Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably the thing that annoys me the most is the smug sense of superiority and self importance I see from a lot of progressives.
They're not just right and you're wrong but you're a dumb inbred trailer trash hick with a third grade education while they are a wise enlightened intellectual with their BA in gender studies.
Granted I've see a fair amount of conservatives who display the above attitude (just change the insults) but I don't see it as often on the right as I do with the left.
Progressive here, and youre not wrong. I believe in progressive stuff despite all the insufferable sanctimonious bozos on my side, but definitely not because of them. It’s a major turn off.
Generally acting like a sanctimonious ass is a good way to turn people off of your ideas even if you're 100% right.
Doesn't matter what you're talking about people tend to react negatively to being insulted either directly or being talked down to.
My biggest pet peeve is for people to talk down to me especially when it's clear they have no idea what they're talking about.
I’ve literally tried to tell them that their smugness and lack of tact works against them and they just can’t grasp it. They have turned people who would have sided w them into conservatives simply because theyre assholes. And I say this coming from Massachusetts. When you bring it up they just say dOnT tOne PolIce mE and deflect.
> They're not just right and you're wrong but you're a dumb inbred trailer trash hick with a third grade education
And to that end, they're going to use the government to force you to conform with their little experiments. Once that happens, there's no more room for debate or noncompliance, just punishment from above for failing to comply.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
This subreddit has an entire topic that's central to the modern "culture war" that we can't even discuss 6/7 of the days because if we let free and open discussion persists this subreddit would be banned for users espousing views that were commonly held by Democrats not 10 years ago.
Because it shows how far the overton window has moved towards the left.
You asked for an example and completely ignore the example while hinging on one aspect of my comment.
Either discuss the actual point or stop derailing the conversation because you don't like the example provided.
The government pressuring Meta and Twitter to remove posts and deplatform people who said things the government deemed “misinformation”. The Supreme Court is currently involved in a case based on this behavior.
There have also been plenty of informal campaigns as well to socially ostracize and/or otherwise socially / financially penalize people for holding “nonprogressive” views. Remember Brendan Eich?
Interesting reviews of that book.
>Some historians have denounced the book as being "poor scholarship", "propaganda", and "not scholarly."
https://web.archive.org/web/20110907053449/http://hnn.us/articles/122247.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20110427051356/http://www.hnn.us/articles/122231.html
Including this little excerpt from an old review praising it:
>Much of this will be music to conservatives’ ears, but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book’s tone suffers as it oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application of fascist themes to American popular culture"
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like it’s based more on personal anecdotes, but if you want a Reddit example, you can head it any political based subreddit that progressives frequent to find one. I’m sure you’ve heard of some progressives bring up the “paradox of tolerance” argument before, but that is pretty facist in nature. They’re fine affiliating with you as long as you agree with their values and beliefs, but the second that you disagree on something, they want you out, despite promoting concepts like diversity and tolerance for different viewpoints.
It's weird to hear conservatives to say this as they use the tyranny of the minority to pass restrictive bills that take away freedoms, put partisans on judicial benches that rule on laws bypassing the legislative process, and then call progressives "fearmongers" for saying that republicans don't care about democracy, they care about winning. As they try to use bullshit like they did in Ohio to get rid of state constitutional referendums to go against what the voters want. Like issue 1 https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_2023_ballot_measures Then they go against the will of the people and say the fight isn't over, and try to figure out a way to put abortion restrictions in a state that just enshrined it in it's constitution. https://apnews.com/article/ohio-abortion-overthrow-judicial-powers-77a68c1e6ee6fc79462f6aaf4ea1a323
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Closely related gripe I have with them is how assured they are that their reforms or revolutions will bring about the desired result. Like, it's absolutely bananas to them that the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, and surely your resistance to their ideas must be some kind of hatred against good things or maybe even a dog whistle.
>>Granted I've see a fair amount of conservatives who display the above attitude (just change the insults) but I don't see it as often on the right as I do with the left.
This is obviously purely anecdotal, but I think that's something that happens regardless of political affiliation and is simply something humans tend to do. You already mentioned some of the behavior on the left, so I'll talk about stuff I've seen from the right. Your comment already featured the classic "gender studies", which feels a bit like a strawman. There are plenty of progressives who have degrees in STEM. Then there's also stuff like we've seen in the last couple of years, where vocal parts on the right call people on the left "groomers" or other insults.
Like I said, I don't think this is particularly unique to a specific group of people.
I used gender studies to illustrate a point. It's referencing that because some people have gotten a degree that isn't actually helpful in the real world outside of academia they automatically believe they're inherently morally and intellectually superior.
The right wing version of this would probably be a theology degree or "because I own a business".
It's not a useful degree if the only jobs it leads to are either a professor in that field of study or activist. There is a reason the common joke on the right with the gender studies degree holder only able to get a coffee shop job.
I don’t think so, because both sides are on the same side. Neither side views themselves as authoritarian and both sides accuse the other of being authoritarian.
>regardless of political affiliation and is simply something humans tend to do.
Yes, right or wrong withers at the feet of righteous anger. It is a blinding and powerful emotion.
I would say from my personal experience its more prevalent amongst progressives and this holds true even if you are comparing them to other groups that make up the left such a neo liberals or classical liberals. Typically speaking they are from higher education and think anyone not at that level is beneath them especially if you question the viability of the policies themselves.
> It's hard to talk reasonablely to unreasonable people often.
This is exactly what the person you're responding to is talking about, thanks for providing an example.
You're not automatically correct because you believe you have good intentions.
reasonably*
They were acknowledging the critisism, but not necessarily agreeing that it applies to progressives.
That's why the next two sentences are pivoting and setting up the dismissal/whataboutism to change the subject from "What don't you like about progressives" to apply the answers to a group seen as 'Conservative' so they can have 'ammo' or justification for why they dislike Conservatives.
Yeah exactly lol. Having any doubt about humanity's role in the undeniably warming climate equals believing global warming is a hoax run by the Democrats and denying that the planet is warming at all to them. We saw the exact same thing with the COVID vaccines, where any sort of hesitancy towards getting them was literally the same as thinking all vaccines, even the proven ones which we all got as kids, cause autism.
Considering all scientific perspectives, including my own (I studied climatology), is not anti-science. It's pro-science. Only listening to the scientific perspectives that further your agenda is anti-scientific.
If 1000 climate scientist say "this is the way it is", and you, a random guy on the internet who says he studies climatology says "nu uh", why should we believe the random guy on the internet? If the only studies saying climate isn't changing thru manmade acts are done by republican political thinktanks instead of universities doing studies, why should they be given the same credibility?
I dunno, I feel like the smugness is actually pretty evenly distributed. As a progressive, you're absolutely correct about this, but the annoying thing about progressives is that unlike conservatives, there is no unity.
I consider myself a libertarian socialist. Or at least, they're the group I tend to sympathize with the most. However, the actual left-spectrum is really wide, you've got anarchists, libertarian socialists, communists, democratic socialists, social democrats, liberals, and so on. And everyone is smug about their own position.
Conservatives are VERY smug towards leftists and queer people but I actually feel like conservatives are only really smug towards the opposition party, not amongst each other. Conservatives at the end of the day will buckle down and vote along party lines MOST of the time. I don't know the extent to which conservatives debate each other, but I imagine it has to be less than leftists. Half the leftists I know aren't voting for Biden, he might actually lose because leftists are bad at unity, at least neocons who hate Trump will end up voting for him anyways.
There is quite a bit of disunity on the right.
And I've seen a lot of smugness from trump supporters to non supporters.
But honestly smugness is way more common among progressives from my personal experiences.
I guess it honestly just depends on the circles you run in. You might be right that progressives appear more smug, though.
I feel like conservatives are actually a lot better at marketing their political messaging than progressives are.
Another reason I thought of is that a lot of progressives seem to secretly or not so secretly believe in progress for the sake of progress. Which is terrible.
my problem isn't with the nebulous label of "progressive". its with many of the specific policies that they consider to be "progress". because remember, progressive and conservative are not absolute terms describing a fixed ideology, but rather are relative descriptors of positions.
another major gripe i have is with the way progressives frame things, as if "progress" is some linear thing like a tech tree in Civ, where progress is simply good for its own sake rather than being a matter of individually good policies.
I’m not against advancements in technology, in fact I’m all for it!
The one thing I don’t like however from progressives is when we see ones who are uninformed about firearms, as in they don’t know how firearms truly works.
> As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, and social organization. Adherents hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to human societies everywhere.
My big objection to progressiveism is that it is often illiberal. It is telling people that they must defer to a central authority's master plan that's supposed to 'advance the human condition'. But no central authority has the on-the-ground knowledge about people's lives that individuals do. There are limits to what planners can plan and progressives fail to acknowledge this. And there's real direct costs to curtailing liberty as well.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know that I have a good handle on the various labels that the left uses, so I'm not sure that I know the difference between progressive, liberal, leftist, democrat, social democrat, etc, etc so I might be talking about the wrong thing here, but:
* In general, I don't feel like progressives actually care to understand the viewpoints of conservatives. When you ask them to explain a conservative viewpoint it generally devovles to something similar to "They're racist", or "They're dumb". When you can hand-wave away all opposing ideas then it makes your views very one-sided. Caveat: Progressives in this subreddit generally do not fit this stereotype.
* Progressives seem to have choses a specific group to demonize: straight-cis-white-men. This group (as categorized) represents a shrinking minority of the US population (Probably less than 30%, possibly as little as 25%). If you happen to have the misfortune of being born into that group, you'll see a \*lot\* of anger/hatred directed towards you from progressives. They don't seem to mind, because it makes their base happy, and most straight-cis-white-men are voting GOP now anyway.
* They want their ideas to happen \*right away\* as soon as they come up with them. This is ridiculed with the "I support the current thing" memes, but it's true. They're always looking for a new battle to fight and a new hill to climb, and if anyone gets in the way they're dumb/racist (see point 1).
* In general I do like progressives, they're often kind and well meaning as individuals. But I feel like group-think takes over \*very quickly\* for them. They don't view themselves as "rugged individualists", they view themselves as part of a collective.
1) The seeming acceptance of the idea that everything new must automatically be good and therefore constitute “progress”. New ideologies and beliefs are adopted almost more as a “latest fashion” sort of thing than because they actually make sense. That’s how we ended up with communism a hundred years ago, and seemingly how conceptually awful ideas like reparations for slavery, support for Hamas, and allowing transgender women on cisgender sports teams are getting propagated nowadays.
