• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Progressives Overreact?

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,006
Points
1,010
So, here I am with an interesting experience. On social media, I am friends with and actively engage with what I call reasonable left leaning folks. We have adult conversations and respect the agree to disagree view.
I try to avoid engaging directly with the lunatic far left radicals (same as I hate the far right radicals). However I find myself accidently engaged. This is not a bitch fest but rather some observations.

It was concerning an on line survey for gender diversity and inclusiveness from crop.ca (I know next to nothing about this Quebec based organization). Anyways I was going to participate then declined to do so. However in the comments, many people complained that if you identify as white, heterosexual male then they stop the survey and thank you but kick you out. I replied with a simple question "That is discrimination, isn't it"

No surprise. I was met with hatred and vitriol from some I am assuming "gender flexible" people based on their profiles and profile pictures. Of course, I defended my position rather aggressively.

It got me thinking. Why do the "progressives" or the woke or far left radicals get so damn angry and upset when legitimate questions are asked? I am wondering if we can try and arm chair psychologist this? Theories? Ideas?

Hell, to be fair, we can put the finger at the far other side (I get PPC supporters upset when I challenge them, yes believe it or not there is like still 7 people supporting Maxine Bernier).


Thoughts? Ideas? Why is it here on army.ca we can discuss and challenge each others views (and fuck yes, it gets heated) and we still manage to have dialogue. Are military and ex-military members truly more open minded?
 
I don't know the particulars of the survey you are mentioning, ArmyRick. CROP is actually a reputable public opinion research organization in Quebec that rates up there with Leger and IPSOS. They are also usually associated with a lot of research for La Presse newspaper, which is rather center of the spectrum.

The vitriol and hatred you were exposed to, did it come from the CROP people, or from the comment section peanut gallery? If the later, I would simply chalk it up to the same kind of far right radicals you try to avoid.

As to your underlying question (is it discrimination), if the comments did not come from CROP, perhaps it is just a matter of the purpose of the survey, i.e. if it was meant solely to explore how people who identify as "diverse" (the target group) perceive they are treated in society in general (the information being researched), then it would be normal to first sort out who is or isn't in the target group and then only proceed further with the target group members. That would just be proper methodology in such case.

Don't know if the above helps, but I hope so.
 
Don't know if the above helps, but I hope so.
Its a view for sure.

The part of your reply dealing with (we are guessing here and people's best guesses are what I am looking for) why people (especially on the extremes) react they way they do is what I am after. Piecing together the human brain thought patterns is a very complex tasks.
 
Piecing together the human brain thought patterns is a very complex tasks.

No kidding!

I had a philosophy teacher once who tried to explain ( I'm summarizing, this being a philo teach, the explanation lasted the whole 3 hours class) that basically, when one's personal world view - the explanation for the world as it exist we build in our own head - becomes one's "Id" and there is no more room in that one's mind to accept that the truth of the world (if such thing can be said to exist) could be different, then anything or person who challenges any part of that world view becomes perceived as an actual attack on the person it/him/her self, and they react accordingly.

Pretty good summary for three hours of my life I will never get back. :)
 
Last edited:
The people most active online are not a representative sample of all people. As with daily news, what is emphasized is exaggerated.

People who believe they are experiencing a moment of power and influence tend to become unpleasant and intolerant of dissent.
 
I can't remember who stated it, but I remember a listening to a podcast discussing the polarization of the extremes. One of the points the guest brough up was that to signal that you're part of the ingroup, you have to repeat the official party lines, and defend them vigorously.

For the "progressives" that means latching onto the identity politics/Oppression Olympics talking points, and very publicly pushing them. The easiest way to signal that is to engage in online fights where the whole world can see how progressive you are.

For the "conservatives" the same thing applies, but it's pushing the "all taxation is theft" sort of silliness.

It's all status games and ingroup signalling. Which is why there is no way to actually have a reasonable discussion with the extremes in any sort of public space.
 
For the "conservatives" the same thing applies, but it's pushing the "all taxation is theft" sort of silliness.
I think that's just a libertarian trope that is not, in fact, orthodox in conservatism writ large. You won't be cancelled in conservative circles if you don't repeat this mantra.

If you push back against the idea that "diversity is our greatest strength" in progressive circles, however... good luck.

As we saw in the CPC leadership thread, even moderate liberals are forced on to what I described as an oiled up and slanted down scale of wokism. All must adhere, lest they be cancelled. I continue to participate in a variety of political spheres IRL, and people regularly confess that they are scared to speak up against the elite-sanctioned progressive ideology.

So not only is a strict adherence to "party" (not literally an organized Party, but rather, the dominant discourse) ideology required on the Left, but there is also a very tenuous relationship with the truth, and by extension with common sense, which is why Poilievre is so insistent on this point, which resonates well with most people.

