Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    felamaslen


    I think it's more to do with an ethics* rather than a desire for change- namely moral relativism and a blinkered view of justice. Many of the criticisms say about US Cold War policy such as inVietnam and Nicaragua are pretty on point. The regressive left however think all intervention is bad however and this people like Christopher Hitchens are seen as betrayers for thinking that the U.S. Could ever be a force for good.

    *To simplify

    Relativism vs Universalism

    Read / watch Sam Harris's The moral landscape- he points out the problem brilliantly there I think.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    felamaslen


    I think it's more to do with an ethics* rather than a desire for change- namely moral relativism and a blinkered view of justice. Many of the criticisms say about US Cold War policy such as inVietnam and Nicaragua are pretty on point. The regressive left however think all intervention is bad however and this people like Christopher Hitchens are seen as betrayers for thinking that the U.S. Could ever be a force for good.

    *To simplify

    Relativism vs Universalism

    Read / watch Sam Harris's The moral landscape- he points out the problem brilliantly there I think.
    Regressive leftists find foreign "struggles" romantic, which is what attracts them to tyranny. Conservatives either don't care about foreigners and don't want to have anything to do with them, or in the case of "neoconservatives" want the West to play an active role in the improvement of their circumstances, where necessary.

    Leftist opposition to the crimes of the Cold war have virtually nothing to do with upholding principles of human rights and freedom. Opposition to foreign tyrannies is usually a proxy to project hatred of the West. As an example, If the leftist demonstrators who turned out to oppose the Vietnam war really cared about Vietnamese freedom, they would not have regarded America's capitulation to the Viet Cong as a victory, for it resulted in the deaths and enslavement under Communism of many innocent Vietnamese.*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "Regressive left" is the equivalent of "right-wing racist". Both terms have a time and a place but both are often used to attack someone for their political leanimgs instead of actually arguing the point.
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Regressive leftists find foreign "struggles" romantic, which is what attracts them to tyranny.

    Conservatives either don't care about foreigners and don't want to have anything to do with them, or in the case of "neoconservatives" want the West to play an active role in the improvement of their circumstances, where necessary.

    Leftist opposition to the crimes of the Cold war have virtually nothing to do with upholding principles of human rights and freedom. Opposition to foreign tyrannies is usually a proxy to project hatred of the West. As an example, If the leftist demonstrators who turned out to oppose the Vietnam war really cared about Vietnamese freedom, they would not have regarded America's capitulation to the Viet Cong as a victory, for it resulted in the deaths and enslavement under Communism of many innocent Vietnamese.*
    I'm not entirely with you on that one.

    I agree that they find the notion of the revoloution and the 'peoples will' manifest as romantic but i think there is some distinction to be made between the hopeless idealist regressive (Say, Dianne Abbot) to the outright nihilist who doesn't care so long as its against 'western imperialism' (Galloway). Both of whom may regard neoliberalism as enslavement but crucially one group wont settle for anything but the ideal whilst the others will make compromises in the pursuit of power with groups also hostile to the west. I think its essentially the distinction between trotskyism and stalinism.

    The focus point ends up being that there is either a universal order or relativism/nihilism. On this foundation as it were I am inclined to think that it is mainly on the right that we are going to see progress.

    (Little wonder that many trotskyists ended up as neocons!)

    You can see this as well with say the opposition to the iraq war- not everyone who did so was a regressive leftist (eg Robin Cook).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Honestly I don't get why Israel doesn't just waltz in and utterly crush Hamas. Sure there will be outrage, but you'd be killing a huge problem at the price of causing a bunch of smaller ones.
    You'll get whiny European liberals complaining.


    I'm going to start my own campaign to end the illegal French occupation of east Paristine.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    The regressive left (also sometimes referred to as regressive liberals) is a political epithet used to negatively characterise a section of left-wing politics which is accused of paradoxically holding reactionary views due to tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies (such as extremist Islamism) for the sake of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.

    Quoting Wikipedia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

    I might have misinterpreted this but basically those who are still for allowing millions of migrants into the country, and accepting things from other religions e.g. underage marriage and sharia law. Claiming they protect free speech, etc.

    Defined basically by the primary user of the word 'Those who pander to Islamism' rather than questioning the rights of the people involved.
    You certainly have misinterpreted. Allowing immigrants into the country, even ones fresh off the boat from Syria, is nothing to do with extremist Islamism.

    And you have casually overestimated the number of refugees coming into the UK by a factor of at least 100, if not 1000.

    Even if you meant all immigrants, which has nothing to do with Islam, we only have 600,000 in total coming in and 300,000 going out, and half of them are white Christian Europeans from the EU.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    It's a term coined by Maajid Nawaz to describe a phenomenon with the contemporary left, whereby people resort to ends-justify-the-means style tactics to smear opponents and avoid honest intellectual discussions about perceived politically-incorrect issues. It's characterised by de-platforming opponents, misquoting them, using straw-man arguments, and other anti-intellectual tactics, implicitly asserting one's moral superiority instead of grappling with the facts as they can be understood in honest journalism or debate.

    It seems to be a form of intellectual tribalism. It's a problem because it inhibits genuine discussion of the world as it is, undermines trust in journalism, and encourages poor styles of thinking and widespread adoption of bad ideas. I think one of the most well-known and biggest offenders is Glenn Greenwald.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What do we call the equivalent on the right? The ones that harp on about free speech while seeking to suppress it, the militant atheists that attack Islam and cosy up to Christians and Jews.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    You certainly have misinterpreted. Allowing immigrants into the country, even ones fresh off the boat from Syria, is nothing to do with extremist Islamism.

    And you have casually overestimated the number of refugees coming into the UK by a factor of at least 100, if not 1000.

