Forums → WEPR → The Regressive Left

As Mage pointed out, SJWs aren't how most of the left or progressives behave, and tainting them all with the same brush has no basis.

Note: I don't criticize most of their ideas. I usually criticize their actions.

I think there might be some ambiguity in my post - I'm not saying SJWs are good, I'm saying that the group termed as progressives should not be treated the same as SJWs. SJWs should not be allowed to act as victims and engage in passive bullying. That's a generally agreed point.

I think a mistake you are making is using a few examples to taint an entire spectrum of ideas. It's just being as narrow minded as any SJW. The Left, if there ever is such a monolithic entity, does not reflect the same ideals of SJWs. SJW is a very specific, pejorative term.

----------
A common theme if any, amongst SJWs is a propensity towards white-bashing coupled with having double standards. I'm assuming you meant racial segregation involving reverse discrimination. That's probably expected after years of being discriminated against, but that's not an acceptable idea and most definitely not one where progressives will accept. Even if you meant racial segregation by white people, that's also not an idea progressives adopt. SJWs like to cloak themselves as respectable, liberal people, when in actuality they are not.

In a nutshell, SJWs = bad. But SJWs aren't the progressive mainstream.

I think a mistake you are making is using a few examples to taint an entire spectrum of ideas.

Guess again! I'm not tainting their ideas. I'm criticizing their actions, since actions speak louder that words or ideas.

Guess again! I'm not tainting their ideas. I'm criticizing their actions, since actions speak louder that words or ideas.

Then there's really no difference on our view points with regard to SJWs.

I wonder if we could take this discussion further and grow it from just a simple rant.

The only place I've ever heard this phrase "Regressive Left" is in its support of Islam. It was said by Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins on his show. They attacked the support of Islam because it's a belief system that refuses to accept anything other than Islam. I'm not really sure I understood what they were talking about. But that's where I heard it.

That was not his point. As was said several times already, from what I can see, is that you are committing a faulty generalization fallacy.

You can say I generalize. Actually, I think I just did. But what I said is what I observe about people who identify as progressives. Should I skim and scan more to verify, sir?

Yes, you do.

Okay, here's my argument. Progressive taxing. Basically, if I gain more, so does my tax rate. What person would want this? I rater have a flat rate than that.

Okay, here's my argument. Progressive taxing. Basically, if I gain more, so does my tax rate. What person would want this? I rater have a flat rate than that.

Well....a flat tax doesn't work out for the country in general. Progressive tax is a way to target inequality (Unless it goes to stupid levels, like France under Hollande), plus, 30% or so (Not sure what the actual number is) on say 10 million, isn't going to put a big dent into your money.

You can check out the list of countries that have a flat tax....they're generally not doing well. Whether the tax is a result of it, or a symptom, I'm not too sure, so perhaps one should not read too much into it.

Anyway, this has kind of deviated from the OP has it? Not that I mind one bit, but perhaps using a progressive tax to whack liberals on the head isn't a good idea, seeing that most countries go with it.

Okay, here's my argument. Progressive taxing. Basically, if I gain more, so does my tax rate. What person would want this?

I rater have a flat rate than that.

This will be a long one, but I've probably made less than 10 posts within the last 3 years. So bear with me.

I have never had a problem with other people making more money than me.

It's easy to look at someone who makes millions of dollars a year and imagine how easy it would be to make just 100K a year. Heck, the millionaire probably wouldn't even notice 100K missing from his bank would he? At least, that's how many people feel.

But economics isn't that simple. And the reality is that when people become spiteful, they also become reckless. In trying to "redistribute" wealth, taxes have gone up for the middle and lower classes as well. After all, what are a few small tax increases for the poor and middle class if it means the rich will pay more in taxes? I think it's easier to forgive the taxes taken out of your paycheck when you're receiving some form of government aid. I believe this is mostly true for students who have obtained loans from the government. There's a good reason why people begin to move more towards the right as they make more money, it's because we're ultimately looking out for ourselves.

I guess my point is, I would like to see taxes go down for the middle and lower classes. But when people are so focused on the rich, they're willing to burn everyone if it means they can watch the elite's bank accounts go down.

