Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Manopolus said:
Sorry, but you don't get to make up the definitions of groups you oppose.
Click to expand...
It's got nothing to do with me making up definitions. It's an observation. By and large, the people in the US who call themselves "progressive" subscribe to identity politics. So unless you want to try a "no true Scotsman" argument (good luck with that), then the people who call themselves "progressive" are the ones who effectively define the term. And they have defined it to include identity politics, not me. I'm just observing it.
Manopolus said:
The word "progressive" actually does mean something.
Click to expand...
Definitions change. You have a point about how the term started, but that's no where it's at now, not in the US at least. Maybe it's different where you are, I wouldn't know.
 
Ziggurat said:
Definitions change. You have a point about how the term started, but that's no where it's at now, not in the US at least. Maybe it's different where you are, I wouldn't know.
Click to expand...
And that is also a political tactic. You get to choose whether to accept the new definition. It's not mandatory just because some idiots on a message board say so. Those shifty definitions are at the very core of our current political crisis. We're basically seeing a split in language itself before our very eyes... we don't even mean the same things when we use words anymore. Language is becoming a bit fuzzier than usual. That's part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I am skeptical of the idea that these folks are bring deceptive about their progressivism.
Click to expand...
Progressivism is, by historical definition, a political tool of the oppressed MAJORITY. That's critical to the meaning of the word. You can't take that last word out and still mean the same thing. Sure, definitions do shift. But some concepts are absolutely critical to the meaning of a word, and this is one. Without that, the word means nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
And that is also a political tactic. You get to choose whether to accept the new definition. It's not mandatory just because some idiots on a message board say so.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about people on message boards. I'm talking about actual politicians, elected to office. Sure, I don't HAVE to accept their definition. But I don't have to accept yours either. Given that the purpose of language is to communicate, using the definition of "progressive" that most people use (which, in the US, includes identity politics) seems the more practical choice. I don't insist that you use the same definition, but if you cannot accept that other people are using that definition, that's a you problem. And if you want people to change the definition, you're complaining to the wrong person. Complain to the people who call themselves "progressive".
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not talking about people on message boards. I'm talking about actual politicians, elected to office. Sure, I don't HAVE to accept their definition. But I don't have to accept yours either. Given that the purpose of language is to communicate, using the definition of "progressive" that most people use (which, in the US, includes identity politics) seems the more practical choice. I don't insist that you use the same definition, but if you cannot accept that other people are using that definition, that's a you problem. And if you want people to change the definition, you're complaining to the wrong person. Complain to the people who call themselves "progressive".
Click to expand...
Yes, but I don't miss the fact that you, also, benefit politically/argumentatively by using this proposed definition... it's the same 'ol tactic that started with Reagan's new definition of liberalism.

That's arguing in bad faith, and as mentioned, you're basically pitting yourself against a word, rather than a concept. It's just a form of generalization used for the purposes of denigration and demonization. Sure. Pile on against a freaking word if you want to. I guess if that's what you mean by "progressive" then I'm not a part of that group, anyway. But oh, wait. I do identify actual progressivism as a "break glass in case of emergency" tool to use when society is going off the rails... specifically in the case of oligarchy.

Which means that there's something very important there in the actual definition, as opposed to the fake one that's being proposed. The fake one has no meaningful purpose to me... might as well still use "liberal" or "SJW" for that, because you actually meant the exact same thing with those words. We already had words for those things. Again, I'm not entirely against those things, but they aren't progressivism. They have an entirely different purpose and appeal to an entirely different population.

These shifty meanings are being used nefariously, particularly in the political sphere and the press. It's not unintentional. It's not organic. It's constructed for purpose, and there are people whose jobs primarily involve doing just that. Some of them are even being employed by Russian troll farms, but the local variety is just as bad.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Yes, but I don't miss the fact that you, also, benefit politically/argumentatively by using this proposed definition...
Click to expand...
Again, don't complain to me. I didn't apply that label to them, they chose it for themselves. And they outnumber your brand of progressive, by a lot. Complain to them for co-opting the term, not to me because they were successful.
 
Ziggurat said:
Again, don't complain to me. I didn't apply that label to them, they chose it for themselves. And they outnumber your brand of progressive, by a lot. Complain to them for co-opting the term, not to me because they were successful.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not going to disown them.

The point isn't that they're not progressives. The point is that they're ALSO progressives that have other interests than progressivism. A person can fight for more than one cause. Some might embrace the term out of ignorance, but others just might be interested in multiple causes.

An SJW might be a progressive after all. It's just that one doesn't define the other. Those aren't identical categories.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Progressivism is, by historical definition, a political tool of the oppressed MAJORITY. That's critical to the meaning of the word. You can't take that last word out and still mean the same thing.
Click to expand...
I don't much care what my grandparents meant by the term, I'm going to use it to mean what people mean by it right now.
 
d4m10n said:
I don't much care what my grandparents meant by the term, I'm going to use it to mean what people mean by it right now.
Click to expand...
So you prefer a definition that was force-fed to you by a politically polarized press, in other words... one that they constructed FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE of profiting monetarily from a divided population?
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Nope. Not going to disown them. The point isn't that they're not progressives. The point is that they're ALSO progressives that have other interests than progressivism. A person can fight for more than one cause. Some might embrace the term out of ignorance, but others just might be in multiple causes.

An SJW might be a progressive after all. It's just that one doesn't define the other. Those aren't identical categories.
Click to expand...
Hopefully you've resolved this question to your satisfaction, and are ready to return to the on-topic debates already in progress:

The proper role of gender self-ID in public policy. The medical basis for trans affirming care for minors. The propriety of giving trans affirming care to minors without their parents' knowledge or consent. The inevitable conflict between accommodating women, and accommodating men who claim entitlement to women's accommodations if they simply say they want it.

Arguing about labels and definitions won't make these contentious topics go away. Playing "no true progressive" won't make the people who support fiat self-ID disappear. #NotAllTRAs doesn't alter the mainstream TRA position, nor reduce the degree to which it has ideologically captured medical and educational institutions.

You're in this thread, still, so presumably those are the subjects that actually interest you.
 
Here's a question for anyone who cares to answer: Are there any self-identified progressive interest groups (in the Anglophone world) which do not voice support for the LGB+TQ folx?
 
d4m10n said:
Here's a question for anyone who cares to answer: Are there any self-identified progressive interest groups (in the Anglophone world) which do not voice support for the LGB+TQ folx?
Click to expand...
Interest groups? Dunno. I don't live in the land of interest groups. Individuals? Yes, absolutely. I know of many. Some of them are in the weird crossover between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump voters. Others not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom