it won't stop them. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Best definition I've seen yet[edit]

This was a reward. "Regressive left" = term lots of Empire babies use in sad attempt to absolve their jingoism, bigotry & pathetic, irrational fear of Muslims. Seems accurate considering how popular it is among the British posh types like Harris. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a pretty shit definition. брэндэн (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
This definition sucks bollocks.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Wait, since when was Harris a Brit? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:49, 11 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Why is this locked?[edit]

There are basic things that need done -- stray commas removed, obvious wikilinks put in, etc. Not my problem if some community members won't play nice. Whoever locked it, open it up for editing, please. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The actual use overrides any definition[edit]

And right now this article is wasting word count on the theoretical instead of the practical. Do a simple google search and you will find that outside of a small cliche of New Atheists this word is used as the liberal version of 'cuckservative'. From /pol/ to islamophobic subreddits, it's nothing but a snarl world thrown at anyone who doesn't consider Islam to be an evil that needs to be purged from the face of the planet. By continuously reverting my quote from the sheekyforums, Aeonian has been diligently erasing one of the many examples of its actual use.

Here's a funny thing, if some liberals can be "regressive", then some New Atheists can be "fundamentalists":

"These people are fundamentalists," Hedges insisted. "[Noam] Chomsky calls them 'religious fundamentalists', meaning that they are subservient to the state religion." That state religion, Hedges and Martin believe, is capitalism and its logical extreme, imperialism.

"Having debated members of the Christian Right, I ran into exactly the same mindset," Hedges said in reference to New Atheists he had debated, like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. "It's a binary view of the world, between black and white. It's a sanctification of violence against "the other" - the Christian Right sanctifies violence against Muslims because they're satanic, Hitches and Harris do because they are barbarians."

Richard Dawkins and fellow "New Atheist" Sam Harris have repeatedly expressed confusion as to this line of critique. Harris even popularized the term "Regressive Left", a term coined by noted Jeremy Corbyn-hater Maajid Nawaz, to describe what they view as fraudulent, radical Muslim-coddling liberals that are so obsessed with being P.C. they accept the most reactionary forms of religious extremism from minority religions, namely Islam. But for Hedges, the issue is fundamentally a political one.

"[New Atheism] has been used quite effectively at seducing people in secular society, even on the left," Hedges said. "But it's political agenda dovetails with the most retrograde elements of the Christian Right, and that's not accidental."

As you can see, it's easy to turn this term around against the people who are spouting it. This is because 'regressive left' is ultimately an ad hominem. It's why it was so easy to be co-opted by islamophobes and wingnuts all over the internet. Typhoon (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

See also: Social Justice Warrior. People keep claiming it was once used as a totally legit criticism, but if it was, it was before it was used in any widespread way, and it's widespread meaning is a reactionary snarl word. I feel like the same could be applied here. Proclaimed meaning and actual usage are two different things. Also, someone broke the nav box on this page and I've got no idea how to fix it. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
To add to this; when I first heard the term "regressive left", I assumed it was another label for "brogressives"; liberals who turn to hardcore conservatives on selected topics, such as feminism or minorities. The fact that it was used in the exact opposite way surprised me. If anything, I consider people such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali regressive liberals. They claim to be liberals, yet they advocate absolutely illiberal wievpoints, such as her calling to amend Western constitutions to shut down all Muslim schools. As Hedges said above, these people are the atheist variant of the Christian Right. Typhoon (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. This argument makes sense. I wasn't aware of how much misuse there was. Thank you Typhoon, I concede your point. I would still like to keep the sections about the legitimate use of the term, even if the page should rightfully reflect its popular use as a snarl word. I agree that they are too long at the moment, and this takes away emphasis on the popular use, so I will edit them down accordingly. Thank you for a civil discussion :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Once upon a time, the New Left was big on freedom of speech, feminism and so on, especially also on campus. The conservative/right-wing side was big on censorship, had problems with evil comic books, then evil rock music (then metal etc), video games, dungeons and dragons whatever. They were also fond of “traditional” structures. This is now inverted for a type of leftists. For that, there is a demand for a term. ~ Aneris 21:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no "legitimate use of the term". Unless you can find examples of people saying "I support regress rather than progress", you're just appealing to your own arbitrary interpretations - just like anybody else who uses this kind of snarl word. Objectively, the best we can say (which should be obvious) is that "the left" and "the right" are not lumpen groups with internal consistency on all issues, and inevitable some elements of what is seen as "the left" (or indeed "the right") will disavow, disown or disparage some other elements. When you try to define these schisms as "legitimate" or "illegitimate", you're just dressing up something very subjective in the language of objectivity. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's arbitrary. What about other groups that are named something they don't want to call themselves?Keter (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I must disagree Weaseloid. "Socialism" and "communism" are two words thrown around with reckless abandon by conservatives; the majority of their usage is as meaningless snarl words. Does that invalidate the actual definitions of these terms, and the theories and concepts they refer too? When you have a term or phrase with a specific meaning, that meaning is the legitimate definition. Using the term as a snarl word is always misuse unless that term is an insult, and does not refer to any meaningful idea. It doesn't matter how many conservatives insist that Barack Obama is a socialist, "socialism" is still more than a snarl word. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

