Sjmarf to [email protected] • 5 months agoThey must have had great chemistry togetherimagemessage-square62arrow-up11.27Karrow-down110
arrow-up11.26Karrow-down1imageThey must have had great chemistry togetherSjmarf to [email protected] • 5 months agomessage-square62
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•5 months agoRarely see it spelled out that clearly, I think that’s a huge issue with modern “progressivism”.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•5 months agoProgressivism has no inherent need to be all-encompassing. In fact, keeping certain groups *cough conservatives cough* not included is an essential part of successful progressivism.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•5 months agoYou’re referring to the tolerance paradox, and I completely agree with that, but I don’t think that’s what happened here.
minus-squaredavel [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish-2•edit-25 months agoWho knew how many reactionaries would get flushed out of the bushes by a little off-hand comment about my personal life?
minus-squareeltimablolinkfedilink2•5 months agoYou, for one. I imagine that’s why you posted it in the first place.
Inclusive for me but not for thee
Rarely see it spelled out that clearly, I think that’s a huge issue with modern “progressivism”.
Progressivism has no inherent need to be all-encompassing. In fact, keeping certain groups *cough conservatives cough* not included is an essential part of successful progressivism.
You’re referring to the tolerance paradox, and I completely agree with that, but I don’t think that’s what happened here.
Who knew how many reactionaries would get flushed out of the bushes by a little off-hand comment about my personal life?
You, for one. I imagine that’s why you posted it in the first place.