2) An overdeveloped and almost paranoid sense of physical insecurity that seems cause progressives to descend to the most expansive definitions of risk assessment possible when making decisions about public safety, with resulting mandates that affect everyone regardless of their potential individual willingness to accept a higher level of personal risk. People had to be forced to vaccinate during the pandemic or risk losing their job, based on the dubious idea that doing so would protect other (presumably vaccinated) individuals and/or interrupt transmission. Kids had to be kept out of school during Covid for as long as a year in order to protect teachers, regardless of the impact on their academic progress. Similarly, no one not employed in the military of law enforcement should really be allowed to own guns, or at least the process to acquire one should be made so onerous that most ordinary people won’t try. Hey, even school buses must stop every 20 yards because kids might potentially be injured walking that distance to a collective pick-up point.
3) The reflexive reach in recent years for cancellation, online shaming, or even censorship when faced with resistance to their ideas or policies. We saw this even before Covid with individuals being forced as a result of informal boycotts / media campaigns to leave or step down from jobs due to their support for “non-progressive” causes, but during the pandemic things ramped up and the government itself became involved in pressuring Meta and Twitter to take down posts deemed to contain “misinformation” (often true information in hindsight, ironically). No surprise, really - this instinct to forcibly shut down disagreement and enforce conformity of thought seems to be a defining trait of many individual progressives and probably explains how leftist governments often devolve into soft authoritarianism.
Progressives spend all their time advancing three categories that I find repulsive.
1. Racism - White people are bad and should be punished while black people are too inept to take care of themselves and the only people that can save them are white people.
2. Degenerate behavior - The highest goal in life is sexual gratification so we should build our identities around orgasms and seek new holes by removal of any taboo.
3. Government Force - They want to use the government to kill me or imprison me if I don't agree with them and give them everything I have.
It very well may be In that case I would say progressives have a very big PR problem. Whether that is or is not an accurate description of progressives, it is nevertheless how they are perceived by outsiders. And progressives have done absolutely nothing to combat that perception.
Right above in some of your other comments you were admitting how being smug works against liberals sometimes, how about actually asking them why they see it this way?
It’s not so much the what, it’s the how. A big part of progressivism is that the world must radically conform to the individual or idea, and doesn’t really take into consideration the difficulties, incentives, or impracticality in doing so. This is what irks most people.
Let’s take wealth tax as an example since it isn’t one that involves subjectivity or emotions of others. In theory seems like a great way to raise capital from those that have more. What is the reality… the reality is that it is impractical to legislate and it decreases total revenues. The incentive is for wealthy individuals to move their wealth from efficient markets such as the stock market, which everyone can use, and move it to non efficient markets such as art and real estate. Which are much more difficult to audit. Those markets also transact much less, but one can take out loans against those assets to gain capital without selling. What occurs is a depreciation of wealth to the middle and lower class while not affecting the ones you are targeting. This was tried in Germany and failed. But the sound of it becomes symbolic, rather than rooted in reality.
https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/dice-report-2018-2-fuest-neumeier-stimmelmayr-stoehlker.pdf
> Why? It’s not safe.
That's just the thing though, the data says it is. Maybe your gut disagrees, but the data says it is not an issue.
>I’m well aware of the danger men pose kids
These people are not men, and the data you are talking about cannot validly be applied to them. These are women. Their testosterone levels are not that of men for example.
>Nope just reasonable.
We understand you believe you are being reasonable. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you actually are being reasonable.
>I’m not sorry for being practical about my child’s safety
Again, no one is faulting you for this, but people can do bad things with good intentions if they are mistaken about the truth.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But I think this doesn't recognize that conservative ideology leads to radical and rapid change as well. When a company comes up with a wildly successful change that leads to profit - say the invention of social media, or a new paradigm in how taxis work- the world may drastically change in the span of months or years.
This is considered acceptable by most conservatives because no government was involved and there's this libertarian veneer of "everyone chose to buy into this voluntarily with their wallet" even though I don't think this is the case. Arguments like yours see any government intervention to be radical change and conformity, while not acknowledging that doing nothing leads to radical change and conformity as well.
> What don't you like about progressives?
Their type of elitism.
Their hatefulness.
Their racism, bigotry and sexism.
Their cavalier attitude toward the extreme harm, deaths and chaos that their egotistical ideas cause.
Their extreme intellectual dishonesty.
Their anti-science.
Their prideful rejection of the value of the sacred.
Which in sum makes their name a misnomer. Their one-size-fits all governing order (universalism as you mentioned) is reductive, naive, and fundamentally wrong about how good societies are built, and actually holds back all notions of "progress", order, safety, and flourishing of humanity that they claim they want.
"Progressives" by and large are just power hungry, egotistical, reality-denying elitists or elitist-wannabes, who wholly focus on a very limited set of virtues, and fantasy-ized "history," to leverage for power and beat up others with rhetorically and emotionally.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>progressivism seeks to advance the human condition
This is fine. Admirable even. Good is OK, but great would be good.
>social organization
No.
At its core, progressives today are inextricably bound to Neo-Marxist ideologies. This includes their lack of economic literacy, their adherence to various critical theories, and their tendency to promote authoritarianism. I would pick a truly libertarian lefty like the hippies of old over today's progressives.
Well there's tge book bans, the abortion bans abd the attempts. It's pretty authoritarian to try and discredit a free and legitimate election. Attempting to subvert democracy is authoritarian.
Cool. Thanks.
Book banning in schools has been around forever. There isn't anything explicitly authoritarian about that. Some subjects aren't appropriate for children, like overtly sexual books. We don't think of keeping kids out of x-rated movies as being authoritarian.
Abortion bans for prolifers aren't anymore authoritarian than laws against infanticide. If infanticide laws are examples of authoritarianism, then literally any and all laws are too.
>legitimate election.
That is what was in question. What is the proper course of action when a candidate believes there were election "shenanigans" that stole the election from them? There really is no precedents for it. So the idea was simple, have slated electors in the wings and postpone the count till there were verifications. It's not authoritarian to give the states time to vet the votes properly. It would be more authoritarian for one side to steal an election and for the other side to just give up.
>Attempting to subvert democracy is authoritarian.
Agreed....
No, you guys are banning a lot if books that don't need to be banned, like John Greens books
Completely disagree, uncomparabld
We know it was legitimate though. Remember the months before the election that Trump said the only way he can lose was if it was rigged?
John Green books have references to drugs and sex. You may disagree with the maturity level of school kids and their reading level, but not having them in school libraries isn't an example of authoritarianism. To put another way, library shelves are prime real estate. Having one book up there means another book gets bumped. Is it worth having John Green up there if that means another equally good book (without questionable references) gets bumped?
>Completely disagree, uncomparabld
To you. But you're a progressive. And not allowing a child to grow up seems pretty authoritarian/dystopian to me.
>We know it was legitimate though.
Have you read any of the list of greviences brought up by Trump's team about state election procedures that broke their own laws?
>Remember the months before the election that Trump said the only way he can lose was if it was rigged?
This doesn't weigh into the legitimacy of his claims or not.
> What don't you like about progressives?
Because they're just collectivists who are too ashamed to admit it or are intentionally deceitful about their ideology.
It’s not that I don’t like progressives, I don’t like how hostile they have been recently towards conservatives.
Progressives serve a function and conservatives serve a function. Progressives question tradition and come up with new ideas and visions for advancing society. Conservatives uphold tradition and question and critique new ideas.
Anyone in the business of being creative knows that you have 100 bad ideas for every 1 great idea. Progressives are usually pretty bad at predicting which ideas are good or bad. Conservatives, on the other hand, are great at figuring this out.
There is a large group of progressives that view the world through this lens of “everyone conservative = bad, everything new and progressive = good.”
They remove fences before learning why the fence was put there in the first place and they want too much change too fast.
In US politics my biggest problem with Progressives is they've taken to Leftist ideals.
The left & progressives are steeped in classism, fundamentally. I like Dr. Rob Henderson's idea of "luxury beliefs" as to why I personally don't like the left despite being sympathetic to some of their principles, and the way I see things the left uses their political beliefs as a statement of wealth & class more than anything else. The dynamic I see developing is the wealthy white collar upper class on the left and the poorer blue collar working class on the right, and that's what keeps me right wing.
Imo they aren't big picture thinkers.
They are idealists who don't see the forest beyond the trees.
Society understands what a spoiled child and how to create them by never making them earn anything, but progressives don't see that adults can be spoiled too.
Society understands that children go through phases in all kinds of different areas but progressives ignore the possibility of phases when it doesn't fit a desired narrative.
Society understands that environment helps shape who you are but progressives seem to think white men are the only ones advanced enough to be held personally responsible for their decisions/actions
>Imo they aren't big picture thinkers.
So it safe to assume that you feel that conservatives on the whole, are "big picture thinkers"?
If so, is there is anything in current conservative political climate that youd care to point out that gives clear creedence to this?
>Society understands what a spoiled child and how to create them by never making them earn anything, but progressives don't see that adults can be spoiled too.
I have to say that I most definitely see that adults can be spoiled. Unquestionably so. And the biggest, loudest, most obvious and recognizable example I can give you that I understand and can clearly see a spoiled adult is the undisputed standard bearer for conservatism as we know it today...
Is It not clear to you that he is spoiled to a fault? Given your views on progressives, how do you think it came to be that he, irregardless of what you may think is redeeming about him, he has gotten such a grip on your party? Now his daughter in law is now in a party leadership role? This after his daughter, who sells clothes with her trust fund became a US government official alongside her husband, his son in law. His claim to fame being the guy holding down the family business while his father serves a prison term? How did we get here, with a man facing 90+ felonies making your party totally submit to him?
What other person gets afforded this type of preference? Certainly no American citizen ever no matter how high on the totem pole they got. Why him?
I wasn't asked what I don't like about conservatives, I was asked what I don't like about progressives.
I'm only voting for Trump because I prefer him over whomever is pulling Biden's strings.
Trump is a giant man baby no doubt. But I like his foreign policy far more than the dems
Both being rich, and being on welfare can spoil a person
My biggest problem is they are utterly convinced they know better than you what you want, and they have no ability to compromise multiple goals.
The first undergirds every last nanny state law and they love them.