There are leftists who want to ban ex Muslims from speaking at western universities for fear of "offending" Muslims (or worse yet "offending Islam"). For those people we need a term. I don't know whether this is the right term... Pizzameister (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The term is "activist". Or "student group". Or "special interest group". --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
How conveniently abstract and without reference to the motivation or political orientation of this kinda groups. Was that deliberate or just an oversight?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I think this would be a correct application of regressive left, and it is what I had in mind in the first place, although it depends on the speaker. I have heard of this happening to feminist speakers, which would be an example of ignoring gender issues over (possible) issues with racism, i.e. selective relativism. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
It's Castaigne, what do you think? (You're probably correct, Kugel)Keter (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
For examples of regressive leftists, see goldsmith's university SU boss, bahar mustafa. брэндэн (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep, also consider Typhoon. He's a standard Regressive, by definition, and removed virtually all traces from Islam in the FGM article. This article mentioned the faction, too, as quite famous for exactly this practice of whitewashing. Typhoon removed that, too. Also removed a whole sourced section with flimsy reasons, then removed the rest claiming — take note — lack of sources (he himself removed in an earlier edit). So you have the perplexing and quite fascinating situation to argue all the time with people who know exactly what they are doing, but who disingeniously pretend there was nothing and everyone was imagining things (this a trick from the gender warrior abuser playbook called “gaslighting”). ~ Aneris 11:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow, careful you don't dribble with that many sour grapes in your mouth. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
For the record the majority of Imams and clerics have condemned FGM, after all, the Qur'an says if a man has multiple wives he has to "satisfy" them all, which is pretty difficult if they can't have sexual pleasure. Of course the East African clerics deny this and insist the practice is both Islamic and required. You really can't say anything without making a no true scotsman fallacy. The point is religion is used to allow things that would otherwise have no possible justification. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
So is every other ideology and philosophy in existence. Religion is not terribly special in that regard. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, it is not. Religious bigotry is just as problematic as other forms of bigotry, and should be acknowledged as such. This concept isn't invalidated just because certain New Atheists can't tell the difference between Muslims and Islam, which seems be the crux of the counter-arguments. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Religion, philosophy, and ideology are functionally the same, all three of them being belief/faith processes that do not rely on objective data. Just three heads of the same hydra. I see no difference between the homophobia of the Westboro Baptists and that of Soviet Russia. It's the same reasoning and effect, just packaged differently. The core is the same - hate homogays because INSERT RELIGION/PHILOSOPHY/IDEOLOGY HERE. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, that's just repeating what you said before. Religion shouldn't get a free pass. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I never said it should. Do not put words into my mouth. Not only should it not get a free pass, we should not elevate it to the status of Ultimate Big Bad. All religions, ideologies, and philosophies are functionally equal, and therefore merit equal derision. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
No, they aren't. But that's why people like me put you and others firmly into the postmodernist camp — and this isn't an insult — even if you think it is (and even when I would personally feel insulted by this). But objectively speaking, this is simply the name of convictions such as yours, relativistic and thinking that "everyone is equally right or wrong" kind of talk. ~ Aneris 21:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. Except I don't think everyone is equally right or wrong. That would be impossible, since right/wrong are purely subjective and consists of whatever you decided to believe in when you woke up this morning. For everyone to be equally right/wrong would require everyone to be absolutely thinking the same way, like a stamped-out template of robot circuitry. Subjective doesn't work that way.
  2. If I'm a postmodernist, I'm the worst postmodernist in the world, considering how I reject everything subjective, embrace everything objective, and am a totalitarian utilitarian embracing nothing but physical materialism and rejecting any non-objective materia as being irrelevant beyond a purely personal sphere and inapplicable to anything outside the self. If you don't understand that, I can't help you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
"All religions, ideologies, and philosophies are functionally equal, and therefore merit equal derision." This is where we disagree. That statement is theoretically true but ignores the context of the real world. I think religion - and I'm mainly referring to the personal theistic religions here, just to clear that up - should get a higher priority for two reasons:
  1. Appeals to divinity provide a socially accepted veneer of logical credibility. Let's say I'm an atheist homophobe. I go on about how gays are the worst thing since women's suffrage, because I personally think it's disgusting. If am I presented with gay people living friendly, productive, non-intrusive lives, I have no rational choice but to change my opinion - and I probably will tone it down, if not give it up. I may decide to keep complaining anyway, but if I do so everyone else clearly sees there's no logic behind me. If I am religious, however, I can appeal to God. It's "wrong" because God said so. If I see evidence against me, it doesn't matter because...God said so! My worldview makes perfect sense, even after the evidence has shown me otherwise. When other people see me ranting and raving, they can understand my position, even if they don't agree with it. Without religion, I would have no leg to stand on.
  2. Religion has a special, privileged place in society. An atheist homophobe racist Nazi? Nope. You'll get torn apart if you try to argue your views in the public sphere. But in the U.S., you can have gay rights legally blocked under the title of "religious liberty." You can have sharia courts being allowed to mandate dowry in India, despite strict laws against it. Let's say I subscribed to some odd political view which demands society maximize its growth rate by paring up everyone in heterosexual couples. As you say Castaigne2, I really don't have any more support for this view than religious people do. But could I argue for a bill blocking gay rights on the grounds of ideological/political freedom? No. Could I do so on the grounds of religion? Yes. That's way religion isn't on equal footing with other reactionary ideologies. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
"Except I don't think everyone is equally right or wrong. That would be impossible, since right/wrong are purely subjective and consists of whatever you decided to believe in when you woke up this morning" (Castaigne2) except that you are mistaken. When both people equally believe they are 100% correct and the other person is 100% wrong, which is perfectly possible and valid in your mindset, then everyone is radically subjective in equal measure totally right and totally wrong, which is in accordance to what you assert. It only gets incoherent in your later assertion that you "reject everything subjective, embrace everything objective". How is this even possible when you previously claimed being right and wrong were "purely subjective"? If this comes down to word magic, you only further cement your postmodernist street cred. ~ Aneris 23:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not word magic, Aneris. You clearly don't understand what I mean when I say objective. I'm referring to objective reality, i.e., that reality which can be verified independently of the self. Right and wrong don't exist independently of the self. Thus subjective, thus irrelevant.
Now, if you disagree with that, please feel free to enter a laboratory and perform right/wrong experiments. I'm interested to know, say, if the act of stealing a sugar packet from the bin at your work is 0.75 Wrongians or whatever. And what you used to measure it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
A student diversity officer - a useless position if I ever heard of one, but that's another story - from some dinky-doo university outside of the USA, who's raison d'etre appears to be stanning for non-white POC to the exclusion of all else is an example of the "regressive left". Fascinating. I will note that "Promotion of non-white POC to the exclusion of All Else." is one of the planks of the Regressive Left Governing Cabal's Policy Platform. (I might possibly add "Advocating Islam in order to destroy all White Western Christian culture." later, once I get Aneris' confirmation.) Perhaps someone can advise me of Mustafa's rank in the Regressive Left. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The motivation of these groups, Kugelschreiber, seems to be the same for any group I find on the right or the left, regardless of the political affiliation. Here is X cause. We promote X cause. End of list. Unlike Aneris or others, I don't ascribe altruism to some mythical conspiracy or cabal of people, like cultural Marxism. I deride altruism, because I think altruism and ideals are idiotic, but their motivation to me is quite simple. And so should be to you. You conflate disparate causes with some monolithic ideology. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Dunno if i've grasped the concept, but are we saying 'regressive left' is what some would label those who seek to change/influence those who hold views that we oppose by dialogue rather than a futile full on assault on we what dislike or disagree with? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure consensus is the "futile full on assault" now. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Since your position is at odds with what I have researched, and sourced on FGM (in the deleted section) I am curious about the data you used for the claim that "a majority" of Imams and Clerics have condemned FGM, and which set is used (how do we know that all have been asked to determine majorities, for example). Do human rights organisation agree that their condemnation is true, and meaningful? (to be precise, I found the exact opposite). ~ Aneris 18:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa said"The traditional form of excision is a practice totally banned by Islam because of the compelling evidence of the extensive damage it causes to women's bodies and minds." He also suggested FGM should be punishable by law in all Muslim countries. Muslim scholars Mohammed Emara and Mohammad Salim Al-Awa have said the same. There are also thirty-four prominent scholars, lead by expert Ibn al-Hajj, banning FGM in Mauritania, and a fatwa from Somalia religious authorities trying to ban it there. If you want to know why every scholar isn't yelling about it, it's because the practice is generally contained to North Africa, Malaysia and Indonesia. Now I'm sure you could find notable scholars disagreeing, but the majority of the Muslim world does not practice FGM. If it was clearly Islamic, that would be different.
If you want to look at the social problems with Islam, a much better case could be made for;
The explicit death sentence for homosexuals present in Surahs 4, 7, 26, 27, and 29;
The explicit inferiority of women, firmly established in Surah 4;
The explicit inferiority of non-Muslims in Muslim societies, as established in Islamic fiqh; etc. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This very debate shows: Whether the term is helpful or not, there exists a real divide within leftism[edit]

