The Truth About the Regressive Left
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2024
- --Our investigation into the "regressive left" including the terms origins, its proper and improper uses, and failures by progressive to actually be progressive
On the Bonus Show: The National Weather Service gets some much needed upgrades, UC Davis spends thousands to scrub internet of pepper-spray references, massive alligators make headlines, more...
Support TDPS by clicking (bookmark it too!) this link before shopping on Amazon: www.amazon.com/...
Website: www.davidpakma...
Become a Member: www.davidpakma...
David's Instagram: / david.pakman
Discuss This on Reddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
TDPS Twitter: / davidpakmanshow
David's Twitter: / dpakman
TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
Subscribe to The David Pakman Show for more: www.youtube.com...
Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!
Broadcast on April 14, 2016 --Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
--Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm enjoying this so far, but I do have to call David out on his characterization of regressive behavior and shutting down debate as a "right wing tactic". It is an apolitical political tactic, if you will. It is nothing more than power attempting to preserve itself.
It is the political underdog who will always promote liberal values such as freedom of speech, press and assembly, civil liberties, tolerance of unpopular or "offensive" opinions and free and open debate. In the 60s on US campuses (and prior), the underdog was the progressive left, and the establishment was deeply conservative--even "centrist" positions were conservative compared to what they are today.
Because it was the right that was in power (overall--not just in government, but in social and educational institutions), it had the ability to suppress differing viewpoints and challenges to its hegemony, and it did so. The left were the political underdog, and thus valued freedom of expression (because they relied on it in order to be allowed to voice their unpopular opinions).
It was here that the political left became conflated with certain liberal values, and the right associated with illiberal ones. The campus free speech movement in the US was, by necessity, a movement of the left because it was students on the left whose voices were being marginalized. NOT because holding freedom of speech as sacrosanct is an inherent property of leftism, but because at the time, the left absolutely depended on freedom of speech.
Now, we look at universities in the US, and what do we see? 80% of faculty describe themselves as democrats, socialists or on the political left. This ratio isn't so extreme in STEM, but in the Humanities, the social sciences, interdisciplinary studies, arts, psychology, philosophy and essentially all similar faculties, the ratio goes up to about 40 to 1.
That is, 40 left-leaning faculty members for every one conservative one.
Keep in mind, there is very little politics involved in solving a Navier-Stokes equation. There's a definite correct answer, and all other answers are incorrect. When it comes to the softer disciplines, the questions asked here are not correct/incorrect questions--they're much more vulnerable to political interpretations.
And in these very faculties, leftist professors outnumber conservative ones about 40 to one. I expect most would describe themselves as feminists, too.
That is leftist political hegemony in every university faculty and program where politics actually matter.
And like the right wing faculty and administration did during the 1960s, it will do what it can to preserve itself, even if that means throwing free speech, open debate and other liberal principles under the bus.
And who is fighting for freedom of speech on campuses now? Why, what do you know? It's anti-feminists. It's conservatives. It's Christians. It's pro-life activists. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education spends most of its time defending the rights of these people more than anyone else these days, despite the fact that its founder came up during the leftist free speech movement of the 60s.
Not because liberal values like freedom of speech and open debate are intrinsic properties of the right, or of religion, either, but because now it's THEIR turn to need it.
Liberal values are not about left or right--they're about limiting political hegemony and preserving the right to heterodoxy, no matter who is in power. This is WHY so many of them are written into the constitutions of various countries. Because neither the right nor the left will truly value them when they can afford to set them aside.
This is not a right or left problem, it's a human problem.
+karen straughan that too much for a youtube comment
+obilvionmad82 fuckyougoogleplus I just turned it into a video, if you'd rather. Will be finished uploading in about 15 minutes.
+obilvionmad82 fuckyougoogleplus
Your screen name is too long for a youtube screen name.
+karen straughan Oh wow. Didn't think I would see you in the comment section here. Love your work btw.
+Rani Khoury Yes. They're doing it in exactly the same way in which David suggested it was a "right wing tactic". To smear the opposing position.
Many in the right wing make the distinction between the left and the regressive left--that is, "not all leftists are like that." They misapply or over-apply it at times, however, David's assertion that these regressive tactics are "right wing" is over-application on an epic scale.
Particularly considering it is primarily the anti-left (you don't have to necessarily be on the right to be anti-left), in the US and Canada right now, who are most likely to promote liberal ideals such as free speech and association, and open debate, and to condemn censorship.
Perhaps it's because I'm extremely apolitical that I'm seeing things this way, but that also means that David's sin in attributing this tactic to "the right wing" strikes me as the more egregious.
Dave, you're doing some fantastic job. You need more subs
"You can't be bigoted against an ideology." Exactly
This was excellent
Conservatives seem to confuse terms Regressive and Liberal just like they do with Communist and Socialist.
Also i've seen a lot of comments from Regressives calling anyone who disagrees with them and their methods a Neo-Con.
The far left and right really do see the world in Black and White
Yeah... except for BAD FAITH actors.
I’m not progressive but appreciate being able to listen to your thoughts
Fantastic analysis, David, this was an excellent piece of work. You hit every nail right on the head.
+Sargon of Akkad The only point I disagreed with him on was the gaming part. Third wave feminist fit the regressive category, and pretty much every gamer that complains about feminism in gaming is specifically talking about third wave feminism, which as I have seen a ton of your videos, you're very familiar with it.
+DragonCharlz I thought a couple of his examples were a little off, but hey, the gamer he's talking about could easily be a revoltard calling everyone they disagree with an SJW or SJW-light. I'm certainly not going to take it personally in the larger context of the video, which was spot on.