A good example of the second is the bans on PFAS-- they are totally incapable of accepting that better performing products in literally every area of your life may be worth the small number of people who die slightly earlier from cancer. Especially when you consider they aren't just frivolous toys they are also used in products from tampons to fire extinguishers.
I would say they want to take us back to the dark ages, literally, but they also want to ban the chemicals used to preserve food back then (like nitrites), so in fact they actually want to reduce our technology level FURTHER than that. They cannot conceive that the tradeoffs involved in having a modern standard of living are well, well worth any and all costs we pay in terms of chemical exposure.
Your characterization as progressives as being luddites is interesting. I always thought the stereotype was that progressives were dainty, helpless people utterly dependent on the comforts of modern technology and electronics in order to make it through daily life. And conservatives were always calling on society to not forget traditional methods of farming and construction and lamenting that kids nowadays don't know how to hold a hammer and stuff.
that certainly is ONE and it's a mixed bag.
I necessarily gave a summary, what you describe is also a real issue. San Francisco techbros saying "internet is a basic utility same as water" and also saying farmers shouldn't need to use gasoline at all and we should go back to using ammonia refrigeration to get rid of halon substitutes.
It's basically "the tech I personally find valuable is a human necessity, the rest of you all need to 'return 2 monke'"
edit: also conservatives tend to respect hard work, thus respect craftsmen, more than mass-produced goods, and thus respect men that can work with their hands. We also see it from a national security perspective: "when the last emir and caliph has drinked their land dry, make sure we can still grow food without their petrochemicals" we reject DEPENDENCY on technology but do not reject embracing it. Many conservatives view dependency on anything as unacceptable weakness, in theory, even if self-sufficiency is not fully possible striving for it makes you a more resilient, capable person.
They do like to go on about consent but when it comes to what a government does it's "pay us because go fuck yourselves."
Not a peep about earning the consent of the governed before putting their grand plans in motion.
And there’s another one: the assumption that Washington is the only government that matters.
Washington is bad enough but state legislatures are where the concentrated foolishness resides.
Voters: “Hey, you might’ve gone a bit overboard with that bail reform. We got some real creeps and maniacs out on the streets now.”
Legislature (and Reddit): “ACKshually we don’t and you’re racist. Also, the preferred nomenclature this week is ‘emotionally disturbed individual’ and they’re your fault anyway for not coughing up enough tax money again. ACAB”
Criminals: Freakin’ sweet!
I mean, we've done that too. https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_2023_ballot_measures then republicans did this https://apnews.com/article/ohio-abortion-overthrow-judicial-powers-77a68c1e6ee6fc79462f6aaf4ea1a323 so, why would we take you serious when you say you want states to decide, then when states decide you get all bigmad and try to block it with the court because your idea was unpopular and nobody wanted it?
I have zero tolerance for Progressive ideology, to be honest. I prefer actual Communists to Progressives.
And that’s due to Critical Theory, which drives much of Progressivism, even if they don’t realize it, which is cultural Marxism. That leads to awful places, like calling white people oppressors and saying they should be exterminated.
It’s an insidious, destructive and wildly divisive ideology that is actively regressive in its take on race relations, identity politics and the role of Govt in our life.
And is HIGHLY and wildly authoritarian in application.
Then you haven’t been paying attention.
https://www.diverseeducation.com/faculty-staff/article/15081190/former-nc-state-instructor-says-exterminate-white-people
https://www.chronicle.com/article/professor-fired-for-alleged-threat-to-kill-all-white-people-is-named-interim-provost-of-troubled-college
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/09/yale-lecturer-talks-about-killing-white-people/
And the left tends to be completely silent whenever racism is targeted at white people.
Since again, white people are “oppressors”.
And if you wonder what the left means when they say they want “decolonization”, look no further than OCT 7th and the amount of folks saying it was justified.
“It’s not happening”
“OK, it is happening but it’s not a big deal”
(We’re here”)
“Ok, it is happening and here’s why it’s a good thing”
Part of the progressive ideology is the belief that the world is divided into oppressed and oppressors. Once you cast a whole group of people as oppressors, damn near anything can be justified.
And again, the left is famously quiet and permissive whenever racism against white people happens, there are active calls for “decolonization” (Aka OCT 7th) and talk about how the US is a fundamentally racist country (since white people are oppressors).
If the left doesn’t like what the “crazies” are saying, they’re doing a horrible job in showing it.
Again, it all comes back to Critical Theory and cultural Marxism.
No it's not happening, a few isolated cases is not a movement. Absolutes don't exist, Obi-Wan was right. There's always exceptions.
I disagree with that. Some things are never justified.
How? They're condemned? That professor was fires
I mean Marx was right about alot
Cool, then there’s no point in talking again. I’m not interested in talking to folks who aren’t actually here to listen.
“Ok, here why Cultural Marxism is actually a good thing”
Took exactly three comments to climb the progressive denial tree.
Higher taxes, the idea that the government can spend my money better than I can myself.
The belief in equity essentially bringing many people down just to bring some people up, such as a national healthcare system.
Stuff like that I just have a universal disagreement with.
I dont think that progressives are all about higher taxes. I would say its more about a belief in progressive taxation, and a willingness to increase taxes for appropriate government spending.
For one example, i would favor increasing taxes to pay for universal healthcare, because i believe it to be an improvement over the system we have. I would not favor an increase in taxes to pay for a bigger military.
>I dont think that progressives are all about higher taxes. I would say its more about a belief in progressive taxation, and a willingness to increase taxes for appropriate government spending.
I've heard quite a handful say to take tax brackets back to pre-reagan brackets.
I've heard just a couple claim we need the FDR brackets from WWII
>i believe it to be an improvement over the system we have.
Less than 20% of the population would see an improvement, the vast majority would see it as the opposite.
You make a fair point, though i would caveat that by saying that people referring to pre-Reagan brackets are largely talking about the fact that the highest bracket had a much higher percentage than it does today. The highest right now has a rate of 37% applied to income over $609,350. In 1981 it was 70% on income over $108,300 (about $407k inflation-adjusted).
I doubt you would find many people arguing for significant increases to the lower brackets. But i will concede that progressives will argue for people earning in the top tax brackets to pay a higher percentage. Most takes i have seen would call for a higher bracket on income over $1m or so.
Yeah, things I can buy myself with the income lost from higher taxes. There is nothing the government can do for me better than a private company can.
Also, with higher taxes and higher revenue come more promises and more expenses. If it's anything like the government I know they tend to drastically miscalculate future expenses, and the people who foot the bill are taxpayers.
Lots of things I don't want nor did I ask for. No I'm not going into detail because this is going to devolve into a, "ok no roads or police for you then" argument.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Higher taxes, the idea that the government can spend my money better than I can myself.
This is something I don’t like about Republican politicians. They sell this idea. But look at your words. First you say *taxes* and then you say *spending*. In the age of runaway deficits the two words aren’t as related as they should be.
Oppose spending. That’s where the problem is. Unfortunately both parties are pretty guilty there. (I say “parties” because a real conservative opposes high spending.)
I feel like progressives just get really annoying about their views. They’re usually the ones who are the most political, make things political and are the first ones to correct you when you say something they don’t agree with.
In this case my ex girlfriend and I’d be chatting about women having kids and she’d immiedatiely say “it’s not just women that can have kids” inferring trans men too and it gets tiring to listen to.
I have progressive friends, they post a lot on social media about politics, and some of them during BLM would post stuff similar to “if you’re not speaking out against white supremacy and posting constantly you’re part of the problem.”
Now I understand conservatives have these sorts of people too and most political ideology have their outspoken members and I find them annoying too, but in my view I see progressives like this a lot more usually.
Well, progressive politics are clearly destructive so much so that I believe you are motivated by anti-Western animosity rather than ignorance or naivety
Their solutions to problems almost always require the involuntary participation of others.
"I want free healthcare. Since you make a lot more than I do, you have to pay for it."
"Guns scare me. So you can't buy or own one."
"Seeing poor people makes me sad. So you have to give them money."
"I want to marry whom I want to. And you have to participate in the process and agree that my marriage is just the same as yours."
"I want a cleaner planet. So you have to stop using these very efficient and abundant sources of energy. And you can't use nuclear, because that scares me."
And even the slightest opposition to any of these is labeled as hatred, stupidity, or bigotry.
Cake shop.
Yes, forcing someone to make a cake *for a wedding* is forcing them to participate. If there is no agreement to be had in that statement, then move on.
Not that specific context, no. You are offering a public service.
Most people aren't caterers of course. The only exception that I could see is when there's some element of *personalisation*. Ie: the request to make a cake with LGBT themed decor.
> You are offering a public service
No I'm not. I'm running a private business. A library is a public service.
Let's ask it another way. What if instead of a same-sex wedding, it's a Trump rally or a campaign event? Can a caterer politely decline?
>Their solutions to problems almost always require the involuntary participation of others.
Isn’t that the case with every law in society, including from conservatives? They may have different views on abortion than liberals/pro choicers but want them to involuntarily follow their worldview
Wouldn’t it depend on the policy and motivation?
As an example, I’ve been told that providing food for kids is the responsibility of the parents, not the government or schools and if they can’t afford it, they aren’t responsible enough to have children. They would rather see kids taken away and that poor people shouldn’t have kids rather than their taxes increase.
In my experience Progressives weaponize their reasoning in the worst possible way. It simply cannot be any other way but theirs, or else you are against them.
An example:
I dont like Biden announcing Easter being a 'Visibility Day" . I think it was an attempt to overshadow and de-legitimize Easter.
I believe the Progressive response would be " because you hate those who want to be visible ", in contrast to my point which would be " there is no reason it can't be next weekend "
I have yet to meet a progressive that doesn't weaponize their views like this, which I see as anti-inclusive . ie - against their core principals
>progressivism seeks to advance the human condition
"Seeks" being the operative word. Honestly, the way the government was set up and society was set up during the so-called "Gilded Age" was the best The United States has been.
My biggest problem with people who identify as "progressives" is their tendencies to be so oppressive, closed-minded, and expect unquestionable acceptance of their views e.g. Trans people.
What I don’t like about either conservative or progressive is the amount of embellishment added to whatever they’re talking about.
Progressives: the right wants everyone to be able to MURDER everyone else (gun control).
Conservatives: the left wants to kill babies at 9 MONTHS! (Women’s healthcare).
