Comment on Outrage after Greta Thunberg arrested at London oil summit protest
oroboros@sh.itjust.works 8 months agoI think I maybe mistook the tone of your comment.
I think Greta is in a position to make a difference and amazingly in a non violent way. So when you said you far left activitist etc… It came across as the typical brain washed drivel you get from people who have been taken over and are being driven by snake oil salesmen that appear to have taken over general public discourse globally.
You’re response, saying you think far left as progressive makes me think I was harsh in thinking this as I do think Greta is progressive, which I think is idionatically correct, however I don’t think Greta’s stance or activism is far anything so that is where my confusion came from.
realcaseyrollins 8 months ago
I see. For the record I don't like progressivism, but it's not supposed to be a dig at her, just saying that she's at a protest that is aligned with her ideology, and it makes no sense to be mad at her for attending a protest or rally that's for a cause that she supports. Seems like a dumb thing to complain about to me.
Knightfox@lemmy.one 8 months ago
They’re outraged because she was arrested, not because she was there.
realcaseyrollins 8 months ago
Ah,that makes a lot more sense.
oroboros@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
I don’t think anyone is mad at her, people are looking at this and seeing naked corrupt authoritarianism.
So to explain my confusion, not wanting things to progress is something I don’t understand, so when you said progressive I then thought you were saying Greta is doing good.
Fundementally, being against progression means you are regressive. I think being static isn’t something well defined, because it doesn’t seem feasible, it would required being entirely insular, i.e. solipsistic, which is mad.
If you don’t mind me asking, why do you want things to regress? In recent times ( bar the rise of the far right ideologies causing a fair bit of war and death), it’s statistically been one of the most peaceful periods in history, bar some notable regions, really Europe’s stopped brutally annihilating each other. Arguably, this has been due to global cooperation on an economic and cultural level, it could be nuclear weapons as well, but cooperation is good, so I would personally roll with it.
Would you prefer to go back to a time when countries where more insular and thus more likely to end up in war with each other? Or what other benefits do you see in being regressive?
realcaseyrollins 8 months ago
First of all, I think it's a bit faulty to say that progress is good by default, as it is only good if it leaves society in a better state than it was before.
I'd actually argue that progressivism is, in general, pretty regressive, rather that leading to progress, and has led to things like sexism and racism coming back into favor, rather than falling out of favor. This has given us a society where there is now a fair bit of progress needed to get back to where MLK wanted us to be, with people being judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin (or their genetalia). There are other things too, such as a return to science, the presumption of innocence before being proven guilty in the eyes of the general public, and more that need to be strived for, but progressivism attempts to take us backwards in regards to those things, rather than taking us forward.
tkc@feddit.uk 8 months ago
This is an interesting take, and I hadn’t thought of it like this before.
I guess the things you’ve noted a regressions would be seen as progressions by some other person, and it depends on what a person’s perspective of a “better” state, presumably for all involved, is.
In either case, it’s given me a new perspective I hadn’t thought of before.