I saw data that showed American liberals now believe American Whites are on average, lower IQ and more violent than American Blacks. One can argue about the relevance of IQ as a metric, or about the causes of said violence, but the fact that they are so out to lunch on facts that are readily apparent to the most casual observers is disturbing and indicates they are sliding into a form of political cultism, and away from an honest movement for the betterment of their country.

Which comes back to what @ArmyRick is asking about. It seems that progressives have abandoned the idea of making their country a better place, and seek instead to destroy something they see as fundamentally evil. For many, they are not overtly militant or fiery in this endeavour, but their inability or unwillingness to question or push back on the ideology makes them useful idiots in this cultural war against Western civilization.

PS: Another interesting data point: White American liberals are the only group expressing a negative in-group bias towards their own ethnicity.
 
Last edited:
I think that's just a libertarian trope that is not, in fact, orthodox in conservatism writ large. You won't be cancelled in conservative circles if you don't repeat this mantra.

If you push back against the idea that "diversity is our greatest strength" in progressive circles, however... good luck.

As we saw in the CPC leadership thread, even moderate liberals are forced on to what I described as an oiled up and slanted down scale of wokism. All must adhere, lest they be cancelled. I continue to participate in a variety of political spheres IRL, and people regularly confess that they are scared to speak up against the elite-sanctioned progressive ideology.

So not only is a strict adherence to "party" (not literally an organized Party, but rather, the dominant discourse) ideology on the Left, but there is also very tenuous relationship with the truth, and by extension with common sense, which is why Poilievre is so insistent on this point, which resonates well with most people.

I saw data that showed American liberals now believe American Whites are on average, lower IQ and more violent than American Blacks. One can argue about the relevance of IQ as a metric, or about the causes of said violence, but the fact that they are so out to lunch on facts that are readily apparent to the most casual observers is disturbing and indicates they are sliding into a form of political cultism, and away from an honest movement for the betterment of their country.

Which comes back to what @ArmyRick is asking about. It seems that progressives have abandoned the idea of making their country a better place, and seek instead to destroy something they see as fundamentally evil. For many, they are not overtly militant or fiery in this endeavour, but their inability or unwillingness to question or push back on the ideology makes them useful idiots in this cultural war against Western civilization.
Fair point about the taxation thing, I was just tossing out a "right wing" point without trying to delve too deep into the weeds.
 
Fair point about the taxation thing, I was just tossing out a "right wing" point without trying to delve too deep into the weeds.
Only some anarchists and minarchists look at taxes that way. To the extent that libertarianism has a mainstream core, it's critics are obliged to recognize that libertarians support at least enough government and taxation to safeguard rights. If critics don't recognize that, they're just attacking straw men.

Most libertarian stuff I read amounts to a body of thought that aligns pretty closely with the US, circa 1800, but without slavery and with human and civil rights shared by all humans. Some people think that political philosophy (ie. the US founding) is extreme; well, there's not really any hope for them.
 
I think that's just a libertarian trope that is not, in fact, orthodox in conservatism writ large. You won't be cancelled in conservative circles if you don't repeat this mantra.

If you push back against the idea that "diversity is our greatest strength" in progressive circles, however... good luck.

As we saw in the CPC leadership thread, even moderate liberals are forced on to what I described as an oiled up and slanted down scale of wokism. All must adhere, lest they be cancelled. I continue to participate in a variety of political spheres IRL, and people regularly confess that they are scared to speak up against the elite-sanctioned progressive ideology.

So not only is a strict adherence to "party" (not literally an organized Party, but rather, the dominant discourse) ideology required on the Left, but there is also a very tenuous relationship with the truth, and by extension with common sense, which is why Poilievre is so insistent on this point, which resonates well with most people.

I saw data that showed American liberals now believe American Whites are on average, lower IQ and more violent than American Blacks. One can argue about the relevance of IQ as a metric, or about the causes of said violence, but the fact that they are so out to lunch on facts that are readily apparent to the most casual observers is disturbing and indicates they are sliding into a form of political cultism, and away from an honest movement for the betterment of their country.

Which comes back to what @ArmyRick is asking about. It seems that progressives have abandoned the idea of making their country a better place, and seek instead to destroy something they see as fundamentally evil. For many, they are not overtly militant or fiery in this endeavour, but their inability or unwillingness to question or push back on the ideology makes them useful idiots in this cultural war against Western civilization.

PS: Another interesting data point: White American liberals are the only group expressing a negative in-group bias towards their own ethnicity.
Where is that study regarding the IQ?
 
As to your underlying question (is it discrimination), if the comments did not come from CROP, perhaps it is just a matter of the purpose of the survey, i.e. if it was meant solely to explore how people who identify as "diverse" (the target group) perceive they are treated in society in general (the information being researched), then it would be normal to first sort out who is or isn't in the target group and then only proceed further with the target group members. That would just be proper methodology in such case.