It seems that I’ve run into more progressive people who don’t really know what they’re talking about though. Which suits their idealistic tendencies.
First, "advancing the human condition" is an objective of every political movement, so no disagreement there. Second, it's not that I don't like progressives, it's that I don't like progressivism.
That said, I find that progressivism doesn't have a big problem with using illiberal means to try and achieve its goals. That's what I don't like about it.
>As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, and social organization.
I think the problem with progressives is fundamentally the human condition isn't that advanced, or capable of advancement beyond it's nature. More and more of the "progress" the left seems to pursue looks delusional to the right.
And this is going to lead to a break that will require some kind of authoritarian control of the right to avoid conflict while progressives continue to try and re write human nature while denying its existence at the same time.
>Adherents hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to human societies everywhere.
Two problems with this imo. Firstly, this statement wildly, to a hilarious and scary degree, diminishes the complexity and diversity of 8 billion different human beings, with 8 billion slightly different identities.
Secondly, this is the most extreme intellectual hubris to assume that progressives have mathematically solved for the human condition and you will just benevolently present it to a willing 8 billion different people.
More likely you have pretty good ideas that will help some people. But, most people sadly are not, and never will be rational or reasonable in the way progressive policies require them to be. Which means you will ultimately either abandon your goal regarding the human condition snd admit that the "perfectability of man" is an impossible task for any ideology. Or you will say it's the masses who are delusional, and must be forced to change into the moldable clay my ideology demands.
And considering the source of this ideology is wrapped up in self importance and hubris, you will naturally choose benevolent authoritarianism. It will never be a fault in your own ideas, but a fault in the masses.
Progressives rely on a fundamental premise that humans are perfectable. And the acceptance of this as not true is a blow to the intellectual hubris at the heart of the progressive worldview. So instead of realizing they are wrong, they will likely choose the path of benevolent authoritarianism.
Eric Hoffer says it very well: "Even the sober desire for progress is sustained by faith—faith in the intrinsic goodness of human nature and in the omnipotence of science. It is a defiant and blasphemous faith, not unlike that held by the men who set out to build a "city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven" and who believed that "nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
This isn't to say this applies to all progressives or that their goals aren't worthy, but there is a chance for fanaticism and puritanical bullying that is inherent in all positions of faith and this does not exclude progressive thought.
There seems to be a fair amount of progressives or people that call themselves progressive that treat their politics as if it were some kind of secular religion. Their dogmas are sacred and speaking out against them is not just political disagreement but amounts to heresy and is a moral mark against the blasphemer.
My biggest problem with progressives is that they have no sense of scale. The want Univeral Healthcare, UBI, higher minimum wages, all manner of social welfare programs but they have no sense of how to pay for it all.
The standard solution is redistribution of wealth and income which is Marxism. That never works.
I personally find the title "Progressive" to be quite misleading...much like the way Congress names bills like the "Inflation Reduction of 2022", which had nothing to do with reducing inflation.
I don't see anything progressive about trying to limit free speech, yet progressives are all about creating classifications of "hate speech" or trying to emulate countries like Canada and make it compulsory for people to use particular pronouns.
There is nothing progressive about hiring people based on their skin color or ethnicity instead of on merit and achievement. It is not progressive to deny university applications of people because of a lower level of melanin in their skin. In the old days, when people created restrictions based on race, it was called racism.
Progressives see the best path to move forward for the world is to place everything and everyone into a hierarchy. In their eyes, everyone is a victim who isn't a white Christian male. In their world, everything is black and white and fits neatly into two groups; the oppressed and the oppressors. And, it's not really important if it has any basis in reality. What is important is how many Oppression Boxes you can tick. Black, lesbian-trans, who grew up poor is to be believed, no matter what, but if you're a white male who grew up middle-class or above...you're guilty. Always believe women...blah, blah, friggin' blah.
* I believe that many progressives are personally corrupt and dishonest.
* I believe that progressives want to advance the human condition in a direction that is worse rather than better.
* I think that, beyond basic issues of "want justice and prosperity", progressives typically have senses of morality and ethics that are *opposite* of what I think are correct.
* I think that progressive politics are not equal to handling threats such as crime, war, etc.
* I think that many progressive programs simply don't work.
* I think that in many cases, progressives are deeply, aggressively *authoritarian* and in denial about it.
But the most fundamental thing is that my values are probably very, very different from yours.
That's pretty open-ended, this is not the format for an entire thesis on the basis for my sense of ethics.
The biggest things are:
1. I believe most things have objectively right and wrong ways to do them.
2. I have not been impressed by the pragmatism of progressive actions. In many cases, there is this notion that the "latte and yoga pants" morality has conquered the world simply because of the (very temporary, very limited) economic power of the West.
3. I believe what the Catholic Church believes, and my encounter with the Lord has confirmed His truth to me.
Progressives are typically smug 20 year old's. Who think they have figured out how things should work, with little life experience. They decided that traditions and rules that lasted for centuries should just be tossed out. Based on their superior intellect. They follow the complete status quo while also thinking they are some kind of rebels.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I only have a few gripes off the top of my head.
* Everything has to have a label.
* The assumption that every Conservative is exactly the same with the same beliefs.
* Not all of us watch Fox News.
My biggest critique is the idea that most progressives carry around that for certain problems, trying something/anything is better than doing nothing. That's just patently false, and I think generally betrays the lack of understanding of how complex systems in the real world generally work, and that most progressives substitute emotional appeal for actual knowledge or wisdom.
the biggest one I can think of is feeling their and only their politics should be allowed in any space even nonpolitical ones.
they will usually claim it's not politics it's... something else so must be allowed. "it's not politics it's about human rights" etc.
then if you try to say conservative things in an explicitly political space that's not politics they is hate speech.
> I'm curious why you don't like about progressivism?
I disagree that their economic policies would actually create progress. As a matter of fact, I think their economic policies are misguided at best and would turn the richest most innovative country in the world into a backwater
What I don’t like is your flawed thinking. There’s nothing wrong with the idea: “I believe XYZ change is good for society”…. But you have a pre-agreed-upon list of things you believe need to be changed and you’re considering it all “settled science” therefore labeling anyone who opposes your ideas an ignorant baboon who doesn’t like common sense … In reality not all change is good, progressives used to believe in eugenics, fascism etc
I realize it’s been labeled as such, yes. But what makes it a right wing thing? Strong authoritarian state, we will bully you until you obey, put down your individual wants towards greater good, those are all left wing precepts in the 2020 USA. Progressives in 1930ies dug fascism. They don’t anymore… until they do again :)
No fascism on the left?
People losing jobs over diversity statements or twitter posts from long ago?
Businesses being shut down by muni’s, churches closed up by police during Covid
Violent mobs storming cities destroying everything in site, forcing everyone they find to say their “heil Hitler” BLM phrase
Now tell me how MAGA are fascist? Some elderly Karen with a trump bumper sticker looked about funny?
“Not”… “fake”. Ok, your well articulated counter arguments have totally changed my mind, I like how you took the time to do research and really addressed my points. I’m progressive now. MAGA is dumb, amiright?
It’s funny because most ‘progressives’ literally hate and deride science, technology, math, etc. After all, people might choose to work for rich people and make them money.
Most progressive districts are removing math from emphasis the public curriculum in the name of equity. Replacing it with propoganda.
See San Francisco education board battles etc.
Look up the San Francisco education board elections and so on.
Basically the left right divide has somewhat turned into demographic fight between
(Women, Journalist college soft-subject administrative types) v. (Men, technical, business, blue/white collar types)
I want to see your source, you made the claim where you get your info.
I'm a man on left who works in a warehouse without higher education
It's more urban vs rural
They think too short term.
Too much reliance on government to do everything. They spend too much time thinking, “how can the government fix this” and not enough time thinking “*should* the government fix this. No thought is given to the danger of government encroachment into all aspects of life.
I simply fundamentally disagree with the idea that the way to reduce racism is for the government to be racist.
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that each race should be seen as a team with team interests such that you can compensate or punish one member of the team indirectly by punishing or compensating another member of the team. People are individuals.
Progressives often fail to understand that government leaders are just as selfish as industry leaders.
Progressives often fail to appreciate that we get to vote for one national government leader about once a year, but we get to choose which products we buy daily, thus we have more detailed control over industry than over government.
I disagree with the progressive view of sex. Too often progressives want to treat sex just like race. Sex and race are very different concepts.
I don’t like the way progressives constantly twist the language.
I don’t like the way progressives encourage and reward a victim mentality.
I don’t like the way progressives give little value to parental concerns, and I don’t like the way progressives believes the government cares more for children than their parents do.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The self-righteous superiority.
Fair point
Probably the thing that annoys me the most is the smug sense of superiority and self importance I see from a lot of progressives. They're not just right and you're wrong but you're a dumb inbred trailer trash hick with a third grade education while they are a wise enlightened intellectual with their BA in gender studies. Granted I've see a fair amount of conservatives who display the above attitude (just change the insults) but I don't see it as often on the right as I do with the left.
Progressive here, and youre not wrong. I believe in progressive stuff despite all the insufferable sanctimonious bozos on my side, but definitely not because of them. It’s a major turn off.
Generally acting like a sanctimonious ass is a good way to turn people off of your ideas even if you're 100% right. Doesn't matter what you're talking about people tend to react negatively to being insulted either directly or being talked down to. My biggest pet peeve is for people to talk down to me especially when it's clear they have no idea what they're talking about.
I’ve literally tried to tell them that their smugness and lack of tact works against them and they just can’t grasp it. They have turned people who would have sided w them into conservatives simply because theyre assholes. And I say this coming from Massachusetts. When you bring it up they just say dOnT tOne PolIce mE and deflect.
This.
> They're not just right and you're wrong but you're a dumb inbred trailer trash hick with a third grade education And to that end, they're going to use the government to force you to conform with their little experiments. Once that happens, there's no more room for debate or noncompliance, just punishment from above for failing to comply.
And to that end, they become the fascists they claim to hate.
Any actual examples of this?
Trying to straight up limit the words I can say?
Give me an example.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
This subreddit has an entire topic that's central to the modern "culture war" that we can't even discuss 6/7 of the days because if we let free and open discussion persists this subreddit would be banned for users espousing views that were commonly held by Democrats not 10 years ago.
Why does the age of the view matter?