And it can be summed up with Gretchen's (not the Fox News one, but one who is nearly as dumb) question from Goethe's Faust: "Nun sag, wie hast du’s mit der Religion?" or in English "How's your stance on religion?" (Interestingly the answer Faust gives in the actual play is highly evasive because he does not want to own up to his atheism/agnosticism in front of Gretchen whom he wants to shag) True, the divide runs deeper than that, but this seems to be the main and focal point. How do you deal with abhorrent religious traditions if they don't occur in the religion you adhere to or left at some point in your live. Pizzameister (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an exclusively a religious issue. The New Atheists poked the hornet's nest regarding Islam and brought these contradictory liberals to the spotlight, but the concept could apply to anything. It's really a case of Euro-centrism, and, perhaps, naive myopia among some politically active liberals. For a non-religious example, consider feminism in India. The gang-rape in New Delhi caused major uproar and numerous protests across the country, but up until that point the Western regressive left had ignored women's concerns on the subcontinent out of fear of cultural imperialism. I think it came as a shock to some that women outside of the West care about equal rights as well.
You could rephrase that last sentence as: "How do you deal with abhorrent traditions if they don't occur in the cultural context you or your ethnic group are associated with." Now it's both accurate and hints at the heart of the problem - a well-intentioned but inconsistent worldview created by the popular (mis)understanding of postmodernism. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
That's implausible, why postmodernism? We might as well call it modernism and essentialism and anything else if it shows up in the grab bag. But all this is honestly irrelevant, because even if they were postmodernists, why bring it up in talk page disputes? * ~ Aneris 11:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Obvious strawman, I'll quote the last sentence: "popular (mis)understanding of postmodernism." In case you can't read, popular (mis)understanding of postmodernism =/= postmodernism. Also, this isn't a dispute, I'm clarifying why this isn't just about Islam. Notice how am I not calling anyone a postmodernist. When you can show that the SJWs are postmodernists, rather than vague offshoots with a Frankenstein of other ideas, we can agree to call them "postmodernist." Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
That was a quotation from yourself, not a strawman. The term SJWs would be fine, but is generally disputed here, hence I went with the broadest conception to have some way to refer to this (which also sums up my critique, which is neither a problem with leftism or with social justice). This in turn became a necessity in the Ryulong/Typhus Revert Virus days and frivolous coop cases, which apparently happened before you were here. ~ Aneris 23:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
No, you tried to take a statement I made regarding your usage of postmodernism and apply it to mine, so I quoted myself to show that my position on the issue has remained consistent. It is a strawman because I do not call the SJWs postmodernist for having some postmodern grab bag concepts, and so I would not call them modernist or essentialist for having those grab bag concepts. You, however, claim they are postmodernists, so you have to deal with that logical problem. As for the zealots, the same advice I have always given you is the same: state facts and move on. This very page is quiet, and I feel it gives an accurate overview of the topic. Anyone who comes to RationalWiki can read about the problems with the regressive left in the "legitimate use" section, and a detailed overview of their philosophy and its problems as well. The zealots have not reverted or edit warred over this page since it was settled in the first place. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Or more cynically summed up: "Would you rather be branded racist or sexist?"Keter (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

An article[edit]