    Even if you meant all immigrants, which has nothing to do with Islam, we only have 600,000 in total coming in and 300,000 going out, and half of them are white Christian Europeans from the EU.
    I wasn't saying what I believe the number of immigrants was.I wasn't stating what I believe about immigration. I didn't even give a statistic which you seem to have attributed to me. I just quoted Wikipedia on the definition of the regressive left. Don't start having a go at me if you get upset by these people!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Honestly I don't get why Israel doesn't just waltz in and utterly crush Hamas. Sure there will be outrage, but you'd be killing a huge problem at the price of causing a bunch of smaller ones.
    Because Hamas specialise in using human shields so that when Israel destroys rocket launch sites/munition stores etc they can go "look at what the dirty Israelis/Jews did!" and people eat it right up*
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    "The regressive left... leap(s) whenever any (not merely their own) liberal democratic government commits a policy error, while generally ignoring almost every fascist, theocratic or Muslim-led dictatorial regime and group in the world.—Maajid Nawaz[1]"

    "While the term originates from within the left, with progressives challenging regressives to stand up for their alleged leftist values in all matters, thus implying an internal criticism (the argument being that regressives arenot consistently liberal), the term has also been picked up from the outside and has been used by conservatives (and others) as a snarl word directed at any leftist positions they don't happen to like like, similar to the snarl usage of the term "social justice warrior". As is to be expected, rival camps revel in the infighting of their opponents."

    This forum is full of the bolded bit. The term originates within the left yet people who are fundamentally apposed to the left like to hijack it. See all the horrible racist morons on here moaning about cucks and adopting left wing positions they would not normally hold to when ti allows them to attack Muslims/refugees/migrants/brown looking people.

    Basically the term regressive left comes from left wing self criticism. It is a term invented by leftists. None leftists using the term to discredit the entire left do not understand the history of where the term comes from. It is a left wing position.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regressive_left
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The regressive left is a term coined by anti-Islamist activist Maajid Nawaz[2] to describe a perceived segment of the left which ignores certain reactionary attitudes in the name of tolerance. Nawaz originally used it to refer to misguided leftist tolerance of conservative and fundamentalist Islam (underbelly and all) in contrast to their progressive stance against the scourge of conservative and fundamentalist Christianity, but the term has since been extended to encompass many (but curiously not all) leftist positions that appear contradictory to progressive values.While the term originates from within the left, with progressives challenging regressives to stand up for their alleged leftist values in all matters, thus implying an internal criticism (the argument being that regressives arenot consistently liberal), the term has also been picked up from the outside and has been used by conservatives (and others) as a snarl word directed at any leftist positions they don't happen to like like, similar to the snarl usage of the term "social justice warrior". As is to be expected, rival camps revel in the infighting of their opponents.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    I see this term bandied around a lot, but what does it actually mean? How is the regressive left different from the "normal" left, the progressive left, the classical left, etc?
    Best metaphor for the regressive left:


    New boss arrives at work, announces he has some fantastic new ideas.

    Everyone groans because 90% of the time his ideas are shite and will involve a ton of effort and change to probably end up going backwards.


    SS
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Israel waltzed out in 2005 which is why Hamas now runs Gaza. Waltzing in or out doesn't seem to make a difference, the best hope for Israel is stalemate, backed up by great defence (Iron Dome, a separation barrier, checkpoints, etc.). Let's be honest, Hamas is more of an annoyance than an existential threat at this point.

    It is similar to how in Europe, nobody will actually fight and destroy Islamism until it becomes an existential threat (by which point it may be too late). After the Paris atrocities last year, and the completely supine response to them, I gave up on Europe, or at least, France.*

    I meant literally walk in and conquer and annex it outright.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Because Hamas specialise in using human shields so that when Israel destroys rocket launch sites/munition stores etc they can go "look at what the dirty Israelis/Jews did!" and people eat it right up*
    A bunch of people getting triggered because Israel did something isn't going to change the fact that Israel is backed by the US most likely.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    I meant literally walk in and conquer and annex it outright.
    It would be a bloodbath if they marched in, plus there's the ongoing problem of trying to hold it against a hostile population.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    It would be a bloodbath if they marched in, plus there's the ongoing problem of trying to hold it against a hostile population.
    Yeah, I have no doubt thousands upon thousands would die. Long term, however, I think it would be better for Palestine.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Yeah, I have no doubt thousands upon thousands would die. Long term, however, I think it would be better for Palestine.
    If they did that then Hezbollah would probably attack from Lebanon as well.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.w...6ac_story.html
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    If they did that then Hezbollah would probably attack from Lebanon as well.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.w...6ac_story.html
    Probably. However, Israel would utterly crush Hezbollah. Israel could probably crush every middle eastern country aside from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Honestly I don't get why Israel doesn't just waltz in and utterly crush Hamas. Sure there will be outrage, but you'd be killing a huge problem at the price of causing a bunch of smaller ones.
    A couple of reasons:

    - Firstly, because Israel, like so many ethno-nationalist projects, has essentially built an ideology of a constant siege mentality. Hamas isn't really much of a "huge problem" at all, but blowing it into one serves Israel's interests. It gives it an excuse not to sincerely talk peace, will give a popularity boost whatever government is in power at the time of each war, and so on.

    - Secondly, because of "second-order effects". For example if in a battle you kill 100 Hamas fighters, but because of the destruction and measures required in doing so, more than 100 new fighters joined up, then you have actually suffered a strategic defeat despite a tactical victory. This is why the Americans failed in Vietnam - they concentrated solely on how many Vietcong guerillas they were killing, without considering how many new recruits were joining as a result.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.