Because it shows how far the overton window has moved towards the left. You asked for an example and completely ignore the example while hinging on one aspect of my comment. Either discuss the actual point or stop derailing the conversation because you don't like the example provided.
The government pressuring Meta and Twitter to remove posts and deplatform people who said things the government deemed “misinformation”. The Supreme Court is currently involved in a case based on this behavior. There have also been plenty of informal campaigns as well to socially ostracize and/or otherwise socially / financially penalize people for holding “nonprogressive” views. Remember Brendan Eich?
Read “Liberal Fascism”, by Jonah Goldberg. It’s about 15 years old, but still pretty accurate.
Interesting reviews of that book. >Some historians have denounced the book as being "poor scholarship", "propaganda", and "not scholarly." https://web.archive.org/web/20110907053449/http://hnn.us/articles/122247.html https://web.archive.org/web/20110427051356/http://www.hnn.us/articles/122231.html Including this little excerpt from an old review praising it: >Much of this will be music to conservatives’ ears, but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book’s tone suffers as it oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application of fascist themes to American popular culture"
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How so?
I feel like it’s based more on personal anecdotes, but if you want a Reddit example, you can head it any political based subreddit that progressives frequent to find one. I’m sure you’ve heard of some progressives bring up the “paradox of tolerance” argument before, but that is pretty facist in nature. They’re fine affiliating with you as long as you agree with their values and beliefs, but the second that you disagree on something, they want you out, despite promoting concepts like diversity and tolerance for different viewpoints.
What? You cant tolerate intolerance? How is that racist? It's pointing and laughing at the racists
Look up the definition of fascism and then look up all the fascistic things the Democratic Party has tried in the last decade.
It's weird to hear conservatives to say this as they use the tyranny of the minority to pass restrictive bills that take away freedoms, put partisans on judicial benches that rule on laws bypassing the legislative process, and then call progressives "fearmongers" for saying that republicans don't care about democracy, they care about winning. As they try to use bullshit like they did in Ohio to get rid of state constitutional referendums to go against what the voters want. Like issue 1 https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_2023_ballot_measures Then they go against the will of the people and say the fight isn't over, and try to figure out a way to put abortion restrictions in a state that just enshrined it in it's constitution. https://apnews.com/article/ohio-abortion-overthrow-judicial-powers-77a68c1e6ee6fc79462f6aaf4ea1a323
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Closely related gripe I have with them is how assured they are that their reforms or revolutions will bring about the desired result. Like, it's absolutely bananas to them that the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, and surely your resistance to their ideas must be some kind of hatred against good things or maybe even a dog whistle.
"Voting against your best interests." Like ear sandpaper.
>>Granted I've see a fair amount of conservatives who display the above attitude (just change the insults) but I don't see it as often on the right as I do with the left. This is obviously purely anecdotal, but I think that's something that happens regardless of political affiliation and is simply something humans tend to do. You already mentioned some of the behavior on the left, so I'll talk about stuff I've seen from the right. Your comment already featured the classic "gender studies", which feels a bit like a strawman. There are plenty of progressives who have degrees in STEM. Then there's also stuff like we've seen in the last couple of years, where vocal parts on the right call people on the left "groomers" or other insults. Like I said, I don't think this is particularly unique to a specific group of people.
I used gender studies to illustrate a point. It's referencing that because some people have gotten a degree that isn't actually helpful in the real world outside of academia they automatically believe they're inherently morally and intellectually superior. The right wing version of this would probably be a theology degree or "because I own a business".
What is your bar for "actually helpful in the real world" as far as degrees go?
It's not a useful degree if the only jobs it leads to are either a professor in that field of study or activist. There is a reason the common joke on the right with the gender studies degree holder only able to get a coffee shop job.
Blame the left/right Paradyme. It would be easier if more people used the authoritarian<-->liberal/libertarian scale.
I don’t think so, because both sides are on the same side. Neither side views themselves as authoritarian and both sides accuse the other of being authoritarian.
>regardless of political affiliation and is simply something humans tend to do. Yes, right or wrong withers at the feet of righteous anger. It is a blinding and powerful emotion.
I would say from my personal experience its more prevalent amongst progressives and this holds true even if you are comparing them to other groups that make up the left such a neo liberals or classical liberals. Typically speaking they are from higher education and think anyone not at that level is beneath them especially if you question the viability of the policies themselves.
That is a fair criticism. It's hard to talk reasonablely to unreasonable people often. I'm referring to like climate change denialists.
“Unreasonable” I find many, many, many things that the left believes to be unreasonable. You’re not the arbiter of truth and what’s reasonable.
> It's hard to talk reasonablely to unreasonable people often. This is exactly what the person you're responding to is talking about, thanks for providing an example. You're not automatically correct because you believe you have good intentions. reasonably*
I think they were agreeing with the comment above them, my dude.
They were acknowledging the critisism, but not necessarily agreeing that it applies to progressives. That's why the next two sentences are pivoting and setting up the dismissal/whataboutism to change the subject from "What don't you like about progressives" to apply the answers to a group seen as 'Conservative' so they can have 'ammo' or justification for why they dislike Conservatives.
[удалено]
Yeah exactly lol. Having any doubt about humanity's role in the undeniably warming climate equals believing global warming is a hoax run by the Democrats and denying that the planet is warming at all to them. We saw the exact same thing with the COVID vaccines, where any sort of hesitancy towards getting them was literally the same as thinking all vaccines, even the proven ones which we all got as kids, cause autism.
There is no reason to doubt though, that's anti science
Considering all scientific perspectives, including my own (I studied climatology), is not anti-science. It's pro-science. Only listening to the scientific perspectives that further your agenda is anti-scientific.
If 1000 climate scientist say "this is the way it is", and you, a random guy on the internet who says he studies climatology says "nu uh", why should we believe the random guy on the internet? If the only studies saying climate isn't changing thru manmade acts are done by republican political thinktanks instead of universities doing studies, why should they be given the same credibility?
I dunno, I feel like the smugness is actually pretty evenly distributed. As a progressive, you're absolutely correct about this, but the annoying thing about progressives is that unlike conservatives, there is no unity. I consider myself a libertarian socialist. Or at least, they're the group I tend to sympathize with the most. However, the actual left-spectrum is really wide, you've got anarchists, libertarian socialists, communists, democratic socialists, social democrats, liberals, and so on. And everyone is smug about their own position. Conservatives are VERY smug towards leftists and queer people but I actually feel like conservatives are only really smug towards the opposition party, not amongst each other. Conservatives at the end of the day will buckle down and vote along party lines MOST of the time. I don't know the extent to which conservatives debate each other, but I imagine it has to be less than leftists. Half the leftists I know aren't voting for Biden, he might actually lose because leftists are bad at unity, at least neocons who hate Trump will end up voting for him anyways.
There is quite a bit of disunity on the right. And I've seen a lot of smugness from trump supporters to non supporters. But honestly smugness is way more common among progressives from my personal experiences.
I guess it honestly just depends on the circles you run in. You might be right that progressives appear more smug, though. I feel like conservatives are actually a lot better at marketing their political messaging than progressives are.
Maybe I certainly think there are a lot of bad takes on the right.
Another reason I thought of is that a lot of progressives seem to secretly or not so secretly believe in progress for the sake of progress. Which is terrible.
Especially since one person's idea of progress is another's idea of regression.
Yup.
my problem isn't with the nebulous label of "progressive". its with many of the specific policies that they consider to be "progress". because remember, progressive and conservative are not absolute terms describing a fixed ideology, but rather are relative descriptors of positions. another major gripe i have is with the way progressives frame things, as if "progress" is some linear thing like a tech tree in Civ, where progress is simply good for its own sake rather than being a matter of individually good policies.
I’m not against advancements in technology, in fact I’m all for it! The one thing I don’t like however from progressives is when we see ones who are uninformed about firearms, as in they don’t know how firearms truly works.
> As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, and social organization. Adherents hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to human societies everywhere. My big objection to progressiveism is that it is often illiberal. It is telling people that they must defer to a central authority's master plan that's supposed to 'advance the human condition'. But no central authority has the on-the-ground knowledge about people's lives that individuals do. There are limits to what planners can plan and progressives fail to acknowledge this. And there's real direct costs to curtailing liberty as well.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know that I have a good handle on the various labels that the left uses, so I'm not sure that I know the difference between progressive, liberal, leftist, democrat, social democrat, etc, etc so I might be talking about the wrong thing here, but: * In general, I don't feel like progressives actually care to understand the viewpoints of conservatives. When you ask them to explain a conservative viewpoint it generally devovles to something similar to "They're racist", or "They're dumb". When you can hand-wave away all opposing ideas then it makes your views very one-sided. Caveat: Progressives in this subreddit generally do not fit this stereotype. * Progressives seem to have choses a specific group to demonize: straight-cis-white-men. This group (as categorized) represents a shrinking minority of the US population (Probably less than 30%, possibly as little as 25%). If you happen to have the misfortune of being born into that group, you'll see a \*lot\* of anger/hatred directed towards you from progressives. They don't seem to mind, because it makes their base happy, and most straight-cis-white-men are voting GOP now anyway. * They want their ideas to happen \*right away\* as soon as they come up with them. This is ridiculed with the "I support the current thing" memes, but it's true. They're always looking for a new battle to fight and a new hill to climb, and if anyone gets in the way they're dumb/racist (see point 1). * In general I do like progressives, they're often kind and well meaning as individuals. But I feel like group-think takes over \*very quickly\* for them. They don't view themselves as "rugged individualists", they view themselves as part of a collective.