http://raifrawandi.com/2016/03/13/the-regressive-left-an-ex-muslim-perspective/ αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 13:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, we should fight the awful/reactionary aspects of Islam, but we should do so because it's reactionary and not because it's Islamic. This is something people like Harris completely miss. He's been lately obsessed with throwing this stupid term at anyone who criticizes him, and in getting into fights, only to lose embarrassingly ,such as his recent attempt to attack Chomsky.
Bottom line, screaming about "the regressive left" has failed to achieve anything constructive. It definitely didn't improve the situation in many middle eastern countries, nor did it defeat the people they idiotically label as "regressive leftists", it DID however give the alt-right and Islamophobes a new term to throw at people opposed to them. And right now this new term is in the process of becoming an irrelevant buzzword like "politically correct". Typhoon (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
If you are endowed with a rank that is favored by the political elites you can write in a book, as Harris did, “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” If you are of Middle Eastern descent, Muslim, and not a New Atheist, and you write on a scrap of paper, “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,” you will be arrested for suspected terrorism.
—But Sam Harris is definitely not a regressive leftists for holding this regressive opinion
Well, I think it shows the point I was trying to make all along - people, and I don't mean just New Atheists, are concerned that the left isn't fighting reactionary elements just because they're from certain groups, Islam being the obvious example. While I don't support religion at all, there are many Muslims who do manage to find a progressive, feminist, even sex and LGBT-positive interpretations of Islam. It's cognitive dissonance to be sure, but they're free to twist their fairy tales into whatever they like and we should encourage the nicer interpretations. We can't do that without addressing the others, and trying to pretend they don't exist for the sake of minorities is a pointless - and sure to fail - move. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Man, you love to talk about how superior you're to other people. The only "regressive" behavior I see here is coming from you. Typhoon (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not supporting religion. Theocracies are a great idea, they only fail because we don't follow God's laws correctly :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Theocracy =/= Religion. Don't you have some links to post to /r/atheism? Typhoon (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, play nice you two. Maybe discuss the topic without discussing each other. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 11:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I see one person discussing ideas, and another person making things personal. Again. Pay attention, and read again. You know it, too. In the USA, Muslims are a minority and many hateful rhetoric comes their way. And they are just another godfearing literalist group and considering dominionists and evangelicals, certainly not more dangerous than they are. However, rumour has it that there is also a world outside of the USA. One such mythical place is called "Europe" where they have Christian state religions but who are — after centuries of x-rated conflicts — relatively tame and often near deistic. Now you have an influx of literal believers that are normally a thing for sects and fringe groups, and they are called Muslims.
fnord In other words, the demand to ignore Muslims — by far the most pious and extremist religious group there is — while being concerned with almost-deistic anglicans and lutherans is ludicrous. The american centrism and cultural imperialism (cf. human "races") is annoying and even more annoying when people behave like Dunning-Kruger subjects with no apparent second thoughts as to why other people might have a different take on the matter. ~ Aneris 13:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It's sad to see that RW has fallen so much that even Antitheism is a bad thing, which is what the site was fucking built on. If you need any more evidence RW is ruined, loo no further than TyphoonKeter (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
If all it needed for RW to fall is one user who isn't a smug fedora-tipping atheist, then RW was weak from the start. Typhoon (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see and understand where Typhoon is coming from - he has a Euro-centric standpoint (not so much from malevolence as from myopia). When he thinks "Islam," he thinks "Muslims in the West." Muslims in the West are indeed oppressed - but, unlike what "Islamophobia" implies - it's not really because they're Muslims. It's just racism, and the racists - who have no real criticism of Islam - say it's because "Big Bad Islam!" But Typhoon lives entirely in this world. He doesn't seem to think about North Africa, the Levant, the Indian subcontinent, or Indonesian and Malaysia. Places where Muslims are certainly not oppressed, and some Enlightment-esque anti-theism would provide enormous benefits to their societies. And no, Typhoon, by "enormous benefits" I don't mean "becoming just like the European West and abandoning their cultures." It's about abandoning fairy tales. And why doesn't anyone talk about the scourge of Christianity in Latin America and West Africa? Or the reactionary Hindu right in India? Why is it always about Islam? Because for some people, it's not really about religion, it's about Western politics and racism. Or, to be blunt, they only care about what happens in the West. Hence why the regressive left is so regressive. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"He doesn't seem to think about North Africa, the Levant, the Indian subcontinent" <- You're out of your mind. We've barely even talked so you have absolutely no idea what I think. Stop making up shit. Typhoon (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, Hinduism and Christianity and all those other religions certainly have their problem and can become deadly (just imagine you are a thirteen year old girl repeatedly raped by her step-dad and cannot get an abortion even though your live is in danger). But. And here is the big but. Islam is much more visible and much more deadly on a global scale. If you tally the dead of religious violence and oppression from 2000 until 2016, I think Islam would have the highest death toll by far. It would be interesting who is on second, though... Pizzameister (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Why single out religion as some sort of unique type of ideology, though? National supremacism and politico-cultural imperialism have their fair share of victims as well. It's also worth noting that it's not always clear how prominent a role religion plays in Muslims being motivated to commit violence. Did you know the majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
True, fascism and racism are also deadly (as shown by recent events all over the first world). But talking about them when the subject of religion is brought up is something of a distraction... Pizzameister (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it? Clearly the West becoming more secular hasn't stopped other irrational beliefs from directing people away from the path of peace and tolerance. Just because they don't cite God to justify their actions (and sometimes they still do, if only to come off more dramatic and soothe the more religious subsections of society) doesn't mean we shouldn't be similarly critical of these ideologies. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
.236, I actually addressed this very point above in my discussion with Castaigne2, I don't know how to link to a comment in the middle of a thread so I'll just paste it:
"All religions, ideologies, and philosophies are functionally equal, and therefore merit equal derision." This is where we disagree. That statement is theoretically true but ignores the context of the real world. I think religion - and I'm mainly referring to the personal theistic religions here, just to clear that up - should get a higher priority for two reasons:
  1. Appeals to divinity provide a socially accepted veneer of logical credibility. Let's say I'm an atheist homophobe. I go on about how gays are the worst thing since women's suffrage, because I personally think it's disgusting. If am I presented with gay people living friendly, productive, non-intrusive lives, I have no rational choice but to change my opinion - and I probably will tone it down, if not give it up. I may decide to keep complaining anyway, but if I do so everyone else clearly sees there's no logic behind me. If I am religious, however, I can appeal to God. It's "wrong" because God said so. If I see evidence against me, it doesn't matter because...God said so! My worldview makes perfect sense, even after the evidence has shown me otherwise. When other people see me ranting and raving, they can understand my position, even if they don't agree with it. Without religion, I would have no leg to stand on.
  2. Religion has a special, privileged place in society. An atheist homophobe racist Nazi? Nope. You'll get torn apart if you try to argue your views in the public sphere. But in the U.S., you can have gay rights legally blocked under the title of "religious liberty." You can have sharia courts being allowed to mandate dowry in India, despite strict laws against it. Let's say I subscribed to some odd political view which demands society maximize its growth rate by paring up everyone in heterosexual couples. As you say Castaigne2, I really don't have any more support for this view than religious people do. But could I argue for a bill blocking gay rights on the grounds of ideological/political freedom? No. Could I do so on the grounds of religion? Yes. That's way religion isn't on equal footing with other reactionary ideologies. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    Except the same thing happens when you replace God with "our glorious country" or "our superior culture". If religion has a privileged place in society, surely patriotism is even more privileged. Didn't Obama explicitly endorse American exceptionalism not too long ago? And for all the progress America has made in championing gay and women's rights, just take a look at their military. Why do the US Armed Forces discriminate against women and gay people? Is their leadership that devoutly Christian? Or is it due to culturally ingrained prejudices? And that's not even bringing up other, more secular/irreligious countries where gays are, for some reason, still openly discriminated against. To quote Nietzsche: "Everyone knows that there is no 'last judgment', no 'sin', and no 'redeemer', yet everything goes on as before." Let's not suddenly go lenient on irrationality just because it's shed its religious façade. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
You are certainly correct about ultra-nationalism, you could throw in corporate greed and other problems as well. But we may be writing past each other - I'm referring to social issues. You also made a very telling statement: "Why do the US Armed Forces discriminate against women and gay people? Is their leadership that devoutly Christian? Or is it due to culturally ingrained prejudices?" It is due to culturally ingrained prejudices. And where do those prejudices come from? Who are the people who stridently oppose LGBT+ and women's rights? Where does our culture of slut shaming and double standards *come from in the first place?* The Abrahamic religions have had a massive impact on shaping the ideas of morality which permeate our society. I don't agree with Nietzsche, even when people know the religion is false, its cultural outgrows live on. No, making religion disappear won't transform the world into a utopia, but it would certainly help. Edit: We need to focus on religion on not just the culture because people are opposing social justice because "God said so." I'm not saying we can just make faith in fairy tales diappear and everyone will accept LGBT+ rights and such. But in order to have that discussion in the first place, you can't have large voting blocs thinking this is the way things should be because God. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, more Christian apologetics in this thread. Let's just forget that Bush and Blair waged a war of aggression on Iraq because "God told them to" as they themselves admit. I'm fine with criticizing Islam as deadly today. But I don't accept apologetics that lets Chrsitianity off the hook from so-called liberals here when the facts and numbers of dead bodies from the war in Iraq say otherwise (still haven't mentioned Orthodox Serbs murdering Muslims in Yugoslavia either). ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Here for example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/Tony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-fight-evil-claims-his-mentor.html. Of course, certain atheist apologists for Christianity will say he didn't mean what he said....*sarcasm*. Now those are the regressive liberals we should be concerned about, who have a tacit alliance with the Christian Right when it comes to the War on Terror. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Somethins similiar was mentioned by Chris Hedges, the way New Atheists are obsessed with Islam while not only letting Christianity of the hook, but even adopting their methods in attacking Islam. "New Atheism's political agenda dovetails with the most retrograde elements of the Christian right.". Typhoon (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
For once you are correct, take Sam Harris “Letter to an Islamic Nation”. This co-founded the New Atheist movement and made him as one leader already ten years ago. Hitchens made his New Atheism debut with “Allah is not Great” and such memorable ideas that Islam was like a Celestial Saudi Arabia. The third Horsemen Daniel Dennett added “Breaking Sharia Law” to the book shelf, and of course the most important one Richard Dawkins wrote the New Atheist Bible titled the “Allah Delusion”. In your and RationalWiki's Bizarro Universe, at least. ~ Aneris 04:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A satirical article[edit]

http://www.muftinews.com/standard-hitpiece-maajid-nawaz-by-a-regressive-liberal-journalist/ Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Most popular definition?[edit]

The so called Regressive left or Social Justice Warrior will act in an illiberal manner, condone illiberal actions and support down right unethical behavior of groups they deem to be oppressed against the apparent oppressor which you have assumed to exist in opposition to one another. Moreover, they will deny any evidence to the contrary that shows that the 'oppressions' these groups suffer don't exist, or don't exist in the manner or for the reason you think they do. Regressives see the world as oppressed v. oppressors. They will deny reality and condone awful things to push forward these ideas. They shut down debate with accusations of bigotry, homophobia, islamophobia, racist and misogyny,

Found it here, apparently it was copied from a comment on /r/kotakuinaction which itself was copied from a youtube comment under a video by Sargon of Akkad. Typhoon (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It fits most definitions that I have seen. Why say it is the most popular? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Coz it jumped around various major alt-right/reactionary communities? Typhoon (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My definition of Regressive Left.[edit]

Sam and Ayaan[edit]

I have never heard either person make those claims, let's have some references for them.