Emanuel Hoogeveen True, but there are a large amount of gamers commenting on third wave feminism and how its hurting and misrepresenting the gaming community. I don't see how anyone could miss that.
Carlito House "A true liberal recognizes that conservatives are actually upholding liberal principles" - Apparently they're extremely selective about it then because that's not what I observe in most cases. When I see American conservatives, who are anti choice, anti drug other than tobacco and alcohol, anti LGBT, and pro religious authority, I don't see how any of that is liberal personally.
+Sargon of Akkad No he framed gamers as misogynists there at the end in a manner that made it seem as if it were just a settled fact.
Too many of these terms have been over-used especially by the conservatives.
I disagree Carlito. There's a lot of trash on the left, but I wouldn't say the right is any better.
Is it properly used is more significant
_"The Truth About"_
Honestly.. I hate these kind of titles.
+Shangori Yeah, it has that creepy, culty, Molyneux vibe.
+AussieCentristGirl28
He's an anarcho-capitalist and a "race realist". He's definitely intelligent, but his views are pretty terrible.
Ever thought about combining with secular talk? You two together would dominate the planet
Are you kidding?
I'm tiered of the term regressive left. Literally everyone who is left leaning has been or will be called a regressive, it has become an insult. I guarantee some one will call this video regressive
See the comment were someone unsubbed for David calling himself a feminist.
Fantastic analysis, David!
+Phantom except he leaves out that there isnt such thing as regressive left it was sam harris who created that bullshit word and it doesnt mean anything
All of the Left is regressive. The definition of the Left is that they want to use the guns of the State to steal the wealth that others created or earned. You cannot be a Leftist if you do not support this theft.
+AnkhDjedSeneb Please look up progressivism. It is not how you want to define it here. Also look up leftist ideologies. Jeez!
>Sees title
>hyped
>sees like bar
>smiling
>disgonbgud.gif
>wasn't disappointed
>many good points brought up
>excellent first step in a potential series of anti-regressive videos and reports
Dave. I agree with you in about 95 percent. I am a person who criticize religion and same with Islam.
However history like colonialism and American interventionalism have destabilized the entire region, which lead to more wars and more poverty.
In the 60’s or 70’s women were able to wear the same clothes as we can in the western world, until USA helped topple the elected government out of fear of the left and due to oil. And conservative leaders were put in power and look at the place now.
All this said I do criticize Islam.
Dave, Absolutely amazing video. I agree with you 99% of the time here. One small point I wanted to mention because of something you said at the end of the video, and also something I noticed you do as well that might have just the tiniest hint of a "regressive" idea, that I do not believe you truly intended.
Near the end of the video, starting around 17:00, you stated "We mostly only hear regressive left used in reference to race, gender, and sexuality," and I think that, when used correctly, that makes a lot of sense. When used correctly, pointing out something is a "regressive left" issue is when someone who would be considered a "liberal" intends to shut down criticism by using an ad hominid attack against the person offering the criticism.
The method of doing so would be calling the presenter of a criticism a (sexist, racist, misogynistic, anti-feminist), etc., depending on the buzz word that fits best to shut down the criticism.
And clearly, this has been done on the conservative side as well, when the "regressive Right/Tea Party" have used and still use similar tactics, stifling valid criticism of something like capitalism, with their own buzzwords (socialist, communist, feminazi, SJW), etc., etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that regressivism is not a black and white, left versus right debate. If anything regressivism, is the opponent to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of association, because it attempts to ignore valid criticism of an idea or ideal by painting the proponent of the criticism as "undesirable," without actually addressing or refuting the criticism itself.
The growth of the "regressive left" argument is in a way trying to show progressives and liberals that the same type of thinking that they (quite correctly) accuse conservatives of when they try to shut down debate and criticism is invading their own libereal sphere, or perhaps, has been their all along. When someone says the "regressive left" doesn't exist, they are in effect saying that their ideas are so above scrutiny that even questioning them is anathema.
As such, I would suggest evaluating your own usage, vis a vis, anti-feminist, which is being used in much the same way. Calling someone anti-feminist, MRA, "Gamer Gator," racist, sexist, socialist, SJW, communist, anti-american, etc, etc, almost always ignores the argument in favor of attacking the arguer.
Someone could very well be any one of those above, and still present a valid criticism to feminism, islam, capitalism, abortion, the Patriot Act, privacy, encryption, etc. , and unless you refute the argument, rather than the arguer, than you risk being "regressive" in your approach.
Certainly, it can be exhausting to have to refute arguments rather than taking a short cut and refuting the arguer, but the point of progressiveness, as I have always believed it to be, is being willing to take the hard road and refuting the idea rather than the person because it is right and just.
Or as it is said say, the path to the Dark Side (regressivism) is paved with good intentions.
This has to be one of your best and most important videos to date. Very nice work and it hits the nail on the head.
david, your clear thought is a beacon at this difficult time. keep spelling it out!
David understands the term "regressive" more than Dave Rubin, who just likes to call everyone who doesn't think like him one.
Pakman understands just about everything better than Rubin, so that's not surprising. The other aspect to is Rubin clearly has an agenda behind his use of the word where Pakman does not.
***** Rubin's agenda move people right ward by creating artificial divisions and artificial solidarity with the right, that's why all his softball questions are there to set up his guest to bash liberals.
Top Flight Security The whole regressive thing is entirely subjective anyway. The fact you agree with him on somethings is irrelevant when you commit the thought crime of disagreeing with him on other things i.e. the thought crime of regressivism.