The mentality of many progressives (but not all) is that if the elite weren't making as much, there would be more money for everyone else. And if everyone else is making/saving more money, then everyone will be better off. But simultaneously, progressives constantly state that the rich will be the ones to pay for "almost" the entirety of social programs. So what would actually happen if we redistribute wealth to the point where elite classes are almost non-existent? This is why I laugh when people refer to capitalism as "trickle down" economics. It's just a scary phrase people throw around to make poor and middle class people feel like they're only receiving scraps from more successful people. But when the government takes money from the rich and hands it out to the poor... well I'll use an analogy. Is it better for a rich man to give you scraps off his own plate or for the government to take scraps off his plate and give them to you?

I'm not bashing liberal economic policies per se, but the ideology of supporters for wealth redistribution tends to be similar to what I outlined above. I'm just saying that the reason why so many people are progressive is based on spite and leads to reckless behavior and hypocritical rhetoric. To be fair, I think all parties are filled mostly with people who's economics views are based primarily off of emotions, self-interest, and personal preference. There are less emotional reasons and selfless reasons why people support liberalism and/or socialism. Some of them are fairly rational and others are completely irrational. But again, this is true for any economic ideology isn't it?

But, since this topic is about SJWs, I suppose I should try to incorporate them into this post.

Has anyone ever heard of a conservative, republican, or even capitalist SJW? Why do SJWs lean so far left and how do they differ from standard, non-SJW, progressives? If anyone wants to discuss the "why", feel free to do so. For brevity, I'll skip to how SJWs differ from standard progressives.

Because of the two party system in America, we have liberals who wantless political restrictions and more economic restrictions. Conservatives, if you take what they say at face value and ignore their actions, want more political restrictions and less economic restrictions. This is where you end up with the libertarian party who wants less restrictions both politically and economically. But where do SJWs stand? In some regards, they fit the definition of liberal perfectly. But in other regards, they support more political restrictions. That's not to say they're a liberal-conservative hybrid (like libertarians), because the ways in which they want less political freedoms differ's greatly from the ways in which conservatives want political freedoms. In hindsight, this is all useless information - but it is quite interesting. It stays because it's already been typed.

"So what are the differences already you rambling idiot?!?!" you might be asking. If that's the case, you stuck around to read/skim through my post. Thank you! So let's address the differences between progressives and regressives.

From what I can tell, progressives are the ones who coined the term "regressive" as a way to distance themselves from other liberals. I'm not sure how true this is, but I've noticed the term circulating in progressive circles before I noticed any conservatives using the term. Progressives are typically strong advocates for freedom of speech - all speech. (Conservatives, slightly less so when it comes to things such as flag burnings [US flag] or even QUESTIONING the perks/opinions of veterans and active military personnel) And even though progressives and liberals are both concerned with wealth redistribution between classes, regressives also focus on race and gender.

But the other attributes that separate regressives from progressives also applies to differences between regressives and everyone else. Most other groups can see the flaws in their sources, their arguments, and their solutions. These ranges from bad data regarding Micheal Brown and the incredibly sloppy and fallacious wage gap myths, to red herrings such as "Check your privilege" (What does my privilege have to do with other people's supposed "underprivilege"? Nothing.), to total hypocrisy such as demanding more segregation and actions based on race and gender even though regressives complain that segregation against these groups is what caused problems to begin with.

What's the most interesting is how these groups ended up becoming the very monsters they claimed to fight against. But, I feel I've already typed enough. More on that later... maybe.

But economics isn't that simple. And the reality is that when people become spiteful, they also become reckless.

In trying to "redistribute" wealth, taxes have gone up for the middle and lower classes as well.

After all, what are a few small tax increases for the poor and middle class if it means the rich will pay more in taxes?

But when people are so focused on the rich, they're willing to burn everyone if it means they can watch the elite's bank accounts go down.

The mentality of many progressives (but not all) is that if the elite weren't making as much, there would be more money for everyone else. And if everyone else is making/saving more money, then everyone will be better off.

So what would actually happen if we redistribute wealth to the point where elite classes are almost non-existent?

Is it better for a rich man to give you scraps off his own plate or for the government to take scraps off his plate and give them to you?