Don't count it, the political articles are defended by theist sympathizers. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to actually click the article links; you might be surprised. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I've looked at them, and am not denying Harris and Ayaan don't elaborate themselves very well. But what continues to astonish me is why the Western world goes to no end to vilify those against the second largest Abrahamic religion in the world. If the average SJW put a similar amount of time into studying Islam, reading the widely available tafsirs, hadiths, etc, they would quickly agree with Harris and Ayaan, even if not on everything. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
And thus by your insufferable presumption you demonstrate that you're a moron. An abject moron. Like the bible, I've read the hidiths, and, like the bible, they're full of backwards useless advice more suited to an agrarian iron age society constantly at war than a modern one. In no way does this single out Islam as a particularly noxious religion, not compared to the vedas, the bible, the torah, or any other out-of-date useless source of morality. There's no there there. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Whataboutism is the best you can offer? Very well, I'll go with that and ask you to list the Christian countries which implement the laws of Leviticus and Numbers in their legal codes, have severe legal penalties for non-belief (or incorrect belief), etc. What you fail to grasp is that Christianity was only witted down with vicious and incessant criticism. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Christ, fuck you don't understand what the problem with whataboutism is. If you're making the case that Muslims should be specifically targetted like their pro-racial profiling arguments directly and clearly present then saying "no other religions have these problems too" is a valid counterargument. At no point do I ever suggest that Islam's problems are okay or acceptable, just that they deserve no singling out. Your "only Christianity faces criticism" bullshit flagrantly untrue, and you will never hear me endorse Islam. You will hear me call out bigots for being bigots. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I never said "Muslims should be specifically targeted," Ayaan and Harris say that because most of the radicals today come from Islam and there is more theological support for that in modern schools of Islamic thought (i.e. anything the Saudis fund) than in other religions. I don't agree with their conclusions because they're stupid and wouldn't work, but their criticism of Islam itself is solid and they shouldn't be silenced. Nor did I say "only Christianity faces criticism" lmfao, for someone who was angry at presumptions you're amazing right now. If you want to dispute certain conclusions go do that, but don't label them as "Islamophobes" and similar BS when much of their material is very strong. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I never said you did but the people cited in the article did. Hence the charge of Islamaphobia. Nice how that loops around. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Just because Harris and Ayaan may make solid claims about Islam doesn't mean they're infallible. If they endorse illiberal, counter-productive policies that does more to stoke the flames, then they ought to be criticized for them. Unfortunately, their policies are indeed Islamophobic. We should believe in universal human rights instead of policies that limit the civil liberties/stigmatize another group (which profiling and anti-immigration does). If they don't believe in upholding human rights for all groups, then they cannot call themselves liberals and are a hindrance to social progress, hence why they are the actual regressives. ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I was talking about the claim that Sam wants to kill people on the basis of religious belief, and that Ayaan wants to close down all mosques. They are both bold claims, both sound like smears, and both are un referenced, so I consider the claims unreliable.— Unsigned, by: Reg321 / talk / contribs

I've added references for them. Now we'll see how deep in denial you are. Typhoon (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Still no legitimate use to be seen[edit]

Who's using this term "legitimately"? Give me some examples, and make sure they're not from people who themselves hold illiberal views.

I've mentioned the glaring problem with this made-up term, and since Aeonian continues to ignore me, I'll repeat it once again: Beyond a small circle of anti-theist trolls, this made-up strawman is only used by the alt-right (from 4chan's /pol/ to Reddit's Donald Trump fans) in order to silence any criticism of calls to harass and expel muslims.

Fisrt, Muslims are painted as a raping, neck-cutting horde of barbarians. Then people are accused of being "regressive" for defending the obviously real horde of barbarians in the name of religious freedom. From painting an entire religion as a threat to the West, to silencing anyone who voices criticism of Islamophobia, the ultimate goal is to suspend civil rights for millions of people. tat this itself is a "regressive" act is something Harris and others intentionally ignore. In fact, the people who use this term make sure to use the label "regressive left" only on people who disagree with them. Maajid Nawaz himself admitted that the loves that he has the power to smear people, and this "regressive left" nonsense was invented by him only for that, because he kept being criticized for his heavy-handed approach to muslims, even by his own family.

"Regressive left" is just a more polite buzzword for "cuck/SJW/anti-american". "Oh, you feel bad for all the suffering Syrian refugees? Don't you know that they worship a misogynistic religion? Now stop being a regressive leftist and help me throw these bottles with petrol at the refugee centre" (<-this is actual train of thought I saw among the alt-right on the internet)

Bottom line, this is completely un-academic and ignored by the vast majority of intelectuals, its "legitimate use" is nonexistent, and right now it's just Aeonian who's trying to make this strawman a real thing by pushing it on Rationalwiki (and even linking the horseshoe theory to it, despite that being a bullshit term just as much) and he's now even canvassing support from Mona becaus ehe knows that she hates me and will ignore my criticism and edit war against me on his behalf. Typhoon (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"I'm gonna accuse you of using a straw man, but to do so, I'm going to make a huge straw man of you first." I believe you and the other zealots (which I admit sometimes includes Mona) have done an excellent job making sure everyone who reads the article gets the idea that the term "regressive left" is an alt-right invention, because, you know, Christian conservatives are usually the type to be "anti-theist trolls" opposed to the Abrahamic religions. You keep living in your fantasy world Typhoon. I'd invite you to come to the Gulf states sometime, see how much you enjoy it :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
He won't, after all most tankies don't wanna live under Stalin.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 16:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
So, now "zealot" is the hip new buzzword? When can we see you creating an entire article on it? Mind you, this word already has an old, establishes meaning and it goes directly against your current use/abuse. Typhoon (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Aeonian's edit[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Regressive_left&curid=177924&diff=1663828&oldid=1663823

  • Has it been used legitimately, even once?
  • Is it a no true scotsman fallacy?
  • Are all detractors anonymous?
  • Are the issues unnamed?
  • Does this section need citations:
Typhoon: The concept of a reactionary left originated when cultural and moral relativism left the postmodernist lens of academia[citation needed] and entered popular political discourse.[citation needed] The concept most people define as "multiculturalism" today is the secular idea of cultural pluralism combined with this new, politically active relativism.[citation needed] Since relativism is a neutral academic stance, applying it to current political or ideological causes raises problems.[citation needed] A relativist observer holds that there is no objective standard by which one culture or moral system can be measured to be better than another. This position, when held absolutely, logically entails that liberal values such as free speech and equal rights are not objectively better than a rejection of them.Aeonian: The concept of a reactionary left originated when cultural and moral relativism left the postmodernist lens of academia and entered popular political discourse. The concept most people define as "multiculturalism" today is the secular idea of cultural pluralism combined with this new, politically active relativism. Since relativism is a neutral academic stance, applying it to current political or ideological causes raises problems. A relativist observer holds that there is no objective standard by which one culture or moral system can be measured to be better than another. This position, when held absolutely, logically entails that liberal values such as free speech and equal rights are not objectively better than a rejection of them.


  • Is the idea conceptually interesting, in terms of how one approaches liberalism?

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzycat, one of the reddit links he's using, has SJW and Regressive left defined by user "LordEmpyrean". Said user elsewhere on reddit identifies himself as Aeonian. He's literally using himself as a source for the bullshit he's inserting to this article. He's realized that calling people "SJWs" is now backfiring, which is why he's trying to make this "regressive left" thing become a real thingTyphoon (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Then remove that citation. One wrong point does not a wrong argument make. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
They're ALL cherry-picked from /r/exmuslim, where Aeonian is an extremely frequent contributor. The one I singled out in my older comment was just the one that revealed the deception he's engaging in. Typhoon (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Not all of them are from that subreddit, there are some from blogs and other unrelated sources. Granted, they are former Muslim voices, but not all from that subreddit. And even if they were, anyone who looks through the sub will say that there are non-reactionary, non-right wing people who attest that the regressive left exists - it is not just 4chan and such, as you seem to insist. That is why I provided the sources in the first place. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
YOU, Aeonian, are a regressive yourself. You're waging a "counter-jihad" on Islam, and your "regressive left" push is just an attempt to silence any criticism of your own beliefs. Here's a sample from your account on /r/exmuslim:
We should put all the Muslims and Chirst-worshippers in a single country, watch how fast it tears itself apart and takes care of the Abrahamic problem. Might as well heavily armed Israel in there too, just to mix things up lol
—Aeonian; totally not a regressive himself
An easy solution would have been to only let in people who renounce religion, they could write a short ~one page~ essay describing why they left religion and send it with visa applications.