I would point out though that the above is justification for discrimination. The question “ That is discrimination?” does not in of itself mean that only the first of Webster’s definitions.

Discrimination can have neutral, positive and negative connotations.
In the neutral and positive definitions it’s something that is applied by all people everywhere everyday and as you point out justifiably so for legitimate reasons.

Even discrimination on the basis of sex, race and ethnicity although categorically denounced (rightly so) in most cases, is vehemently supported in some cases for various reasons. Those reasons may or may not be morally or ethically right but it’s still discrimination.
Those supporting it do not like that being pointed out, likely because they can only conceptually understand discrimination as an evil.
 
Even discrimination on the basis of sex, race and ethnicity although categorically denounced (rightly so) in most cases, is vehemently supported in some cases for various reasons. Those reasons may or may not be morally or ethically right but it’s still discrimination.
Those supporting it do not like that being pointed out, likely because they can only conceptually understand discrimination as an evil.
e.g. unisex washrooms
 
IMHO, this is present on both sides and has only been made worse by the access of these idiots to a wider platform.

While the internet gave everyone a voice, there are quite a few that need to know when to keep their's down. Additionally, people have become emboldened by the vitriolic state of politics in North America that any opposing or dissenting views are immediately beaten down as oppressive, misguided, or wrong.

I think to Orwell's writings on "groupthink" and find it far more prevalent today in both the media and social media than ever before. I have a foot in both sides of the political spectrum and would be flayed by either camp for holding opposing views.

We see it here on Army.ca all the time, where any talk of positivity towards the LPC from 2015-present is dogpiled. Additionally, any talk of concerns about the CPC and their policies is met with taunts and criticisms, or reverted back to accusations of support for PMJT. Politics, like anything else in our society, is not a binary decision. The factions, left and right, want us to believe it so because it is easier to consolidate power and requires less work for them... especially those 2 things that they hate:

Collaborate

and

Compromise.
 
We see it here on Army.ca all the time, where any talk of positivity towards the LPC from 2015-present is dogpiled. Additionally, any talk of concerns about the CPC and their policies is met with taunts and criticisms, or reverted back to accusations of support for PMJT. Politics, like anything else in our society, is not a binary decision. The factions, left and right, want us to believe it so because it is easier to consolidate power and requires less work for them... especially those 2 things that they hate:
Your honour, I plead Guilty

However in 2029, if Pierre and the CPC blow it, look for my post (from Norway or Iceland) to be calling him out for piss poor performance.
 
This article is about how US Democrats can fix their coalition, especially with their waning support from the working classes, but could also apply to the centre-left parties in the West in general.


1. Democrats Must Move to the Center on Cultural Issues

2. Democrats Must Promote an Abundance Agenda

3. Democrats Must Embrace Patriotism and Liberal Nationalism
Democrats would do well to remember the following as they contemplate the challenge of reaching more working class voters:

  • It is not the working class that sees the police as an unnecessary evil and opposes rigorous enforcement of the law for public safety and public order.
  • It is not the working class that believes public consumption of hard drugs should be tolerated, with intervention limited to reviving addicts when they overdose.
  • It is not the working class that believes many crimes like shoplifting should be decriminalized because punishing the perpetrators would have “disparate impact”.
  • It is not the working class that believes you should never refer to illegal immigrants as “illegal” and that border security is somehow a racist idea.
  • It is not the working class that believes an overwhelming surge of migrants at the southern border should be accommodated with asylum claims, parole arrangements, and release into urban areas around the country.
  • It is not the working class that believes competitive admissions and job placements should be allocated on the basis of race (“equity”) not merit.
  • It is not the working class that views objective tests as fundamentally flawed if they show racial disparities in achievement.
  • It is not the working class that believes America is a structurally racist, white supremacist society.
  • It is not the working class that sees patriotism as a dirty word and the history of the United States as a bleak landscape of racism and oppression.
  • It is not the working class that thinks sex is “assigned at birth” and can be changed by self-conception, rather than being an objective, biological reality.
  • It is not the working class that thinks it’s a great idea to police the language people use for hidden “microaggressions” and bias against the “marginalized”.
  • And it is definitely not the working class that believes in “decolonize everything” and manages to see murderous thugs like Hamas as righteous liberators of a subaltern people
And Democrats should remember this: working-class voters do not share Democratic elites’ zeal for restructuring the economy around “green” industries and a clean energy transition based around wind, solar and electric vehicles which underpins much of the Democrats’ new industrial strategy. Working-class voters are much more pragmatic and will judge this strategy not by its greenness but by its concrete effects on their lives.
 
This article is about how US Democrats can fix their coalition, especially with their waning support from the working classes, but could also apply to the centre-left parties in the West in general.
Worried Democrats have been making these recommendations to their peers for a long count of months. Response? These go to 11. Biden is the nominee.
 
Back
Top