You deny left leaning people consider themselves "progressive"?
I actually call them progressive statists. The more hip term these days is democratic socialist.
"Democratic Socialist" at least has a shred of definition, via Bernie Sanders. "Progressive" is a term from the turn of the 19th/20th century that has long faded into history.
What you just used above was "progressive" the adjective. Anything that includes progress is "progressive". At base it means "not static". But your original term was 'Progressive" the noun, to wit: "progressives can't let that happen". And that, sir, is a label.
A label which I might add I've been challenging anyone and everyone to define on this board outside of its 1890-1920 usage, which no one has ever addressed.
Now me, I don't use terms I can't define....
If you use the term progressive today, most people automatically know what you are talking about.
The SJW, big government types that infest the democratic party.
If you think government is the solution to pretty much everything, you are a progressive.
If you think 1st amendment free speech protections have limits beyond fighting words and "yelling fire in a theater" you are a progressive.
If you follow identity politics from a leftist bent, you are a progressive.
It's actually quite easy to define if you actually put some effort into it.
What they are no longer is "liberal" in the classical sense.
First off I'll readily agree that nothing on that list is "Liberal". But the question was "Progressive".
"Most people know what you're talking about" obviously falls on its face as definition. Most of what you've given as examples here are activist leftist stances. If that's what you actually mean --- and I don't know yet if it is but if so --- why not just say that instead of trying to recycle a hundred-year-old already-used different term? That just results in a single term meaning two disparate things.
The problem with this sort of vague terminology is it's weasel-wording. If you charge in without an established definition, you can retroactively plug in (or remove) any trait you want after the fact if it turns out to be convenient or inconvenient to have done so.
So given the only definitions we have, if we're not referring to the corpse of Jane Addams, by "Progressive" you must be describing "people who desire things to improve". That's all we have to go on, and it ain't exactly scary. It should include --- everybody.
I'm not the only one using the term, and like most recycled terms, it's use is for convenience, nothing more. If most people understand what I am talking about when I call someone "progressive" what is the real issue?
Nor are you the only one I've asked a definition of, yet somehow nobody anywhere has one.
What do you think that means?
Once again, "most people know what I mean" is not any kind of definition. What you keep telling me is that you don't have one. And if you don't have one then you have no point, as your subject is a blank space.
Progressives back then are different from Progressives now. Liberals in the 1700's to 1800's were different from liberals in the 1950's and 1960's, and the term nowadays is in flux, with classic liberals saying current leftists, i.e. progressives, are often illerbeal.
Uh nnnnno. "Liberal" means what it means. "Progressive" means what it means. You can't just slap the same term on wildly different things, even directly opposite things, and expect coherency to result. Terms are not "in flux"; they are misused by those who just don't understand what they're using. "Leftists" for example may very well be illiberal. They don't mean the same thing,
nor are they supposed to. A leftist being illiberal is not an incongruency, any more than a baseball bat that is not aluminum.
That's why I'm asking for a definition. The fact that you can't think of one should be a great big screaming clue that the term for whatever you're trying to express, is inadequate. I put it to you that you are using a term that has no function.
Labels are there to simplify language. When i say progressive, in most people's mind, the SJW, tofu eating, straw hating, government loving trans-ish pan sexual stereotype is what pops in.
Finally --- something stabbing at a definition, yet woefully inept. This word salad starts with some activist-leftist principles, mixes in tofu (wtf?) and then "straw" (completely lost now), with a dash of authoritarianism (we're all over the map) all wrapped around a gooey center of sexual liquidity.
Care to essplain how the ingredients to all that goulash stew have anything to do with each other, let alone go somewhere?
And once again we're back to "what pops in most people's mind [sic]". Again that's, to quote Bob Uecker, juuuuuuust a bit outside of anything specific.
Overqualified?