Top Flight Security I think a big part of my problem with the term is that people do take it very seriously. Good to hear you're not one of them.
***** We have a very old word for people who lie, that word is 'liar.'
Thoughtful, balanced and well researched. Amazing piece David, one of the most important things I've seen on TDPS yet.
As a social progressive/liberal and an economic/foreign policy centrist, this channel is becoming ever more thought-provoking to me. Well done.
*Shows picture of Dave Rubin*.... ''All of the above are progressives!''.... Woo boy, this did not age well :p
i know, once i heard him say that i almost considered unsubscribing...
Rubin used to be progressive. So it was true at the time.
Fair and nuanced video about this topic, this kind of video was long over due. Good job! :)
Killed it David! That was spot on
Well, nazi ideology, creationism, holocaust denial, religious fanaticism are all obviously unreasonable, but people still hold these views
I would like to emphasize that someone being regressive about Islam is not a reason to disregard every other opinion the individual may have. I often see people eager to tag others as regressive just to dismiss all their points of view.
One example that comes to mind is the debate between Cenk Uygur and Sam Harris. They both have regressive views, Cenk regarding Islam and Sam regarding foreign policy. However many people was under the impression that Cenk was regressive and Sam the real progressive.
This dichotomy is absurd, we need to stop putting people in boxes and instead being specific about our disagreements and also recognize our agreements.
Exactly I thought Cenk was completely wrong on Islam. But Sam does need to acknowledge America foreign policy is great propaganda for terrorist to use. ie: gtmo, drone strikes, regime change and the Iraq war.
+Josafat Guerrero Funny since the term regressive is specifically for dismissing an entire point of view.
Where have you been hiding all these years? This video is excellent. Subscribed.
The gamer example is a bit of a straw-man. There's a big overlap between the ideology of the people currently attacking gaming culture and Islam-apologists and their supporters (in some cases these are even the same people). This all comes from inter-sectional ideology, whereby Muslims are considered untouchable because they're an "oppressed group" and gamers are considered fair game because they're majority white males and are therefore "privileged/oppressors".
The two issues aren't related but it's the same logic being applied to determine who it's ok to go after and so when a feminist attacks gamers claiming that they're all misogynists because someone killed a hooker in GTA, Mario rescued Princess Peach or they saw a girl's butt in the game, that person is regressive in the same way that someone claiming any criticism of Islamic extremism is being Islamaphobic. The fallout from each situation isn't the same but the ideology is.
Very interesting video. It certainly is true that the topic of islamic doctrine shouldn't be taboo. However, often when I read or listen to Sam Harris (and for many promotors of the term 'regressive leftists' the same), I get annoyed too. He is not simply talking about islam and denouncing the acts that are coming out of the doctrine. He also links it to foreign policy, a subject he's not particularly educated in. Just like many regressive leftists play down the role of islam in terrorism, Sam Harris plays down the role of foreign policy in terrorism by Muslims. If we want to be serious about this, we have te recognize this too. When he mentioned some other possible motives for terrorism by Muslims in his book The End Of Faith (“the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza ... the collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships ... the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world.” He concluded: “We can ignore all of these things, or treat them only to place them safely on the shelf, because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited peoples who do not commit acts of terrorism.” This is insane of course, and it bothers the hell out of me that Sam Harris, an American citizen with a large following, in a very privileged position to meaningfully influence public opinion and state policy, he makes such ridiculous statements about the subject. His segment "Why I Don't Criticize Israel" is arguably worse. You can watch the video on UA-cam or read the transcript on his blog, but his answer is basically that Israel possesses the moral high ground and that a disproportionate amount of criticism has reached Israel already. Therefore Sam Harris does not feel the need to criticize Israel also, besides some minor irrelevant mentions when he did. Ironically Sam Harris recognizes that the moral high ground of Israel does not mean that "Israeli actions are above criticism", but it obviously does shield Israel from meaningful criticisms on the part of Sam Harris, once again, even though he is in a very privileged position to influence U.S. (and therefore Israeli) policy. He is in a position anybody who sympathizes with the Palestinian cause could only dream of. The conscious choice not to make use of this privileged position, but focus all his work on the "war with islam" we are supposedly involved in, is something I simply can't stand. It's perfectly valid to exclusively focus on Islam from a theological point of view, but then also admit that your expertise is not on foreign policy and also admit that your analysis of terrorism by Muslims is quite superficial, because it only focuses on one aspect of it. Even though it's a very relevant factor, it's limited. He doesn't acknowledge that. That's basically my problem with Harris and many promotors of the term too.
If feminism is about equality change the name.
The focus is on gender and sex, not every facet of equality. What you're talking about is egalitarianism.
+RosieVintage So, you admit feminism is useless because egalitarianism is actually about equality.
Persuasive Barrier
You're just afraid of egalitarianism because it shines a light on the double standards of modern feminism and feminism in general.
+Persuasive Barrier lol I like you
Persuasive Barrier
I'm not an egalitarian, first off (good regressive tactic, though). Men and women are equal in developed countries. You entitled first-world feminists just want women to dominate all aspects of our lives and dictate what we can and can't do/say.
Regressive now means "anyone who doesn't agree with me is automatically a regressive."
The word "regressive" is almost as bad as the word "racist" now. Over used and recycled way too much.
Great work David. I really love these long form pieces!
You’ve won me over with this one Mr Pakman. Finally a progressive who’s sole MO doesn’t seem to be their unwavering belief that they are the most virtuous person alive. This distinct definition of the regressive left is crucial to understand in order to not be lumped together with authoritarian ideologues that stonewall any discussion, I’m so tired of it and this a serious breath of fresh air.