I'm just saying that the reason why so many people are progressive is based on spite and leads to reckless behavior and hypocritical rhetoric.

You seem to be under the impression that I was describing all liberals. But that's not the case. I stated numerous times that I'm only referring to a portion of liberals. It's nothing personal against liberals, almost all ideologies are filled with people who came to conclusions through irrational means, even when they come to correct conclusions.

[quote]In trying to "redistribute" wealth, taxes have gone up for the middle and lower classes as well.

No. That's the inevitable consequence of having high-paid lobbyists doing everything they can to thwart any attempt to make the tax code more efficient.[/quote]

Even Bernie Sanders' plan to increase taxes for the rich was projected to raise taxes for the middle and lower classes. But I'm focusing on the mentality of those who support left leaning ideas because they are morally against people being incredibly rich. And I'm surprised you denied this point because it's quite common for liberals to respond with, "Sure, taxes might raise for the lower and middle classes as well, but we'll still be better off. Just look at Sweden!"

So, I have to say, people are okay with raising taxes on the middle and lower classes as long as it means the rich have to pay more in taxes too.

After all, what are a few small tax increases for the poor and middle class if it means the rich will pay more in taxes?

I'm not defending or advocating a flat tax. All I'm saying is that in some people's efforts to increase taxes for the rich, they also accept tax increases for the middle and lower classes as well.

And who exactly are these people? I'm fairly certain the general populace is not interested in impoverishing itself for any reason, let alone out of some petty sadism toward people with wealth.

Just about everyone has the best intentions when it comes to economics. But the road to hell is often paved in gold. To quote a popular bon mot. But it bears repeating, I am referring to those who base their economic views primarily on their emotions. We have people who complain about how expensive it is just to live a comfortable life in America, but they're perfectly fine with the government increasing everyone's taxes by a large amount.

[quote]The mentality of many progressives (but not all) is that if the elite weren't making as much, there would be more money for everyone else. And if everyone else is making/saving more money, then everyone will be better off.

No, I'm fairly certain it's that money is put to better use by a government which enforces regulations, maintains public utilities, and provides services to people based on their need than it is by increasing the wealth of individuals who are not obligated to do any of those things or businesses that perform some service for people based on what they can afford to pay said businesses.[/quote]

This is a bit of a red herring since what you said isn't mutually exclusive from what I said. And as for the government providing needed services, that's laughable. In only a few cases is the government capable of providing everyone needed services where the free market can not. And when the free market provides similar services as the government, the private enterprises are always more efficient, better quality, or both.

What happens is you have a community filled with non-elite but still rather wealthy people who will be taxed according to their income.

Although I personally find this line of thinking ultimately flawed, I ask that you read the rest of my post:

"So what would actually happen if we redistribute wealth to the point where elite classes are almost non-existent? This is why I laugh when people refer to capitalism as "trickle down" economics. It's just a scary phrase people throw around to make poor and middle class people feel like they're only receiving scraps from more successful people. But when the government takes money from the rich and hands it out to the poor... well I'll use an analogy."

I was pointing out the hypocrisy in the "trickle down" argument. Many people love to throw around this term to paint a picture of a society in which the poor can only get by off of a small fraction of what upper classes give them. But obtaining that money through government is no different. It's a pointless phrase unless you're an anarcho-communist.

[quote]Is it better for a rich man to give you scraps off his own plate or for the government to take scraps off his plate and give them to you?

No.[/quote]

I often hear people describe capitalism as a large community of people feeding off the scraps of the few elite. I conceded that metaphor and added onto it so that I could point out that no matter how you look at it, it's all the same. If you don't accept the initial metaphor, don't worry about what I added on.

Again, I am addressing a specific form of liberal ideology.

I will admit, to save us all some time, that I am basing my views off of personal conversations, things I've read online, etc., etc., etc., throughout the years. And to pull up specific examples would be difficult because this is behavior I have witnessed through personal conversation, private messages, article comments, Facebook posts, entire forums such as Revleft, the rhetoric in countless articles that I can't personally recall specifically, and so on. So if you want to dismiss what I have to say due to lack of evidence, fair enough. I was merely posting my own observations and will admit them to be little more than that.

Just remember, I'm referring to a portion of liberals - not all liberals.