I think that is a misrepresentation of the fundamental progressive position, which is to make progress but never at the cost of the marginalized. Because we historically make most progress at the cost of the marginalized it can feel limiting or even discriminatory when we make sure they don’t beat the brunt of continued progress.
There is nothing against the group you mention except that it might be the group that most fights against progress toward equality.
> I think that is a misrepresentation of the fundamental progressive position, which is to make progress but never at the cost of the marginalized.
That just means that the marginalized become an anchor preventing progress. We can’t have nice things until we solve the problems of the bottom quantile—which we never will.
If progressives had been in charge, America and everything it created wouldn’t exist. They never would have allowed us to displace the Indian tribes so the land could be put to better use.
What do you think is the best way to turn tables around and ensure that the marginalized are a net positive for progress? Perhaps we should reintroduce slavery? Or do you think that turning them into food or fertilizer would have more net benefit?
“That just means that the marginalized become an anchor preventing progress.”
And that’s the difference. Progressives view it as important that we progress all groups and that challenge is fundamental to society, whereas you view them as an anchor.
Progressives have been in charge, over and over again. You're discounting America starting from what is, by modern standards, a very regressive position.
Was the end of slavery a progressive or regressive move?
There is nothing against the group you mention except that it might be the group that most fights against progress toward equality.