Michael Brooks from Majority Report needs to watch this video. I would love to see David destroy him in an interview.
+sausagemcbean Same for Omer Aziz.
Absolutely
+sausagemcbean
He'd probably mute David half the time and engage in circular arguments.
+sausagemcbean If David can get a word in edgewise of course. ;)
Tounushi
Yeah, and have his posse off screen condescendingly laugh at everything David said.
The wage gap is worth debating?... ANDDD you exposed your idiocy.
+Buddy Hobbs not that you deserve a response, but more so OTHERS can see that we took a serious look at the issue: ua-cam.com/video/yaCCtD2nihI/v-deo.html
+David Pakman Show Pro tip, if you cite a study that uses math to conclude something, don't comment on the conclusions unless you understand what the math says.
David Pakman Show "not that you deserve a response" *proceeds to respond* Sounds like someone got triggered...
+Buddy Hobbs Of course it's worth debating. For example, the "77 cents on the dollar for same job" factoid that is repeated ad nauseum by many on the left is false. The figure comes from BLS comparison of mean earnings of men and women in America. It's not for the same job, and there are no controls for the many other confounding variables that can influence that number. www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/09/president-obamas-persistent-77-cent-claim-on-the-wage-gap-gets-a-new-pinocchio-rating/
+Andrew Voronov Yes, and the wage gap has been proven to be false so many times. Yet, these feminist can't wrap their heads around the truth.
I must say that i appreciate David for pointing out the fact that now the term, which was meant to save liberal values, has been taken and used by the right to serve as an attack to actual liberal ideologies, specially feminism or LGBT rights while serving as platform for Christian apologism. Here is where i tend to disagree with the stand people like Dave Rubin, who i really support, take when they use the term while interviewing publicly a figure that's for the most part conservative. It shifts the conversation into a bigoted obnoxious arrogant pile of ideas, where if you disagree with the stands that people from the alt-right take, you then become somehow a regressive idiot. Let's call out the regressives for their bullshit when it's needed, but let's do the same to the right.
Surface Krystal the fact that he agreed with Milo Yannopolous that gays are oppressing Chrisitans in the US made me lose so much respect for him.
+DEJAH SERIOUSLY Dave agreed to that I had so much respect for him I still do but that is utter BS.
I'm so glad to see more and more progressives talking about this absolutely critical area, and well done at that. I spent my whole life calling myself a radical anarchist progressive, radical feminist, radical defender of the gay community, a commitment to ending racism, multi-culturalism, it wasn't until well into my 30's that i saw this turn of events, and that might be a point of difference I have with you (It does seem this is a relatively new issue or at least recently intensified issue), living with minority studies and gender studies slam poets, when i noticed a trend of bneing treated unfairly and spoken to in a disrespectful way when gender or race wasn't even a topic.
When you are talking about egalitarian division of labor with dishes, my cis white male privelege is not really relevant. My closest friends are extremely diverse (lgbt and people of color) and many equally concerned about this mimicry of the right on the so called left, especially when it comes to Islam, black lives matter, and third wave feminism. It seems to me one issue that isn't addressed here is while it is an extremely small minority of people, the power they wield is enormous, via title 9 committees at Universities allowing 18 year old girls to threaton the tenure and job security of liberal veteran professors for failing to ban mariachi costumes. This minority seems to be a very powerful minority and perhaps part of the reason we now see a dropping rate (40%) of men graduating from college.
What role do you see neo-liberalism playing in the changing face of the democratic party during the Clinton administration, embracing neo-liberalism, as a sort of concesion to abandoning labor, class issues, classic liberal social issues and recplacing them with pandering to victim groups? I fear a future where Goldman Sachs directly owns the white house and offers paid scholarships to gender non-binary people. I fear the legitimate response on the right and working class who essentially are made to feel stupid since they didn't go to Dartmouth and get educated on the 47 now accepted gender identities. I fear the vacuum of fascism that seems to be emerging here as a resistance. I like how you put it so well in saying, we need to do our own clean-up on the left, and how the right have been the ones to use this strategy identifying a New deal democrat such as Bernie Sanders as a communist, it is absolutely identical when my daughter who is pretty brainwashed by this stuff at the moment calls my concerns about male issues such as suicide and male rape male chauvanist. (Since they challenge her existing worldview). or our last argument when she got angry that the person she was protecting as an advocate for domestic violence victims went to court (He was a cop), and the judge didn't immedicately take his gun away, to which I asked if there was any evidence, which made her livid, and she responded the judge should do this based on the womans story alone, and i asked her if due process should be denied to someone based on a different genitalia or gender identity. At this point she stonewalled me and accused me of projecting my own fears of false domestic abuse claims,??? Obviously, she has a degree but has been mollycaudled, and not challenged enough, It is identically ignorant and unexamined as a right winger who calls me a communist because i am a libertarian socialist. She has failed to examine the nuance of moral imperative of due process through an almost religious devotion to female supremacy or the idea that somehow women don't lie, the notion that the moral imperatives of justice are gendered.
I think part of the motivation for this is that in terms of representation in a post corporate cout-d'etat world, Victimology otherness is a form of currency, a protection of a sorts, but one that i fear will divide more and more as it moves further and further away from acknowledging the ultimate privelege today, MONEY. When 10% of the GDP is controlled by 400 people in a country of 350 million people it is literally insane that my SJW cult inititated daughter believes "I have male privelege over Alice Walton because "the government isn't trying to regulate my body" This woman has more money than the bottom 40% of Americans put together.