But we all know this would preclude the uneducated and the ignorant, with few exceptions, which are the refugee demographics. So it would defeat the point of 'helping' refugees.

The other option, of course, would be for the state to educate them against religion when they arrive, but that requires them to first have reasonable economic stability and such. Not to mention the state would have to have a spine.

It's a huge mess, I feel sorry for you guys in Europe, :(
—Aeonian
Do not mourn Europe. They have chosen to abandon the ideals of the Enlightenment in favor of a popular misunderstanding of post-modernism, and an idealistic and unrealistic understanding of how humans interact. This is their choice to make, and they shall pay the price for their choices. If the worst case scenarios happen - which they may not, mind you - then it will be an utterly Pyrrhic victory for the Archenemy. Europe's sacrifice will inspire fear and hatred into those who watch it, and I am confident many nations will at last admit the harm the Abrahamic religions cause and adopt anti-theism in their internal and foreign polices. We are living in a world where information is more accessible than other, a coalition of state actors working to defeat superstition today will prove strong.
—Aeonian
Hint: Don't see the world in terms of "minorities." It's a common SJW mistake. Muslims are not minorities in the countries they came from, they are majorities and they are used to behaving like oppressive majorities usually behave. The SJW mindset is based on the idea that the West somehow oppresses everyone at once, but this doesn't make sense in most of the world.
The civilized world needs to get over the postmodern bullshit and declare anti-theism a necessary component of foreign and internal polices. But they don't have the spine.
—Aeonian
My entire problem with this article is that the people who use it, including you Aeonian, are regressive as fuck. This blows a huge hole in it. It makes it another stupid strawman. It's why this term is not taken seriously in the academia. It's why it shouldn't be taken seriously on Rationalwiki either.Typhoon (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Well Typhoon, since I'm on trial here, why didn't you include what my actual solution is among the cherry picked quotes above?
Freedom of religion, no interference with religion, even the crazed Salafis can say whatever they want. Acts of terrorism or violence will be punished accordingly, however.

Most importantly, the education system will teach every student a thorough analysis of comparative religion, philosophy, and apologetics/counter-apologists. Students will be asked to analyze the arguments for and against the divinity of many different religions as put forth by the apologists of those religions. They will also be well versed in how to spot logical fallacies.

The works and arguments of al-Ghazali, Al-Raza, Al-Maari, Omar Khayyam, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig, Immanual Kant, Siddharta Guatama, Confucius and the Sikh and Hindu gurus will be looked at. The history and evolution of religions will be examined.

So, in a 12 year education, the 4 to 6 final years will feature this. It would go something like this:

Year 1: Theology/Comparative Religion

Year 2: Theology/Comparative Religion

Year 3: History of Religion

Year 4: Philosophy and Logic, How to identify logical fallacies

Year 5: Apologetics and counter-apologetics for religion and God

Give me three decades with the above and I promise you no one will be seriously religious at the end.
Myself
But that doesn't make me out to be the brutal statist and "regressive" you want, does it? Heh. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, LE's definition was only one of the definitions provided in the source. Free feel to ignore it and look the others. And, as FCP said, you apparently can't respond to the other sources. :/ Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

But who cares? As if Typhoon and others would listen to evidence or reason. You can save yourself a lot of time by not bothering. As a plus, you don't associate yourself with a bunch of paedophile and fascist apologist (that's what the official RW Twitter account is doing). By improving articles on the wiki, you also help spread pseudoscience and anti-intellectual rubbish. ~ Aneris 21:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This wiki is very popular and debunks the common theist arguments well. I am doing my part to add more content regarding Islamic apologetics, and I will occasionally try to put some sense into an article like this. You, by contrast...what do you do? Most theists are not aware that arguments like the kalaam have been refuted, most theists do not even know such arguments exist. This site has tremendous potential. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not popular and has a lousy reputation among everyone who knows a little about it — except perhaps the shrinking “horde” of American social justice atheists. They managed to go from mainstream to fringe in about two years and the RW is following that trajectory ever since, and this despite a rapidly growing secularism, which can mask the shortcomings for a while. Whatever it does good is cancelled by spreading lies and misinformation against some of the most effective secularists, e.g. Atheist Ireland, who work with the UN. ~ Aneris 02:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, our favourite Slymepitter, Aneris, found unable to continue "distance himself from the project"; as is expected of every guy who goes LANCB. This article seems to attract the anti-SJW brigade. Typhoon (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I never flounced, therefore I'm not back and it's still as true as written there. My line was a response to a claim I've seen a few times that somehow everyone in the community is responsible for the rubbish the Wiki is claiming and which is impossible to correct, or somehow in league with the nazi/paedophile connections through its official twitter account. And to this; no, I'm not. And FCP, you can easily research it. You could for example get a clue about notable people and how their 'careers' developed. You can look at page views and such things. You can look at the community, whether it's thriving. You can look at the atheism plus forum activity and so on. But since you know nothing, what's the point. Ironically, you cannot even consult an article, since they are consistently false or outdated (because the real situation is not exactly favourable for the lot, which the PR team here doesn't like). ~ Aneris 01:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Ffffs. Not sure which is less productive: Aneris' unsupported grandstanding about the decline and fall of Social Justice Atheism, or Typhoon spewing insults. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 07:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This entire article is about a new insult invented by angry anti-theists, and their attempt to make it appear academic. Typhoon (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Wait, I thought it was invented by reactionary GamerGators? Is your story changing now? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Stop. Ad hom helps nobody. Argue about your opposing edits, not your opposing editors. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't seen any discussion about the sources I added, save that Typhoon doesn't like them. Instead, she went through my reddit history and tried to mount some sort of character assassination. If that isn't ad hom, what is? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
He started it. You should end it. Implement your edit, and it's now his fault for edit warring. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I've voiced my problems with his edits already. He's instead ignored them and continues to reinsert his posts on reddit as source, along with the facebook links and fringe blogs that he found on his subreddit. Typhoon (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
You're only "problem" was that I am one of the posters in the subreddit, ignoring everyone else. You've tried to hand wave aside the blogs as "fringe," when I'm sure you would gladly accept them if they supported your agenda. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
You continue to reinsert yourself as a source, along with your nobodies from /r/exmuslim. You're an anti-theist zealot and a regressive (how ironic!). Typhoon (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon is just going around in circles, first she demanded sources on my talk page, now that I've provided them she has to move the goalposts by calling them "fringe" since she can't call them "illiberal" (her usual escape hatch). Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There's plenty of non-reddit sources[edit]

And a majority of the community seems to want to make the page into:

  1. The regressive left exists, and is a problem for liberalism.
  2. The term "regressive left" is also used as a bogeyman / silencing tactic by rightists and Islamaphobes.

