Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Modern "progressivism" is largely performative. It's often a form of culture signaling.
|
This is only true if you ignore their substantive agenda -- for example, the Green New Deal, single payer, etc. -- and focus on the things which irritate you, which is what you're doing.
Quote:
|
People like Portnoy, the subject of the article Less cited, are criticized despite being liberals because they don't fit the cultural profile that many people who call themselves progressives like to telecast.
|
Would they call themselves liberals? I'm going to go for "no."
Quote:
|
And 1619 is a basket of facts mixed with bullshit, layered on the nonsense argument that slavery is the hub off which all spokes of American society developed and have turned. The Times has had to re-edit on the fly so many times in response to critics' citing errors that the paper doesn't even bother disclosing the edits anymore. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-nyt-s...-1619-project/
|
It is quintessentially you that you are irritated by the 1619 project but not the
1776 report, which is has fewer facts and more bullshit and ideology. It wasn't edited on the fly, but that's because it's authors surely see admission of error as an inappropriate sign of weakness.
You are, of course, completely entitled to be irritated by whatever irks you, but if you're trying to connect those irritations with some thread of intellectual principle, you're not there yet.
Incidentally, for whom did you end up voting?