Either way, thanks for the great video
Wtf.. Yes, saying some women are being over sensitive to somethings in video games is defending liberal principles if defending freedom of expression in a media is liberal. What the hell Pakman?
I remember when the Religious Right was being sensitive to violence im video games and the liberal thing to do was say "hey, these games are regulated and not rated for kids.. If you don't have evidence that violent games cause violence.. You are overly sensitive"
You are FINALLY Getting it David.... The more Liberals that move towards Regressive Talking Points and play into Identity Politics, the more more of us believe that the Left has Left Us as will continue to face more losses and less support. Thanks for being Balls on Accurate of the shift. Subbed.
This is a great video. I never understood the term; always thought it was just a playground insult that atheist keyboard warriors throw at feminists. You've made this complex spaghetti bowl of ideas a lot clearer. :)
+Torgo It is a playground insult that atheist keyboard warriors throw at people they do not like, that is why it is popular and widely used. It's meaning is entirely relative and subjective. The only difference is David has a better definition than most.
+Rob McCune
I think it's certainly true that there are some embarrassing people on the left who could be termed as regressive. But, as David said, these people aren't really progressive or liberal. An extremist feminist who is hateful, closed-minded and bigoted could be called regressive.
But I think these extremists make up a small minority of progressives. The problem is that many right-wingers and atheist keyboard warriors like to paint _all_ feminists or activists as regressive. Or that _anyone_ who supports Bernie is suddenly an "SJW."
Torgo THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EXTREMIST FEMINISM and the gamergate assholes that created SJW are also the trump loving retards and hate females they want females to be jailed for abortions because they love to rape females and force them to have their babies
regressive left was CREATED BY SAM HARRIS HIMSELF WHO HAS A FUCKING CULT THAT DAVID PAKMAN LEFT OUT
What are you talking about? I don't see the Republicans silencing people as I do Liberals . I'm a independent voter and I can't talk openly with any liberals without being call a sellout .
This is possibly the most honest and coherent 18 mins of information available on the internet.
It's the new internet-conservative troll term
I think that anyone who wonders about the nature of regressivism versus liberalism should listen to this analysis. I think that it is very well put together, and may clear up some confusion for many, including those who doubt the very existence of the 'regressive left'.
18:05 "You can't be bigoted against an ideology".
Thank you for at least acknowledging that being anti-feminist has nothing to do with bigotry. That must have hurt.
Thanks, David. Very well explained. While I tend to lean more to the right and you to left, I watch your videos and I am always willing to listen to your case in the most charitable frame of reference. Sometimes I am unpersuaded but sometimes I am.
Should I ever find myself in conversation with you I'm sure that you will consider my point "in good faith". Therein lies the stumbling blocks with "some" on the right OR the left.
Without the willingness to be reciprocal in our dialog, what's the point of us ever having a conversation. Not moving forward is the guaranteed outcome. I think you did an exceptionally good job making your point. At least well enough that I'm going to hit the "subscribe" button right after I hit "post".
+Blasphemous Opinions With my praise out of the way... there are numerous FACT based errors but I still agree with his sentiments towards reasoned discourse.
His statement that "by far most terrorism in the US is committed by Christians" is factually incorrect.
Look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Islamic_extremism and there are over 3000 deaths attributed to ISLAMIC terrorism. Drill down to "Right-wing extremism and anti-government" and you see 9 events. "White Supremacy" you see 5 events. And so forth...
Now consider that Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians and Muslims currently make up approximately 0.9% of the U.S. I think we have a disparity in how David and I do math. Any reasonable glance at the data show hundreds killed by Christians and THOUSANDS killed by Muslims.
This comment section is going to be glorious. I can already tell.
FINALLY...Someone who actually understand the actual term definition. Salute to David for making this video explaining it to the people who dont understand the term.
"conservatives, anti-feminists, or bigots" one of these things is not like the others
***** 90 percent of people who want limited government are bigots, you've heard it here first folks
+TheEnixSquared Yeah limited government when it suits them. A least the left doesn't espouse limited government while expanding government like the right does.
I agree, not all conservatives are bigots or anti-feminists, some just identify as such without really knowing what it even means. It's a family or society identity thing.
C no, they identify as anti feminist because modern feminists who have coopted the word “feminist” are authoritarian lunatics. The people who call themselves “feminists” in the context of modern western politics set the tone of what feminism now means. They’ve actually taken what used to be a liberal principle that should have been non partisan and turned it into something very different. They’ve turned it into an attack on the culture as a whole rather than the traditional feminist platform which attacked certain unsavory aspects of the culture.
16:22 Likewise, when a feminist calls gamers sexist simply for playing video games, that feminist *is* being regressive. I completely agree that the term "regressive left" is being over-used and bastardized, but it's also important to point out that it can be used correctly to describe a person.
Interestingly, I've seen many people use "regressive" in the same way regressive use "bigot"--to shut down the conversation. I've also seen many people saying truly bigoted things and then calling people "regressives" when they get called on it.
Lol, you called Dave Rubin progressive
That's because it is.
I would say that the regressive left is not as radical and violent as the American right wing
True far left is violent of all
Spot on Mr. Pakman.
Thank you. Thank you hugely. I've seen so much garbage with the terminology "regressive left" - so often, it's utter nonsense.
I'm too scared to read the comment section....
+Inkswitch the Unicorn Quick! To the safe spaaaaace!