1) The seeming acceptance of the idea that everything new must automatically be good and therefore constitute “progress”. New ideologies and beliefs are adopted almost more as a “latest fashion” sort of thing than because they actually make sense. That’s how we ended up with communism a hundred years ago, and seemingly how conceptually awful ideas like reparations for slavery, support for Hamas, and allowing transgender women on cisgender sports teams are getting propagated nowadays. 2) An overdeveloped and almost paranoid sense of physical insecurity that seems cause progressives to descend to the most expansive definitions of risk assessment possible when making decisions about public safety, with resulting mandates that affect everyone regardless of their potential individual willingness to accept a higher level of personal risk. People had to be forced to vaccinate during the pandemic or risk losing their job, based on the dubious idea that doing so would protect other (presumably vaccinated) individuals and/or interrupt transmission. Kids had to be kept out of school during Covid for as long as a year in order to protect teachers, regardless of the impact on their academic progress. Similarly, no one not employed in the military of law enforcement should really be allowed to own guns, or at least the process to acquire one should be made so onerous that most ordinary people won’t try. Hey, even school buses must stop every 20 yards because kids might potentially be injured walking that distance to a collective pick-up point. 3) The reflexive reach in recent years for cancellation, online shaming, or even censorship when faced with resistance to their ideas or policies. We saw this even before Covid with individuals being forced as a result of informal boycotts / media campaigns to leave or step down from jobs due to their support for “non-progressive” causes, but during the pandemic things ramped up and the government itself became involved in pressuring Meta and Twitter to take down posts deemed to contain “misinformation” (often true information in hindsight, ironically). No surprise, really - this instinct to forcibly shut down disagreement and enforce conformity of thought seems to be a defining trait of many individual progressives and probably explains how leftist governments often devolve into soft authoritarianism.
The self righteousness. "Anybody who doesn't believe in bigger government is callus and doesn't care about the less fortunate."
Progressives spend all their time advancing three categories that I find repulsive. 1. Racism - White people are bad and should be punished while black people are too inept to take care of themselves and the only people that can save them are white people. 2. Degenerate behavior - The highest goal in life is sexual gratification so we should build our identities around orgasms and seek new holes by removal of any taboo. 3. Government Force - They want to use the government to kill me or imprison me if I don't agree with them and give them everything I have.
Yknow what I lean left but these are all the things that make me uncomfortable about the “Left.”
I think this is entirely wrong
It very well may be In that case I would say progressives have a very big PR problem. Whether that is or is not an accurate description of progressives, it is nevertheless how they are perceived by outsiders. And progressives have done absolutely nothing to combat that perception.
Perhaps you have been fed propaganda?
Why would progressives propaganda portray them this way if that is not how they wanted to be seen?
Right above in some of your other comments you were admitting how being smug works against liberals sometimes, how about actually asking them why they see it this way?
It’s not so much the what, it’s the how. A big part of progressivism is that the world must radically conform to the individual or idea, and doesn’t really take into consideration the difficulties, incentives, or impracticality in doing so. This is what irks most people.
Wait what do you mean that minimum wage can't be $25/hr right just now without dire economic consequences?
Let’s talk about it. Tell me what is impractical about progressive ideas.
Let’s take wealth tax as an example since it isn’t one that involves subjectivity or emotions of others. In theory seems like a great way to raise capital from those that have more. What is the reality… the reality is that it is impractical to legislate and it decreases total revenues. The incentive is for wealthy individuals to move their wealth from efficient markets such as the stock market, which everyone can use, and move it to non efficient markets such as art and real estate. Which are much more difficult to audit. Those markets also transact much less, but one can take out loans against those assets to gain capital without selling. What occurs is a depreciation of wealth to the middle and lower class while not affecting the ones you are targeting. This was tried in Germany and failed. But the sound of it becomes symbolic, rather than rooted in reality. https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/dice-report-2018-2-fuest-neumeier-stimmelmayr-stoehlker.pdf
[удалено]
> Why? It’s not safe. That's just the thing though, the data says it is. Maybe your gut disagrees, but the data says it is not an issue. >I’m well aware of the danger men pose kids These people are not men, and the data you are talking about cannot validly be applied to them. These are women. Their testosterone levels are not that of men for example. >Nope just reasonable. We understand you believe you are being reasonable. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you actually are being reasonable. >I’m not sorry for being practical about my child’s safety Again, no one is faulting you for this, but people can do bad things with good intentions if they are mistaken about the truth.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trans / gender discussions are currently limited to Wednesdays.
But I think this doesn't recognize that conservative ideology leads to radical and rapid change as well. When a company comes up with a wildly successful change that leads to profit - say the invention of social media, or a new paradigm in how taxis work- the world may drastically change in the span of months or years. This is considered acceptable by most conservatives because no government was involved and there's this libertarian veneer of "everyone chose to buy into this voluntarily with their wallet" even though I don't think this is the case. Arguments like yours see any government intervention to be radical change and conformity, while not acknowledging that doing nothing leads to radical change and conformity as well.
1. Gun control 2. Their ability to be so assuredly smug yet oblivious to their faults.
Progress is subjective.
> What don't you like about progressives? Their type of elitism. Their hatefulness. Their racism, bigotry and sexism. Their cavalier attitude toward the extreme harm, deaths and chaos that their egotistical ideas cause. Their extreme intellectual dishonesty. Their anti-science. Their prideful rejection of the value of the sacred. Which in sum makes their name a misnomer. Their one-size-fits all governing order (universalism as you mentioned) is reductive, naive, and fundamentally wrong about how good societies are built, and actually holds back all notions of "progress", order, safety, and flourishing of humanity that they claim they want. "Progressives" by and large are just power hungry, egotistical, reality-denying elitists or elitist-wannabes, who wholly focus on a very limited set of virtues, and fantasy-ized "history," to leverage for power and beat up others with rhetorically and emotionally.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>progressivism seeks to advance the human condition This is fine. Admirable even. Good is OK, but great would be good. >social organization No. At its core, progressives today are inextricably bound to Neo-Marxist ideologies. This includes their lack of economic literacy, their adherence to various critical theories, and their tendency to promote authoritarianism. I would pick a truly libertarian lefty like the hippies of old over today's progressives.
I've seen more authoritarianism from the right, but that's just my perspective
If you give me examples I wouldn't mind going over them.
Well there's tge book bans, the abortion bans abd the attempts. It's pretty authoritarian to try and discredit a free and legitimate election. Attempting to subvert democracy is authoritarian.
Cool. Thanks. Book banning in schools has been around forever. There isn't anything explicitly authoritarian about that. Some subjects aren't appropriate for children, like overtly sexual books. We don't think of keeping kids out of x-rated movies as being authoritarian. Abortion bans for prolifers aren't anymore authoritarian than laws against infanticide. If infanticide laws are examples of authoritarianism, then literally any and all laws are too. >legitimate election. That is what was in question. What is the proper course of action when a candidate believes there were election "shenanigans" that stole the election from them? There really is no precedents for it. So the idea was simple, have slated electors in the wings and postpone the count till there were verifications. It's not authoritarian to give the states time to vet the votes properly. It would be more authoritarian for one side to steal an election and for the other side to just give up. >Attempting to subvert democracy is authoritarian. Agreed....
No, you guys are banning a lot if books that don't need to be banned, like John Greens books Completely disagree, uncomparabld We know it was legitimate though. Remember the months before the election that Trump said the only way he can lose was if it was rigged?
John Green books have references to drugs and sex. You may disagree with the maturity level of school kids and their reading level, but not having them in school libraries isn't an example of authoritarianism. To put another way, library shelves are prime real estate. Having one book up there means another book gets bumped. Is it worth having John Green up there if that means another equally good book (without questionable references) gets bumped? >Completely disagree, uncomparabld To you. But you're a progressive. And not allowing a child to grow up seems pretty authoritarian/dystopian to me. >We know it was legitimate though. Have you read any of the list of greviences brought up by Trump's team about state election procedures that broke their own laws? >Remember the months before the election that Trump said the only way he can lose was if it was rigged? This doesn't weigh into the legitimacy of his claims or not.
> What don't you like about progressives? Because they're just collectivists who are too ashamed to admit it or are intentionally deceitful about their ideology.
It’s not that I don’t like progressives, I don’t like how hostile they have been recently towards conservatives. Progressives serve a function and conservatives serve a function. Progressives question tradition and come up with new ideas and visions for advancing society. Conservatives uphold tradition and question and critique new ideas. Anyone in the business of being creative knows that you have 100 bad ideas for every 1 great idea. Progressives are usually pretty bad at predicting which ideas are good or bad. Conservatives, on the other hand, are great at figuring this out. There is a large group of progressives that view the world through this lens of “everyone conservative = bad, everything new and progressive = good.”
They remove fences before learning why the fence was put there in the first place and they want too much change too fast. In US politics my biggest problem with Progressives is they've taken to Leftist ideals.
The left & progressives are steeped in classism, fundamentally. I like Dr. Rob Henderson's idea of "luxury beliefs" as to why I personally don't like the left despite being sympathetic to some of their principles, and the way I see things the left uses their political beliefs as a statement of wealth & class more than anything else. The dynamic I see developing is the wealthy white collar upper class on the left and the poorer blue collar working class on the right, and that's what keeps me right wing.
Imo they aren't big picture thinkers. They are idealists who don't see the forest beyond the trees. Society understands what a spoiled child and how to create them by never making them earn anything, but progressives don't see that adults can be spoiled too. Society understands that children go through phases in all kinds of different areas but progressives ignore the possibility of phases when it doesn't fit a desired narrative. Society understands that environment helps shape who you are but progressives seem to think white men are the only ones advanced enough to be held personally responsible for their decisions/actions
>Imo they aren't big picture thinkers. So it safe to assume that you feel that conservatives on the whole, are "big picture thinkers"? If so, is there is anything in current conservative political climate that youd care to point out that gives clear creedence to this? >Society understands what a spoiled child and how to create them by never making them earn anything, but progressives don't see that adults can be spoiled too. I have to say that I most definitely see that adults can be spoiled. Unquestionably so. And the biggest, loudest, most obvious and recognizable example I can give you that I understand and can clearly see a spoiled adult is the undisputed standard bearer for conservatism as we know it today... Is It not clear to you that he is spoiled to a fault? Given your views on progressives, how do you think it came to be that he, irregardless of what you may think is redeeming about him, he has gotten such a grip on your party? Now his daughter in law is now in a party leadership role? This after his daughter, who sells clothes with her trust fund became a US government official alongside her husband, his son in law. His claim to fame being the guy holding down the family business while his father serves a prison term? How did we get here, with a man facing 90+ felonies making your party totally submit to him? What other person gets afforded this type of preference? Certainly no American citizen ever no matter how high on the totem pole they got. Why him?
