For too long, regressive interests have masqueraded as if they are "conserving" some kind of status quo. In reality, they are trying to upend it. However, there are still ways we can make progress.
Greetings, Jesse. I linked to this piece from Spoutible. I was intrigued by the whole label conversation because 1) I wish that mainstream politics news & information would stop using "conservative" to daily describe policies and positions that are not at all conservative and 2) because I purvey yet another label: "conscious," which I write about here on Substack. Also, "The Progressive Cafe" has a lovely ring to it. All to say, it's nice to make your acquaintance.
Thank you so much for the kind words, and for subscribing. I think you're right about the media misusing terms like "moderate" (which I've seen applied to frikkin' Manchin!) and "Conservative" (Which is what people like Josh Hawley are categorized as, and not "Regressive" or "Fascist.") It's just kinda unpleasant.
I can't say I've heard of "conscious" as a label, but I'll have to look into what you mean by it!
Haha. Well "conscious" as it relates to politics is, apparently, something nobody has heard of so you're in good company and my lift is a bit heavier than originally thought. :)
Meanwhile, I'm a complete zero when it comes to sci fi so I'll stick to the progressive politics.
I think "conscious" is an interesting term because in a lot of ways it's subjective. I think people will assume that the "conscious" approach is the one they've taken because they - being, of course, intelligent beings! - have surely thought it through. For example, I'd say Progressivism is a conscious philosophy because it extends consideration to all people of varying walks of life. But I'm sure some Fascist will claim to be "conscious" of the, forgive me, "inherent superiority of their position."
Your article does a good job of explaining what the concept you've got in mind, though. It clarifies that inequity is a bad thing (as opposed to, say, "I'm conscious that there's always a bigger fish," which might be true but doesn't excuse systemic failures to address inequality), and it confirms the importance of diversity.
Greetings, Jesse. I linked to this piece from Spoutible. I was intrigued by the whole label conversation because 1) I wish that mainstream politics news & information would stop using "conservative" to daily describe policies and positions that are not at all conservative and 2) because I purvey yet another label: "conscious," which I write about here on Substack. Also, "The Progressive Cafe" has a lovely ring to it. All to say, it's nice to make your acquaintance.
Thank you so much for the kind words, and for subscribing. I think you're right about the media misusing terms like "moderate" (which I've seen applied to frikkin' Manchin!) and "Conservative" (Which is what people like Josh Hawley are categorized as, and not "Regressive" or "Fascist.") It's just kinda unpleasant.
I can't say I've heard of "conscious" as a label, but I'll have to look into what you mean by it!
Haha. Well "conscious" as it relates to politics is, apparently, something nobody has heard of so you're in good company and my lift is a bit heavier than originally thought. :)
Meanwhile, I'm a complete zero when it comes to sci fi so I'll stick to the progressive politics.
If you're curious, this issue from my newsletter will probably lead to a "no thanks" or "ah, now I see." Assuming this link takes: https://open.substack.com/pub/morrisonsteven/p/to-be-conscious-an-invitation?r=8c9yi&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Interesting article!
I think "conscious" is an interesting term because in a lot of ways it's subjective. I think people will assume that the "conscious" approach is the one they've taken because they - being, of course, intelligent beings! - have surely thought it through. For example, I'd say Progressivism is a conscious philosophy because it extends consideration to all people of varying walks of life. But I'm sure some Fascist will claim to be "conscious" of the, forgive me, "inherent superiority of their position."
Your article does a good job of explaining what the concept you've got in mind, though. It clarifies that inequity is a bad thing (as opposed to, say, "I'm conscious that there's always a bigger fish," which might be true but doesn't excuse systemic failures to address inequality), and it confirms the importance of diversity.
Thanks for sharing!