Shall this proceed, then? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously the way to write the article, yes, with the note that group 2 denies the notable existance of the "regressive left." Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I deny that the vast majority of those at whom the epithet is hurled are, in fact, "regressive." Which is why my Twitter bio ironically labels me a "proud member of the regressive left." But, I have absolutely seen that something like that exist, it just isn't as pervasive as claimed, and nor is it anything but a snarl word by far too many who lob the accusation.---Mona- (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Regressive left has been co-opted by rightists though. If you type in "regressive left Trump" on twitter for instance, you'll see Trump supporters accusing those who disagree or oppose Trump as members of the regressive left. Twiiter isn't an ideal source obviously, but there is an overlap, and it serves a similar function of accusing people of "political correctness" when they point out patently racist or sexist statements. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Which is exactly why we have the first section of the page. All this is about is allowing a discussion of the real regressive left at all, which some are determined to stop. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Aeonian, again, I agree that there is something that the phrase "regressive left" could actually capture, and, well, I find that a few of them are (cough, cough) active at this site. But Chris is completely right. The phrase has been co-opted, as has been "political correctness," a phrase I used sincerely in the late 80s and early 90s, but won't unironically employ now. But yeah, the section you mention is good, I just might have a few additions when time permits.---Mona- (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I found our zealot![edit]

Just needs a little more whiteness :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh. Without context, it's possible that she's pointing out that rightists use ex-Muslim testimony about how Islam is misogynistic/etc. in order to promote genuine Islamaphobia -- of, she's defending poor, poor Islam against those nasty exmoose. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that she's arguing that ex-Muslims are just as bad as the other groups because we criticize Islam much better than anyone else, for obvious reasons. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
As an ex-Catholic indoctrinated in this especially sick strain as a youth, I have some experience here. For a good five years after I was sure I was an atheist, I was the most anti-Catholic, anti-religion person you could ever try to find. Eventually I realized I was still giving "them" power over me. Religion is a human phenomenon, integral to human sociology, history and psychology. It has some very depraved adherents, as do may political ideologies. But in itself it is neutral. This man was a prince among men, I don't care if he was a Catholic priest. So was he. Many religious people are what Christians call "the salt of the Earth."
Science, and the rules of evidence in law, must insist on empiricism. To judge what is true in the natural world, we must prefer empiricism. But that does not fulfill all the questions and needs humans have. To the extent religion tries to answer the rest, and given the many glorious religious people past and present, I do not quarrel with religion per se. I strongly object only when religionists would intrude where empiricism and pluralism belong.---Mona- (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't oppose spirituality, I am an agnostic pantheist myself, but I will never relent on the Abrahamic religions because of their nature. You would have a much stronger argument with an inclusive religion, such as Sikhism or Buddhism, or a religion which allows great diversity of internal thought, such as Hinduism. The Abrahamic religions, by contrast, can only be nice if you follow them incorrectly. In their true form, they are exclusionary and tribalistic relics of the Arabian desert. Do not make the false dichotomy that the apologists love so much - you can believe in God and such without asserting the divinity of those atrocious "religions." Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
"I don't oppose spirituality" There's no good definitional bright line between spirituality and religion. Some adherents of the Abrahamic religions are superb humans, such as Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day and myriad Quakers (and I'm leaving out a ton of great Jews and Muslims because I know less about them). It greatly depends on what humans do with the traditions in which they express their spirituality. At the end of the day, and as with politics, the great, if you will, "sin" is authoritarian insistence on truth the breach of which "requires" temporal control and punishment.---Mona- (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the simplest position here is that religion is a (on net) radicalizing factor, out of many, and more extreme religion is more radicalizing. This can be good (as in doing religion-motivated charity), but (on net) radicalization leads to bad consequences (as in attacking abortion, women and LGBT, and secularism). 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Or this might just be romanticizing the eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism) and conveniently leaving out their historical violence again. Which happens all too often in the Western countries and might just be orientalism. Withoutaname (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You missed the point. I am not saying those religions cause no problems, I am saying they are not exclusionary. If your religion says that anyone can go to heaven, rather than creating an us vs them narrative, that religion will be "nicer." Theologically, there is no such caveat in the Abrahamic religions. In Islam, everyone is born a Muslim, but are led astray by their parents. In Christianity, accepting the salvation of Christ is a requirement. Muslims and Jews are aware of Christian teachings, but consciously reject them - and thus the salvation of Christ. The Abrahamic religions mandate this because they rely on revelation by personal experience. They teach that anyone who seeks truth honestly will have Islam/Christianity/whatever revealed to them. Thus, those who refuse to convert never do so out of ignorance, but out of conscious rejection of God. The religions I mentioned - Sikhism, Buddhism, etc, have no such teachings. While they do assert they are "more true" than the others, they note that a person may attain spiritual perfection regardless of religion. This was what I was stressing. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Catholicism does in fact allow for those who do not identify as Catholics (or even Christians) to be saved. I can't speak as to Islam or Judaism, but the nearly all clergy and all but the most extremist laypeople agree that those who identify as nonChristians can be saved.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, in Judaism, if a non-Jew obeys the Seven Laws of NoahWikipedia, s/he's assured to come into the World to Come ("Olam haBa", Jewish version of afterlife).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC) 19:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aeonian: It seems like that, at first glance. But lectures like this can be easily taken out of context. If you can find any more information, then it'd be a prime image for the article. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a stupid question: What do Zionists have to do with any of that? And why are Ex-Muslims some kind of Category Traitor all of a sudden? I thought people can chose to change the religion they are born into... Or will there be Spanish style "limpieza de sangre" certificates for being (or not being) Muslim in the future? Pizzameister (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd recommend you actually read the edits we're fighting over, they explain the whole thing well. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Important: I finally found the talk in question. It's just as bad as it seems, the person in question, Deepa Kumar, basically said Ex-Muslims are in an "alliance" with the other (apparently homogeneous) groups, the Christians and Zionists, against Muslims. She backtracked on this afterwards when confronted, by saying she was only referring to ex-Muslims who are "closely tied to the far right." Presumably the other groups are more diverse as well. I may actually add this to the page, considering how well it displays the regressive left. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, she seems to have fallen victim to the spotlight effect and polarized simplification/(over)generalization. Things I'd also associate with the use of the phrase "the regressive left". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but why not put the spotlight effect on everyone? A group like ISIS has executed far fewer people than, say, China. Furthermore, most ISIS members have never killed anyone, or even engaged in one of their poorly orchestrated firefights. We could go ahead and say that many members of white nationalist groups in the US South don't really hate other races, they just feel threatened economically or have a misguided sense of Southern nationalism; but the occasional racists make the all the publicity content. Etc. The arguments I'm hearing against the term "regressive left" - besides "bring more sources...ok, now bring "better" sources!" - really seem to be grasping at straws. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't strongly object to the underlying concept, but "(the) regressive left" as a term is just a vague buzzword and meaningless as a descriptor. Why not instead talk about xeno-accomodationism and legal/moral cultural segregation? The use of a definite article is also bothersome. How often is e.g. "the feminists" used in a neutral or positive context? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much every social or political term covers a diverse group of people more or less unfied by underlying themes. In this case, those themes are the "xeno-accomodationism and legal/moral segregation" you refer it. We could just as easily dismantle the term "conservative" and focus on supply side economics and nationalism instead. Once again, I'm not seeing anything solid in this objection. As for the phrase itself, personally, I just call them "regressives," but that causes offense to certain people so I try to be more formal. Lord Aeonian (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Regressive left, Social Justice Warriors, and problems here[edit]

To me, the article on regressive left shares the fundamental flaw of the article on social justice warriors; the article denies these people exist.