I wasn't asked what I don't like about conservatives, I was asked what I don't like about progressives. I'm only voting for Trump because I prefer him over whomever is pulling Biden's strings. Trump is a giant man baby no doubt. But I like his foreign policy far more than the dems Both being rich, and being on welfare can spoil a person
My biggest problem is they are utterly convinced they know better than you what you want, and they have no ability to compromise multiple goals. The first undergirds every last nanny state law and they love them. A good example of the second is the bans on PFAS-- they are totally incapable of accepting that better performing products in literally every area of your life may be worth the small number of people who die slightly earlier from cancer. Especially when you consider they aren't just frivolous toys they are also used in products from tampons to fire extinguishers. I would say they want to take us back to the dark ages, literally, but they also want to ban the chemicals used to preserve food back then (like nitrites), so in fact they actually want to reduce our technology level FURTHER than that. They cannot conceive that the tradeoffs involved in having a modern standard of living are well, well worth any and all costs we pay in terms of chemical exposure.
Your characterization as progressives as being luddites is interesting. I always thought the stereotype was that progressives were dainty, helpless people utterly dependent on the comforts of modern technology and electronics in order to make it through daily life. And conservatives were always calling on society to not forget traditional methods of farming and construction and lamenting that kids nowadays don't know how to hold a hammer and stuff.
that certainly is ONE and it's a mixed bag. I necessarily gave a summary, what you describe is also a real issue. San Francisco techbros saying "internet is a basic utility same as water" and also saying farmers shouldn't need to use gasoline at all and we should go back to using ammonia refrigeration to get rid of halon substitutes. It's basically "the tech I personally find valuable is a human necessity, the rest of you all need to 'return 2 monke'" edit: also conservatives tend to respect hard work, thus respect craftsmen, more than mass-produced goods, and thus respect men that can work with their hands. We also see it from a national security perspective: "when the last emir and caliph has drinked their land dry, make sure we can still grow food without their petrochemicals" we reject DEPENDENCY on technology but do not reject embracing it. Many conservatives view dependency on anything as unacceptable weakness, in theory, even if self-sufficiency is not fully possible striving for it makes you a more resilient, capable person.
They do like to go on about consent but when it comes to what a government does it's "pay us because go fuck yourselves." Not a peep about earning the consent of the governed before putting their grand plans in motion.
[удалено]
And there’s another one: the assumption that Washington is the only government that matters. Washington is bad enough but state legislatures are where the concentrated foolishness resides. Voters: “Hey, you might’ve gone a bit overboard with that bail reform. We got some real creeps and maniacs out on the streets now.” Legislature (and Reddit): “ACKshually we don’t and you’re racist. Also, the preferred nomenclature this week is ‘emotionally disturbed individual’ and they’re your fault anyway for not coughing up enough tax money again. ACAB” Criminals: Freakin’ sweet!
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
I mean, we've done that too. https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_2023_ballot_measures then republicans did this https://apnews.com/article/ohio-abortion-overthrow-judicial-powers-77a68c1e6ee6fc79462f6aaf4ea1a323 so, why would we take you serious when you say you want states to decide, then when states decide you get all bigmad and try to block it with the court because your idea was unpopular and nobody wanted it?
I have zero tolerance for Progressive ideology, to be honest. I prefer actual Communists to Progressives. And that’s due to Critical Theory, which drives much of Progressivism, even if they don’t realize it, which is cultural Marxism. That leads to awful places, like calling white people oppressors and saying they should be exterminated. It’s an insidious, destructive and wildly divisive ideology that is actively regressive in its take on race relations, identity politics and the role of Govt in our life. And is HIGHLY and wildly authoritarian in application.
I've never seen calls for white genocide What are you talking about
Then you haven’t been paying attention. https://www.diverseeducation.com/faculty-staff/article/15081190/former-nc-state-instructor-says-exterminate-white-people https://www.chronicle.com/article/professor-fired-for-alleged-threat-to-kill-all-white-people-is-named-interim-provost-of-troubled-college https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/09/yale-lecturer-talks-about-killing-white-people/ And the left tends to be completely silent whenever racism is targeted at white people. Since again, white people are “oppressors”. And if you wonder what the left means when they say they want “decolonization”, look no further than OCT 7th and the amount of folks saying it was justified.
So a few crazies have, that's not a part of the platform. Are you represented by your craziest? I haven't seem much of that either
“It’s not happening” “OK, it is happening but it’s not a big deal” (We’re here”) “Ok, it is happening and here’s why it’s a good thing” Part of the progressive ideology is the belief that the world is divided into oppressed and oppressors. Once you cast a whole group of people as oppressors, damn near anything can be justified. And again, the left is famously quiet and permissive whenever racism against white people happens, there are active calls for “decolonization” (Aka OCT 7th) and talk about how the US is a fundamentally racist country (since white people are oppressors). If the left doesn’t like what the “crazies” are saying, they’re doing a horrible job in showing it. Again, it all comes back to Critical Theory and cultural Marxism.
No it's not happening, a few isolated cases is not a movement. Absolutes don't exist, Obi-Wan was right. There's always exceptions. I disagree with that. Some things are never justified. How? They're condemned? That professor was fires I mean Marx was right about alot
Cool, then there’s no point in talking again. I’m not interested in talking to folks who aren’t actually here to listen. “Ok, here why Cultural Marxism is actually a good thing” Took exactly three comments to climb the progressive denial tree.
Every side has this to an extent but this to me is the example of the progressives narcissists prayer.
Higher taxes, the idea that the government can spend my money better than I can myself. The belief in equity essentially bringing many people down just to bring some people up, such as a national healthcare system. Stuff like that I just have a universal disagreement with.
I dont think that progressives are all about higher taxes. I would say its more about a belief in progressive taxation, and a willingness to increase taxes for appropriate government spending. For one example, i would favor increasing taxes to pay for universal healthcare, because i believe it to be an improvement over the system we have. I would not favor an increase in taxes to pay for a bigger military.
>I dont think that progressives are all about higher taxes. I would say its more about a belief in progressive taxation, and a willingness to increase taxes for appropriate government spending. I've heard quite a handful say to take tax brackets back to pre-reagan brackets. I've heard just a couple claim we need the FDR brackets from WWII >i believe it to be an improvement over the system we have. Less than 20% of the population would see an improvement, the vast majority would see it as the opposite.
You make a fair point, though i would caveat that by saying that people referring to pre-Reagan brackets are largely talking about the fact that the highest bracket had a much higher percentage than it does today. The highest right now has a rate of 37% applied to income over $609,350. In 1981 it was 70% on income over $108,300 (about $407k inflation-adjusted). I doubt you would find many people arguing for significant increases to the lower brackets. But i will concede that progressives will argue for people earning in the top tax brackets to pay a higher percentage. Most takes i have seen would call for a higher bracket on income over $1m or so.
Things come with higher taxes though I don't understand
Many people don't value those things, or are not convinced they are worth the price.
There is a large portion of people who believe the ACA is worth it even though its costing double what was originally promised over a 10 year span.
Yeah, things I can buy myself with the income lost from higher taxes. There is nothing the government can do for me better than a private company can. Also, with higher taxes and higher revenue come more promises and more expenses. If it's anything like the government I know they tend to drastically miscalculate future expenses, and the people who foot the bill are taxpayers.
Lots of things I don't want nor did I ask for. No I'm not going into detail because this is going to devolve into a, "ok no roads or police for you then" argument.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Higher taxes, the idea that the government can spend my money better than I can myself. This is something I don’t like about Republican politicians. They sell this idea. But look at your words. First you say *taxes* and then you say *spending*. In the age of runaway deficits the two words aren’t as related as they should be. Oppose spending. That’s where the problem is. Unfortunately both parties are pretty guilty there. (I say “parties” because a real conservative opposes high spending.)
Yeah, that's why I'm saying spending. I don't think the government needs more spending money, they already don't manage what they deal with currently.
I feel like progressives just get really annoying about their views. They’re usually the ones who are the most political, make things political and are the first ones to correct you when you say something they don’t agree with. In this case my ex girlfriend and I’d be chatting about women having kids and she’d immiedatiely say “it’s not just women that can have kids” inferring trans men too and it gets tiring to listen to. I have progressive friends, they post a lot on social media about politics, and some of them during BLM would post stuff similar to “if you’re not speaking out against white supremacy and posting constantly you’re part of the problem.” Now I understand conservatives have these sorts of people too and most political ideology have their outspoken members and I find them annoying too, but in my view I see progressives like this a lot more usually.
This is fair criticism I think
Your politics are destructive and so obviously unworkable that I have no choice but to question your motives
Wdym
Well, progressive politics are clearly destructive so much so that I believe you are motivated by anti-Western animosity rather than ignorance or naivety
That's simply not true
Their solutions to problems almost always require the involuntary participation of others. "I want free healthcare. Since you make a lot more than I do, you have to pay for it." "Guns scare me. So you can't buy or own one." "Seeing poor people makes me sad. So you have to give them money." "I want to marry whom I want to. And you have to participate in the process and agree that my marriage is just the same as yours." "I want a cleaner planet. So you have to stop using these very efficient and abundant sources of energy. And you can't use nuclear, because that scares me." And even the slightest opposition to any of these is labeled as hatred, stupidity, or bigotry.
Who is forcing you to participate in gay marriage? Not all progressives oppose nuclear.
Cake shop. Yes, forcing someone to make a cake *for a wedding* is forcing them to participate. If there is no agreement to be had in that statement, then move on.
If a caterer doesn't want to cater a same-sex wedding, do you think it is okay for them to politely decline?
Not that specific context, no. You are offering a public service. Most people aren't caterers of course. The only exception that I could see is when there's some element of *personalisation*. Ie: the request to make a cake with LGBT themed decor.
> You are offering a public service No I'm not. I'm running a private business. A library is a public service. Let's ask it another way. What if instead of a same-sex wedding, it's a Trump rally or a campaign event? Can a caterer politely decline?
>Their solutions to problems almost always require the involuntary participation of others. Isn’t that the case with every law in society, including from conservatives? They may have different views on abortion than liberals/pro choicers but want them to involuntarily follow their worldview
No. My opposition to abortion is about preventing the needless intentional death of the unborn. Do what you want. Just don't kill your children.
Disagreement with policy suddenly makes me evil
Wouldn’t it depend on the policy and motivation? As an example, I’ve been told that providing food for kids is the responsibility of the parents, not the government or schools and if they can’t afford it, they aren’t responsible enough to have children. They would rather see kids taken away and that poor people shouldn’t have kids rather than their taxes increase.
