Lonely Among Us (TNG)

[Durandal_1707]

People like to think kids are dumb. They're ignorant, but perceptive. Watching Early TNG on weekends when there was nothing else on gave me an early dose in Left wing arrogance and self-righteousness. I see now looking back that when that sort of thing bugs me from the left, it has it's heart in episodes like this.

Early TNG isn't really an accurate picture of the left, though; it's more like a straw-man version of the left, sort of like what Rush Limbaugh would see the left as (with a healthy dose of straw-libertarianism, too, in the "I don't care if you're dying, my principle tells me not to intervene!!" interpretation of the Prime Directive). It's more Gene Roddenberry getting a bit senile than anything else.

[Admiral X]

I actually see aspects of that in the modern regressive left, though.

[Durandal_1707]

Using terms like "regressive left" doesn't really bolster your case...

[Admiral X]

I'm describing a very specific type of person - I wouldn't want to accuse all liberals of this crap. #NotAllLiberals.

[Steve]

I actually see aspects of that in the modern regressive left, though.

....what is the idea of a "regressive left" anyway?

If you're talking about people who want to impose views and attitudes on the rest of society, aren't you simply referring to authoritarian leftists?

[Admiral X]

No, I call them regressive because they're working to undo all that has been done in terms of race relations and generally moving toward a more secular, liberal society. They are divisive and bigoted, and I can think of no better word to describe them, just as I also describe their efforts at censorship or other attacks on civil liberties as them being moral guardians, moral busy-bodies, or moral guardians, because they are every bit as horrible and regressive as the religious right as represented by people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who helped to popularize the term "moral majority," which is something else the regressive left seems to think they have given the things they say and do. The arrogance being on display here in this episode that people are talking about is very much in line with that.

[rickgriffin]

You realize the label you're using is synonymous with what USED TO BE "Social Justice Warrior" several years ago. At one point pre-2014, SJW was a term used within left circles to refer to the incredibly annoying tryhards who played Oppression Olympics (where someone's right to speak authoritatively was equated with how many minority labels they could slap on themselves), called anything vaguely ethnic enjoyed by white americans Appropriation, and equated people who were ignorant of terminology (such as with transgender) the exact same as those who openly flaunted it.

Now, of course, SJW was adopted by right-leaners to describe not just people on the left who who can't grasp nuance, but anyone with any left-leaning sympathies, esp. anyone who even hints that oppression politics (the basis behind Social Justice) might be a real thing. Because the label, by itself, does not succinctly convey everything I just described above; it just become a catch-all pejorative--and subsequently completely useless at describing said behaviors I described in any general setting.

"Regressive Left" has the same problem. You might mean something in particular, but just using it as a label to slap on whoever bugs you doesn't really convey the what and the why, and so opens the doors for everyone who doesn't know what you mean to apply it however THEY like, rather than how you mean. I mean, "regressive left" is ALREADY used by right-leaning politicians to describe basically anyone center and leftward.

[CrypticMirror]

Has this thread devolved into politics again? Can we not just talk about Star Trek instead? There is a whole nother section for people to bang on about whatever ridiculous labels, left, right, centre, and miscellaneous stuff, that they want to apply.

[Admiral X]

You realize the label you're using is synonymous with what USED TO BE "Social Justice Warrior" several years ago.

Both terms are accurate (though so would the term "moral crusader"). I've seen some proudly take on the SJW label, though. Doubt they'll proudly take on the regressive left label, though.

Now, of course, SJW was adopted by right-leaners to describe not just people on the left who who can't grasp nuance, but anyone with any left-leaning sympathies, esp. anyone who even hints that oppression politics (the basis behind Social Justice) might be a real thing. Because the label, by itself, does not succinctly convey everything I just described above; it just become a catch-all pejorative--and subsequently completely useless at describing said behaviors I described in any general setting.

My use of the term is to distinguish between a normal liberals and the "social justice" authoritarians.

"Regressive Left" has the same problem. You might mean something in particular, but just using it as a label to slap on whoever bugs you doesn't really convey the what and the why, and so opens the doors for everyone who doesn't know what you mean to apply it however THEY like, rather than how you mean. I mean, "regressive left" is ALREADY used by right-leaning politicians to describe basically anyone center and leftward.

My use is very specific, and I described exactly what I was talking about a few posts back. I'm talking about bigoted authoritarians who favor a classist system based on their bigoted views of what they feel represents "social justice," which includes getting rid of things like due process and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," not to mention free speech. It's easy to accuse all liberals of this and this use the name "liberal" as a dirty word, but that's only because the regressives have become so pervasive within mainstream political parties that are traditionally thought of as liberal. Hence my use of the term "regressive left" to describe exactly the type of person or mentality that I'm talking about, which isn't actually liberal in spite of their association with liberals.

Has this thread devolved into politics again? Can we not just talk about Star Trek instead? There is a whole nother section for people to bang on about whatever ridiculous labels, left, right, centre, and miscellaneous stuff, that they want to apply.

Because it's an aspect of the episode under discussion, which is frankly part of why the episode isn't very good.

[rickgriffin]

I get what exactly you're using the label for, I just suggest to prevent misunderstandings it may be more helpful to be descriptive, even if using the label feels like quick shorthand. Labels, especially pejorative labels, are quick to say but just as quickly misunderstood, which is why they tend to blur over time into a synonym for "meaniepants"