David is quite brilliant. I almost never disagree with his arguments. I rarely find faults, and when I do they're only minor faults. And I always learn something listening to him. Please continue to shape my reasoning, David. You make me a better person.
He is okay, the best thing is he got a curious mind, if you wanna see him falling flat on his reasonings you can go back a year or so and watch his segment regarding Jordan Peterson, topic: "sexual redistribution", but just search jordan if ur interested.
Actually, Sam Seder, TYT and Kyle kullinsky did the exact same mistake.
Saying a gamer is wrong to call someone regressive because that person wants to limit freedom of expression is wrong because that person is a feminist is ALSO distracting from the wider debate.
This is such great, very important, work. This material needs to be absorbed and put into action right now. It should have been a long time ago. You're amazing David. I havent heard anyone say this better. I havent heard anyone else say it, tbh.
Holy shit. This was so good!
+kirst No
A good feminist should always be willing to protect feminism from an incompetent one.
There's that word again.
knightofdreamz Wuguessif.
knightofdreamz Given you can barely form a sentence, I'd say your opinion on which words are 'good' is wholly irrelevant.
knightofdreamz Well, you're wasting your time right about now. Why don't you tell me?
Why don't you also tell me the full context of my statement, since you seem to be so well informed.
David, I have to say, this is one of the best videos I have seen of yours. Very informative and insightful, and very relevant to my current liberal setting.
As a non believer the existance of people that put their faith in books containing parts that say to kill me is insulting. Why is that so hard to understand? Youre defending people who value books with parts saying to kill me. Thats disgusting.
Aren't you using "right winger" in the same way you claim others use regressive left?
+MNeilGri Only about 150 times.
+MNeilGri Most leftists I know do this.
Triggered snowflake spotted
@@yujikunschmidt And you are piling on. If I reply to you saying "and right wingers always say leftists do this", do you see the pattern here?
As others who have put more thought into this, unlike the 3 of you in the sub-comments, they called David out on this already, but with real analysis and not some 1 liner that sounds good to you.
You can clearly see who have done actual thinking vs who just jumps on bandwagons no matter the issue.
I rarely see anybody on either side of the isle (please excuse the cliche) being this honest about the “other side’s” views. You’ve got a lot of integrity. Great work, David!
regressive isnt being misused. feminism is anti liberal in the name of defending an oppressed group, women
I agree on most of this, but have to disagree on 'misuse' by anti-feminists. Call yourself a feminist if you like, but some people see it as anti-progressive ideology and that "equity egalitarianism" has either met its goals under past definitions of feminism, or is no longer possible under the current predominant interpretation of feminism. If you don't believe me, just look at the statistics over who in this country still considers themselves a feminist. The numbers are abysmal.
This is just another difference between liberal opinions; Anti-feminism shouldn't have a special carve-out from the roundtable as long as self-proclaimed liberal anti-feminists are still egalitarian. They shouldn't be lumped in with the bigots; they should be part of the conversation on the left just like those other guys you mentioned.
David you are so freakin balanced. Never quit!
::coughMICHAELBROOKScough:::
+AnxiousObserver THANK YOU!!!
Pakman for president. He's it in this youtube news game.
+Limbs Born in Argentina and under 35.
We also have to admit that the left of centre side of the debate is populated by liberals and progressives and there are disagreements on a number of issues.
Some liberals are using the term 'regressive left' in an attempt to shame progressives into supporting a more aggressive foreign policy either related to the Muslim world or Israel.
A policy disagreement is not an excuse to label one's opponents 'regressive'.
If there are instances of Islamic apologism then they should be called out.
But its a little ironic that you used pictures of a number of people considered 'regressive' then you pushed out a picture of Chomsky as a positive individual. Many liberals including Sam Harris have labled Chomsky regressive despite his credentials on free speech - perhaps prceisely becuase of his skepticism of US foreign policy.
I agree ironically the term regressive is being used to shut down debates. Such as foreign policy.
+SJW101, the political gamer The whole term is basically a subjective Rorschach test anyway. Everyone has their own person meaning, and no one has a universal meaning.
Rob McCune
Indeed. I felt somewhat disappointed that David wasn't more keen on holding to Nawaz's original menaing of the term with its scope focussing on Muslim apologism, rather than including feminism, safe spaces, free speech and any number of other issues.
Still Nawaz hasn't been vocal in defending his original more narrow definition of the term either.
Fantastic Job on this David! Well Done - both explaining Regressive Left and also the overuse of it as a critiquing tool.
David, excellent piece, when discussing religion. And I wish I didn't have to use a 'but', *but* ...
... you seem to come very very close to stigmatizing some groups (such as the unidentified 'video gamer' and 'anti-feminists' at/around 16:05) as 'right-wingers', 'not liberals', etc., which would be, ironically, the same kind of stigmatization that you denounce at/around 3:23. You seemed to be assuming that there *could not be* a genuine progressive position that might take up a mantle of 'anti-feminist'. That would be the equivalent of incorrectly identifying 'feminism' as *necessarily* 'liberal' or 'progressive'.
Seeing as how these various words/labels (especially 'feminism') are not as unambiguously defined as many people assume, I think it would be more productive if you simply did not jump to any conclusions, one way or another, whether someone you disagree with on some particular topic is 'liberal' or 'not liberal' in their internal mindset unless and until they explicitly come out and say it. You could instead simply ask them straight up -- which you are very good at -- "That stance seems to be a right-wing stance to me. Would you call yourself a right-winger?" (I use this kind of Socratic method frequently myself, and it works wonders.) After all, you must admit that it's always a possibility that your initial impressions of a person could possibly be mistaken, right?