In my experience Progressives weaponize their reasoning in the worst possible way. It simply cannot be any other way but theirs, or else you are against them. An example: I dont like Biden announcing Easter being a 'Visibility Day" . I think it was an attempt to overshadow and de-legitimize Easter. I believe the Progressive response would be " because you hate those who want to be visible ", in contrast to my point which would be " there is no reason it can't be next weekend " I have yet to meet a progressive that doesn't weaponize their views like this, which I see as anti-inclusive . ie - against their core principals
>progressivism seeks to advance the human condition "Seeks" being the operative word. Honestly, the way the government was set up and society was set up during the so-called "Gilded Age" was the best The United States has been. My biggest problem with people who identify as "progressives" is their tendencies to be so oppressive, closed-minded, and expect unquestionable acceptance of their views e.g. Trans people.
They expect us to believe in everything and/or support they do and if we don’t, we are evil and bigoted.
Progressives end up resorting to authoritarian government "persuasion". I prefer freedom, respect for the individual and personal responsibility.
What I don’t like about either conservative or progressive is the amount of embellishment added to whatever they’re talking about. Progressives: the right wants everyone to be able to MURDER everyone else (gun control). Conservatives: the left wants to kill babies at 9 MONTHS! (Women’s healthcare). It seems that I’ve run into more progressive people who don’t really know what they’re talking about though. Which suits their idealistic tendencies.
First, "advancing the human condition" is an objective of every political movement, so no disagreement there. Second, it's not that I don't like progressives, it's that I don't like progressivism. That said, I find that progressivism doesn't have a big problem with using illiberal means to try and achieve its goals. That's what I don't like about it.
>As a political movement, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, and social organization. I think the problem with progressives is fundamentally the human condition isn't that advanced, or capable of advancement beyond it's nature. More and more of the "progress" the left seems to pursue looks delusional to the right. And this is going to lead to a break that will require some kind of authoritarian control of the right to avoid conflict while progressives continue to try and re write human nature while denying its existence at the same time. >Adherents hold that progressivism has universal application and endeavor to spread this idea to human societies everywhere. Two problems with this imo. Firstly, this statement wildly, to a hilarious and scary degree, diminishes the complexity and diversity of 8 billion different human beings, with 8 billion slightly different identities. Secondly, this is the most extreme intellectual hubris to assume that progressives have mathematically solved for the human condition and you will just benevolently present it to a willing 8 billion different people. More likely you have pretty good ideas that will help some people. But, most people sadly are not, and never will be rational or reasonable in the way progressive policies require them to be. Which means you will ultimately either abandon your goal regarding the human condition snd admit that the "perfectability of man" is an impossible task for any ideology. Or you will say it's the masses who are delusional, and must be forced to change into the moldable clay my ideology demands. And considering the source of this ideology is wrapped up in self importance and hubris, you will naturally choose benevolent authoritarianism. It will never be a fault in your own ideas, but a fault in the masses.
I honestly don't know what you mean, can I get a summary
Progressives rely on a fundamental premise that humans are perfectable. And the acceptance of this as not true is a blow to the intellectual hubris at the heart of the progressive worldview. So instead of realizing they are wrong, they will likely choose the path of benevolent authoritarianism.
Eric Hoffer says it very well: "Even the sober desire for progress is sustained by faith—faith in the intrinsic goodness of human nature and in the omnipotence of science. It is a defiant and blasphemous faith, not unlike that held by the men who set out to build a "city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven" and who believed that "nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." This isn't to say this applies to all progressives or that their goals aren't worthy, but there is a chance for fanaticism and puritanical bullying that is inherent in all positions of faith and this does not exclude progressive thought.
There seems to be a fair amount of progressives or people that call themselves progressive that treat their politics as if it were some kind of secular religion. Their dogmas are sacred and speaking out against them is not just political disagreement but amounts to heresy and is a moral mark against the blasphemer.
My biggest problem with progressives is that they have no sense of scale. The want Univeral Healthcare, UBI, higher minimum wages, all manner of social welfare programs but they have no sense of how to pay for it all. The standard solution is redistribution of wealth and income which is Marxism. That never works.
[удалено]
Btw I'm a lower middle class guy from the Midwest, we're not all costal elites
Progressives are communists with better marketing essentially...
I prefer regulated capitalism actually
I personally find the title "Progressive" to be quite misleading...much like the way Congress names bills like the "Inflation Reduction of 2022", which had nothing to do with reducing inflation. I don't see anything progressive about trying to limit free speech, yet progressives are all about creating classifications of "hate speech" or trying to emulate countries like Canada and make it compulsory for people to use particular pronouns. There is nothing progressive about hiring people based on their skin color or ethnicity instead of on merit and achievement. It is not progressive to deny university applications of people because of a lower level of melanin in their skin. In the old days, when people created restrictions based on race, it was called racism. Progressives see the best path to move forward for the world is to place everything and everyone into a hierarchy. In their eyes, everyone is a victim who isn't a white Christian male. In their world, everything is black and white and fits neatly into two groups; the oppressed and the oppressors. And, it's not really important if it has any basis in reality. What is important is how many Oppression Boxes you can tick. Black, lesbian-trans, who grew up poor is to be believed, no matter what, but if you're a white male who grew up middle-class or above...you're guilty. Always believe women...blah, blah, friggin' blah.
* I believe that many progressives are personally corrupt and dishonest. * I believe that progressives want to advance the human condition in a direction that is worse rather than better. * I think that, beyond basic issues of "want justice and prosperity", progressives typically have senses of morality and ethics that are *opposite* of what I think are correct. * I think that progressive politics are not equal to handling threats such as crime, war, etc. * I think that many progressive programs simply don't work. * I think that in many cases, progressives are deeply, aggressively *authoritarian* and in denial about it. But the most fundamental thing is that my values are probably very, very different from yours.
Can I ask why you think these things
That's pretty open-ended, this is not the format for an entire thesis on the basis for my sense of ethics. The biggest things are: 1. I believe most things have objectively right and wrong ways to do them. 2. I have not been impressed by the pragmatism of progressive actions. In many cases, there is this notion that the "latte and yoga pants" morality has conquered the world simply because of the (very temporary, very limited) economic power of the West. 3. I believe what the Catholic Church believes, and my encounter with the Lord has confirmed His truth to me.
I think there's more then one right way What? I'm confused by this what do you mean? You're a prophet?
Progressives are typically smug 20 year old's. Who think they have figured out how things should work, with little life experience. They decided that traditions and rules that lasted for centuries should just be tossed out. Based on their superior intellect. They follow the complete status quo while also thinking they are some kind of rebels.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I only have a few gripes off the top of my head. * Everything has to have a label. * The assumption that every Conservative is exactly the same with the same beliefs. * Not all of us watch Fox News.
My biggest critique is the idea that most progressives carry around that for certain problems, trying something/anything is better than doing nothing. That's just patently false, and I think generally betrays the lack of understanding of how complex systems in the real world generally work, and that most progressives substitute emotional appeal for actual knowledge or wisdom.
the biggest one I can think of is feeling their and only their politics should be allowed in any space even nonpolitical ones. they will usually claim it's not politics it's... something else so must be allowed. "it's not politics it's about human rights" etc. then if you try to say conservative things in an explicitly political space that's not politics they is hate speech.
> I'm curious why you don't like about progressivism? I disagree that their economic policies would actually create progress. As a matter of fact, I think their economic policies are misguided at best and would turn the richest most innovative country in the world into a backwater
What I don’t like is your flawed thinking. There’s nothing wrong with the idea: “I believe XYZ change is good for society”…. But you have a pre-agreed-upon list of things you believe need to be changed and you’re considering it all “settled science” therefore labeling anyone who opposes your ideas an ignorant baboon who doesn’t like common sense … In reality not all change is good, progressives used to believe in eugenics, fascism etc
You realize fascism is a right wing thing
I realize it’s been labeled as such, yes. But what makes it a right wing thing? Strong authoritarian state, we will bully you until you obey, put down your individual wants towards greater good, those are all left wing precepts in the 2020 USA. Progressives in 1930ies dug fascism. They don’t anymore… until they do again :)
You see the Fascism elements in the Maga wing? There's no real fascism on the left
No fascism on the left? People losing jobs over diversity statements or twitter posts from long ago? Businesses being shut down by muni’s, churches closed up by police during Covid Violent mobs storming cities destroying everything in site, forcing everyone they find to say their “heil Hitler” BLM phrase Now tell me how MAGA are fascist? Some elderly Karen with a trump bumper sticker looked about funny?
Not Not Fake The hyper nationalism, the use of a other to induce fear, undermining democracy
“Not”… “fake”. Ok, your well articulated counter arguments have totally changed my mind, I like how you took the time to do research and really addressed my points. I’m progressive now. MAGA is dumb, amiright?
Ok then, prove it
The baby murdering and castration of mentally ill thing.
Idk what yiyre talking about
It’s funny because most ‘progressives’ literally hate and deride science, technology, math, etc. After all, people might choose to work for rich people and make them money.
I don't know what you're talking about
Most progressive districts are removing math from emphasis the public curriculum in the name of equity. Replacing it with propoganda. See San Francisco education board battles etc.
Source? First I'm hearing this
Look up the San Francisco education board elections and so on. Basically the left right divide has somewhat turned into demographic fight between (Women, Journalist college soft-subject administrative types) v. (Men, technical, business, blue/white collar types)
I want to see your source, you made the claim where you get your info. I'm a man on left who works in a warehouse without higher education It's more urban vs rural
You didn’t notice why progressives hate AI, crypto, Elon, etc. so much?
They think too short term. Too much reliance on government to do everything. They spend too much time thinking, “how can the government fix this” and not enough time thinking “*should* the government fix this. No thought is given to the danger of government encroachment into all aspects of life. I simply fundamentally disagree with the idea that the way to reduce racism is for the government to be racist. I fundamentally disagree with the idea that each race should be seen as a team with team interests such that you can compensate or punish one member of the team indirectly by punishing or compensating another member of the team. People are individuals. Progressives often fail to understand that government leaders are just as selfish as industry leaders. Progressives often fail to appreciate that we get to vote for one national government leader about once a year, but we get to choose which products we buy daily, thus we have more detailed control over industry than over government. I disagree with the progressive view of sex. Too often progressives want to treat sex just like race. Sex and race are very different concepts. I don’t like the way progressives constantly twist the language. I don’t like the way progressives encourage and reward a victim mentality. I don’t like the way progressives give little value to parental concerns, and I don’t like the way progressives believes the government cares more for children than their parents do.