this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
316 points (95.9% liked)

United Kingdom

4113 readers
262 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Jo Maugham, Director of the Good Law Project, posted on X: “What a brave, democratic, free speech loving, nation we have become under the so-called Conservative Party.”

The most pertinent part for me. The Tories have legalised suppression.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] oroboros@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@narwhal.city 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 year 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.