I wouldn't go so far as to call myself an anti-feminist, but I know many people who are, and many of them have specific and thoroughly-thought-through reasons which they will readily articulate why they've chosen that moniker. And the vast majority of those I know are progressives on the issues, though I couldn't guess how many specifically call themselves 'progressives' as a political label (I myself don't really like that label, though I agree with 'progressive' politics on nearly everything; I'm probably further 'left' than most self-described American 'progressives', just FYI).
To shade these particular people under the umbrella of 'right wingers' or as only disagreeing with women/feminists because they disagree with their feminism/liberalism and are not in any way doing so out of a desire to defend 'liberal values' as you put it, would be to grossly mischaracterize them and their behaviour. Often one of the big reasons these particular people call themselves 'anti-feminist' is *because* they feel that modern feminism has changed so drastically from what it once was that it has become an anti-progressive ideology in its own right (not unironically like some authoritarian versions of Islam, Christianity, etc.), and they are specifically taking on a confrontational moniker and role against that anti-progressivism which to them has poisoned the name of 'feminism' irredeemably. This in some ways parallels the way Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and other modern atheists have taken on an 'anti-theist' role against modern 'religion' (yet another surprisingly ambiguous term/label).
I hope you can see how the description you give at 16:05 and later could be interpreted this way, and that if indeed that's what you were trying to say (that feminism is necessarily a subset of liberalism, and therefore any anti-feminist is necessarily unliberal or 'right wing'), how it is ironically the same kind of demonizing/stigmatizing/us-vs.-them-ing that this video is otherwise speaking against.
I can guess, from your self-qualification at 3:37, that you already know the kind of stigmatization I'm referring to, and are instinctively buffering yourself from knee-jerk reactions from some of the feminist portion of the viewership. I'm sure you can imagine that no matter who well you qualify yourself, there will always be some segment for whom it will never be enough, and they might even get around to calling *you* a bigot, 'right winger', and 'unliberal', or a Bernie Bro, sexist, misogynist, etc.
If you have any doubts about the claims I've made in this comment, then I'll just say: When it's your turn to be tarred with an undeserved brush, *then* you'll know what I was talking about....
... *But*, other than that one teeny little nit-pick, I think you nailed this topic. Great video! Thanks for your awesomely calm but sharp style, and thanks for covering such difficult and important topics such as this.
Thank you for being a feminist and sane. I'm not a feminist myself but people like you have a big task repairing the reputation of feminism.
Perfect analysis.
I generally agree with the piece, but would like to give some pushback. In the end you say that you can’t be bigoted agains an ideology and I don’t agree. You definitely can. And in many cases when people keep hammering down on the idea that Islam isn’t a religion but an ideology it is quite clear the are not approaching the topic in good faith. It can also become quite distasteful when non-muslims keep hammering down these talking points and over generalizations without much real knowledge or understanding of the faith. There comes a point where you should start questioning their motives. But I fully agree that a lot of regressive leftist don’t make any distinction and are way to quick to call someone an Islamophobe. It becomes hilariously outrageous when a non-muslim starts calling a muslim who critiques their faith a islamophobe. The hubris.
Bill Maher came up and I must say that he straddles the border of being a bigot. BUT he is a comedian, has a rough style of comedy and is pretty bigoted against all religions so he deserves a pass.
About Sam Harris I’m starting to get my doubts. He is normally such a collected talker, but when it comes to Islam there seems to be more vitriol that makes me suspect there is more than just critiquing there. In itself that is allowed of course and I still give him the benefit of my doubt, but, specially after his talk with Murray on ‘the death of Europe’, this doubt is growing.
Good points, and I like Sam Harris based on the limited amounts of things I've seen by him. I think you're not wrong to question anyone, even if there's a Jesus alive today (and assuming you are Christian). To say you should never be suspicious or have any doubt is a form of regressiveness, IMO.
Pakman started describing regressive leftists and all I could think of was how well that described Chris Kluwe.
So at around 11:45 you lay out that you are taking on the regressives, not because they are promoting harmful things, but to take away the validity of criticisms against your ideological group.
May I recommend you de-couple your identity from a ideological group/label. That way you can oppose things that are wrong and support things that are right without having to tip-toe around the feelings of "your tribe", nor feel bad for supporting valid points "the bad guys" make. It just might spare you from the temptation of tendentious reasoning.
+Greg Interesting observation, but I'd say it's not inherently dangerous to acknowledge that attacking regressives serves both a high philosophical purpose (because they are wrong) and a strategic purpose (because they make other liberals look bad). Indeed, were David to go the opposite route and pretend the strategic aspect weren't there, he'd only be opening himself up to criticism of "secretly" having an ulterior motive. :)
I think it's good to be aware and forthright about strategic consequences of anything one does -- if nothing else, that awareness allows us to then be honest in our constant self-evaluation, as we ask: "is this next argument I make something I'm saying MAINLY because it's consistent with my deeply held beliefs, or MAINLY because it's stratgic? Or is it both?"
Thank you for your reply.
I have no qualms about acknowledging utility of a position. In fact if it is a motivation, I'm all for including it in the discussion. But the point which I was trying to make was another one.
My presuppositions are these: Every idea must stand or fall on its own merits. Facts must be open to confirmation and challenge with an unfettered exchange of ideas almost always producing the best outcomes.
I see allowing yourself an identity as "A person who holds the views of this group" resulting in limiting yourself from all of the points above.