In every movement, there are people who are part of it because they believe in the ideals of the movement, and there are those who use the movement as a cover for their own agenda. Always. This is human nature, and often times the second group will convince themselves they are in the former.

Remember when we on the left fought tooth and nail against mandatory content warnings, because we damn well knew that "parental advisory" stickers were just a first step until only Approved Material would be widely available? And now we have people pushing for the same thing, called "trigger warnings". But this push is coming from our camp! What the hell?

We need to face reality. SJWs exist. Regressive lefts exist. Just because the right thinks that every person on the left "are the real racists" doesn't mean bigots don't exist within our camp. StickySock (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you look at this talk page and the edit history, you will find there are several editors who agree, and one zealot who refuses to. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, however I also agree with typhoon that Reddit comments are not a reputable source. Maybe actual examples rather than hypotheticals? Fir example, the people that defend Roman Polanski. StickySock (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with SS and Typhoon that reddit comments are not even remotely acceptable sources to treat as anything other than mockable. If you can't find sources that aren't you writing on reddit, perhaps the stuff you want to include isn't true? Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
We can remove the reddit links, but in that case I'll have to remove the 4chan and similar "sources" supporting your preferred explanation. I see you've also ignored the other sources, as Typhoon does, in order to maintain your fantasy where the regressive left is merely a right wing dream. SS had a good suggestion in adding more real examples instead of discussion, however, and I'll do that. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do. Every shit link to some guys blog or reddit or 4 chan is hot garbage. Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I have removed all the random guys blogs and reddit and facebook. If those paragraphs are supported by sources that aren't some guys blog, please reinsert them with those sources. Hipocrite (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Aeonian, we have two extremes being unreasonable here. RobledoHipocrite wants to include arguments in the article that call the preceding paragraph "arglebargle." That is inappropriate for article text. You, me, and others have worked out a good section, but the extremes of Typhoon, on the one hand, and Robledo on the other, are being grossly unreasonable.---Mona- (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Who the fuck is Robledo? Where is this alleged "work[ing] out," and how did it possibly include random social media commentary? Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I confused you, Hipocrite, with Robledo.---Mona- (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, if everyone wants the social media references out, I'm fine with that. Just not the undermining of the main text with talk-page arguments.---Mona- (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Just so I understand, Mona, when you wrote "I see no talk page agreement," was it because you hadn't looked at the talk page? Hipocrite (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll add back the blogs, the reason being they detail add extra discussion readers might be interested in. However, I agree with you that we shouldn't rely on them, and so I won't touch the page until I'll compiled some hard examples we can talk about, instead of linking to others who talk about it. I'll also take a look at the rest of the page with the same in mind, I know I can pull some good examples of "regressive left" being misused from Trump supporters and such. Hopefully this will end this debate once and for all. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Mona, Hypocrite seems to be reasonable, i.e. keep the text but provide direct sources instead of indirect discussions. I can get behind that. Typhoon's position is just "AEONIAN RECRUITED MONA FOR HIS CONSPIRACY." Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I've had numerous interactions with Hipocrite, and he is comepltely unreasonable. For example, when I first arrived last August, he informed me that no edits that displease anyone who does not think Israel is great can survive. He acts as if that is so to this day. He promiscuously calls me a "liar" and all kinds of names, and has tried (unsuccessfully) to have me disciplined more than once, for nothing. Frankly, I am past the point of granting him the status of good faith interlocutor. He's as bad as Typhoon; same pew, different church.---Mona- (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
"Never said that, you liar." Hipocrite (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hipocrite to me in an edit summary, for the first of two times, only today: "5 May 2016‎ Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (-38)‎ . . (SAME POLL TWICE MONA, YOU INVETERATE LIAR)" He's been harassing me since the day I arrived because of my views on the Israel issue. There is no reasoning with him, not when it comes to anyone on the opposite of that matter. He's like Typhoon on gender when it comes to Israel and/or Zionism.---Mona- (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, except, you know, you fucked it up and posted the same poll twice, you inveterate liar. Hipocrite (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I certainly respect your experiences, all I'm saying is that, from what I'm saying in just this talk page, he's making a reasonable request. Admittedly, I thought Typhoon was making a reasonable request as well in the beginning (add sources), but I know see that was merely a proxy for her zealotry. I can only hope this turns out better. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that someone mentioned Glenn Greenwald was a regressive for criticizing what Charlie Hebdo published, even though he was focusing more on the double standard that people are more willing to defend anti-Islamic cartoons over anti-Semetic ones. Does anyone have an explanation for this? If not, I'm going to point that out. AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Greenwald is not called a regressive, his piece at the the intercept is listed as an example of regressive behavior. In it, he says things like:
Some of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were not just offensive but bigoted...When I first began to see these demands to publish these anti-Muslim cartoons, the cynic in me thought perhaps this was really just about sanctioning some types of offensive speech against some religions and their adherents, while shielding more favored groups. In particular, the west has spent years bombing, invading and occupying Muslim countries and killing, torturing and lawlessly imprisoning innocent Muslims, and anti-Muslim speech has been a vital driver in sustaining support for those policies. So it’s the opposite of surprising to see large numbers of westerners celebrating anti-Muslim cartoons – not on free speech grounds but due to approval of the content. Defending free speech is always easy when you like the content of the ideas being targeted, or aren’t part of (or actively dislike) the group being maligned.
This sounds exactly like a regressive screed, conflating "Islam" with "Muslims," citing vague unspecified Western actions against "innocent Muslims" and so on. Greenwald's supposed point - that anti-Semitic cartoons would not be allowed in major publications whereas anti-Islamic cartoons are - is blatantly false. Charlie Hebdo was a fringe magazine and major media did not republish their cartoons as a sign of "solidarity." In fact, cartoons shown on major news stations actively censored images of Muhammad and such. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Before I dive into this, I should note that some did republish them to show solidarity while others didn't, many did reprint the cartoons in their entirety (for example the Daily Beast, Bloomberg, HuffPo, Gawker, Vox, The Free Beacon, while Slate and Politico called out other outlets who didn't want to publish the cartoons. Even if televised news did censor the cartoons, that's only a fraction of the media. Also, how are his points of Western Foreign policy wreaking havoc on innocent Muslims regressive? There are many examples of this (which I would be happy to cite). Furthermore, I should note that Greenwald's main point (which he reemphasized a year later) was that most people only cared about censorship when it happened to anti-Muslim content but really weren't there for anti-Semetic content (even demonstrations that clearly weren't anti-Semetic) and climate activists. The fact that people aren't willing to defend the free speech rights of freaking climate activists but rally for controversial content is pretty sad (and this is coming from a strong free speech lover). Lastly, I should note that just the day before the attacks, Greenwald explicitly cited examples of -while radical Islamic sentiments- were clear forms of free speech but no one came for bat for the people who were persecuted prosecuted. While Greenwald's comparison was clearly not PC, that really doesn't work to call him a Regressive. 50.205.17.237 (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Dammit, I just realized that I hadn't logged in when I posted that response. Sorry AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I took a look again and saw that that the Greenwald excerpt was removed. While I guess that makes any clarification moot, I do think that the passage might be a worthy think to add in the future AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)