How Progressive "Morality" Evolves

I have a progressive friend. A couple of years ago, when the bathroom wars were just kicking off, he told me that "they" were now going too far: "It is ridiculous to think that men should be allowed to go in the women's locker room just because they claim they 'really' are a woman."

All I could do was quietly sigh. I knew he would be embracing the 'ridiculous' very soon. And sure enough, he is now completely on board with "gender bending" and bathroom free-for-alls.

Because here is how this "evolution" works: At first, just a few people on the fringe begin to embrace the latest assault, call it X, on traditional morality. They build up a small cadre of committed activists devoted to forcing everyone to accept X. During this stage, the average progressive will assert that X is "going too far," and will insist that he is completely against X.

But then one day, once a critical mass of activists has built up, the mainstream progressive outlets like the NY Times announce that they have "grown," and that they now approve of X. Everyone will then begin a few months' grace period, so that they have time to "think for themselves" long enough to reach the right conclusion: X is perfectly okay after all!

After the grace period is over, anyone who still hasn't "thought for themselves" quite enough will be told that they are now officially a hateful bigot. It is OK to shun them, fire them from their job, boycott their entire state, and so on.

So what's next? Infanticide, group marriage, and pedophilia have to be the top candidates for the next X. Approval for all three is already floating around on the fringes. Which one goes first will probably be a matter of which one builds a critical mass of activists the fastest.

And if you tell my progressive friend today that in three years, he will be in favor of at least one of those three things, he will be outraged. "Never," he would assure you, completely without meaning to lie, "would I embrace X!"

But as soon as the NY Times tells him he is a hateful bigot if he doesn't embrace X, you can be 100% certain he will fall in line.

PS -- By the way, I can tell this series of posts on progressives is really on target by how incoherently angry they are leaving reader rob!


21 comments:

  1. Rob isn't a progressive!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you are wrong: *most* libertarians ARE progressives, just progressives who want low tax rates and minimal government regulations.

      Delete
    2. And Hitler wasn't a Nazi!

      Whatever rainbow Kush you are smokin', I should could some, Samson!

      Delete
    3. And their pot!

      Delete
  2. I am sympathetic to this but there are counter examples. Acceptance of incest was once an issue amongst progressives, circa 1969. I recall arguments about it in high school, and of course there was Sturgeon's famous story (If all men were brothers would you let on marry your sister?) That failed to catch on, and now progressives indignantly deny the whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not angry Gene - but I am intrigued by your recent posts on progressives. I do not consider myself a progressive and actually agree with you that the progressive-fringe is disturbingly anti-reason and pro-violence. (BTW: Supporting the rights of private organizations to standup for transgender bathroom access does not IMO count as progressive extremism).

    I am concerned however that the tone of your recent posts reflects the right-wing mirror-image of this progressive extremism.

    Needless to say I see tolerance and libertarianism as the correct path to righteousness :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "(BTW: Supporting the rights of private organizations to standup for transgender bathroom access does not IMO count as progressive extremism)."

      Rob, who said anything about the "right" of the NBA to hold their all-star game where they want? I agree they have that right: but as a libertarian, don't you distinguish between what one "has a right" to do and what IS right to do?

      I "have a right" to walk down the street telling every person I meet, "Fuck you!" But that would not BE RIGHT.

      The NBA has a right to hold their games wherever they want. I'm just noting that they are complete hypocrites to boycott TX and NC *while traveling half-way around the world* to hold games in a country with slave labor.

      Delete
    2. And they are acting this way because boycotting NC and TX will have very little cost for them, while China presents them an opportunity to make billions upon billions.

      Delete
    3. I should have been clearer - I support not only their right to take a stand but also the stand they are actually taking on this issues.

      Aren't high impact but low cost protests the most sensible ones to take ?

      Delete
  4. This is the best post you've ever written.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has written much better. Particularly his ones on idealism.

      Delete
  5. I might be naive here, my exposure to female bathrooms is minimal (couple of nice experiences in nightclubs long time ago lol) but don't women have cubicles in their bathrooms? Surely, if anything, male bathrooms with urinals are a much more contentious issue? The fact that Milo had to utilise a false statistic on Bill Maher gives me the inkling that noone really knows.

    Broadly, from a libertarian perspective, it's up to the managers of the bathrooms I guess, unless you're going to try some kooky fraud argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm all in for it being "up the managers of the bathrooms." And Texas made it clear there new bill applied to the bathrooms of which the state was the manager, and would not apply to private arenas!

      And the real issue I see is not about cubicles: if the law becomes "anyone can go in any bathroom or locker room they want based solely on the assertion 'I am X'", then male perverts will use this to lurk in women's private areas.

      Delete
    2. But... but... but Gene! You're being too simple and clear! You need to obfuscate the issue by bringing in transgender theory, feminist male-female relations and sexual identity theory! Then, you need to argue using Progressive 'two-level' utilitarianism or the Kantian categorical imperative for your conclusion!

      Appeals to common sense in politics...?! You sound like that crazy Aristotle guy.

      Delete
  6. To get a sense of just how far things have "evolved," consider that Milo, an openly gay defender of pedophilia, is going to be a keynote speaker at CPAC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Milo is screwed up in more ways than one.

      Delete
    2. All he has to do is say inflammatory stuff about immigrants and Islam, and he gets such a "prestigous" invitation. Has CPAC fallen far or were they always fallen?

      Delete
    3. I think M-Yianno said in no uncertain terms that the thing he said about man-boy love was a dumb thing to say and he didn't really mean it.

      Delete
    4. This is a lie. Milo is not a defender of pedophilia. Words have meaning. Pedophilia is about pre-pubescents. Under no construal of Milo's remarks do they apply to pre-pubescents.

      Delete
  7. Thanks, Ken. Well said.

    ReplyDelete