I tried to give an example of you being limited in that video in that you felt you needed to justify your challenging of elements in the left. Would you feel it necessary to state why you are challenging the ideas of Donald Trump, or would you just go directly to the argument? Returning to the utility of an argument, if you knew a fact was wrong, and it would seriously damage your "side" would you chose truth or would you avoid actions that harm your side?
We all have blind spots and we can not all know everything about every topic, so it is fair to just take the opinions of people that you trust and respect - but please be mindful of not championing ideas or beliefs simply because they are "from your group".
@@FitGreg Read the 48 laws of power. It is Far Easier to pursue your personal agenda under the guise of a 'tribe' than to go solo.
No one listens to moderates or Soloists- we give far more money, power and attention to those who have clearly picked a side:
David Pakman - Liberal
Ben Shapiro - Conservative
William Lane Craig - Christian
Richard Dawkins - Atheist
Reza Aslan - Muslim
Tanahesi Coates- Black Nationalist
Richard Spencer - White Nationalist
Brands make Money, not individuals
@@47shadows76 I hear and I feel I understand your argument from utility. Societies, and individuals, that care more about appearing right than being right may succeed for a time. The truth wins out, always - and you can't seek the truth if you wont follow it past tribal concerns.
Calling out the"regressive left" without buying into the complete anti-SJW-alt-right bullshit. Well done
While I'd argue that your gamer example wasn't that great (I don't think you want to throw your hat in Anita Sarkeesian's "everything is racist, everything is sexist" ring), this was a very good video
Thanks for clarifying a term NO ONE was confused about, although I'm surprised he knows what "regressive left" means considering how he makes sweeping statements about "right wingers"
Would like you to describe your feminism more. Perhaps a video. I'm so over this war on feminism.
Lita Santos so you discount his point?
I appreciate your channel's intellectual honesty.
Pretty good video, but I have to disagree with the Multi-Culturalism bit..David is assuming that all cultures are equal. They are not.
+jeffrey collins And I suppose you're the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to what cultures are equal to you?
+nycpeopleareidiots yes. when there is verifiable evidence. come back when you have an argument
jeffrey collins
LOL, ditto...
+nycpeopleareidiots you are the one who responded to me,so once again... come back with a argument or get lost
jeffrey collins
Why do you feel the need to have an argument presented to you? My intention was to call out your irrationality, which was accomplished. As far as a debate there isn't one here. Your original comment has a clear right and wrong side, no middle area.
this, your Reza video, and the one on the pay gap are all fantastic (the gamergate series too). they are well researched fantastic overviews of complicated polarizing issues. whether someone agrees with your conclusions or not, anyone should be able to see you are on a level above most every pundt. thanks david.
0:40 It sounds like your putting anti-feminist and conservatives in the same field as bigots....... Then your getting upset that some are misusing the term "regressive left" as an ad hominem. Sounds very hypocritical.
Seán O'Nilbud All you said was "your wrong" you added nothing.
Seán O'Nilbud Holy fuck. Ever heard of equivocation fallacy? That's essentially what your doing. your taking my language literally.
This is so well articulated... well done Mr. Pakman
Just a criticism on your presentation upon something.
Your gamer example doesn't make sense. There is a lot of regressive nature in modern radfem, and that would likely be that person's point, but we don't know that because your example presents no actual point. We don't know what the supposed feminist is too sensitive about that leads the gamer to calling them regressive. This is opposed to your earlier examples where you present people drowning out any criticism of Islam, wage gap statistics or other ideas.
Your example needed an actual point or idea that the 'gamer' was calling regressive, unless you assume they weren't calling out any idea as regressive, in which case your example still fails. (And is a bit dishonest in its presentation in that manner.)
in short, just because someone is incorrect, doesnt mean they dont get to express and debate their ideas. in fact, more often than not, incorrect ideas are exposed with debate, and so ideas that need to stifle debate are usually wrong.
If you are referring to classical liberalism, universal healthcare is as regressive as you can get. I still hear no clear definition of your terms, but you seem to think it is all so clear.... it isn't. You clearly define "liberal" and I'll grant you the due respect to believe that that is what you mean when you use the term. Until then, I'll assume you will keep redefining the term to suit the circumstances.
+Kon Berner I fail to see the connection here. There are universities announcing a day dedicated to white shaming, and then there's allowing everyone access to health care when they need it. If you have to pick one of them as the most regressive crap the human mind could possibly have to offer, which one would you pick?
K. Mooney From the perspective of free markets, if you do not support free markets, you are not a liberal according to the wiki definition. That is, unless you accept the part about people having many various definitions, whereupon Packman is wrong about regressives because they can use that clause to show they are liberals. All of these things are about definitions and sticking to them during a given argument... there is no "true" definition for a term like this.
If he clearly defines his terms and uses them consistently in his argument, that works. This claiming that "liberal" means X or Y for everyone and in all cases is false.
The term 'Regressive Left' probably is overused or not always deployed accurately, but that's true of all labels up to a point. I think one of the reasons this descriptor in particular has caught on in such a big way is because a notable feature of regressive types is their tendency to pull the trigger rather quickly in labelling others as racists, misogynists, Islamophobes or any other supposed identifier of bigotry, usually because they want to discredit an individual rather than address their argument, or simply kill a particular discussion altogether.
The idea that there is now a label to use against such people I believe is rather pleasing to anyone who's been on the receiving end of that kind of dishonest treatment.
Also, I don't know if quoting Chomsky is meant as an ironic touch given his frequent identification by Sam Harris and others as someone who takes incredibly regressive positions, particularly with regard to the criticism of Islam. Not that I disagree with the particular quote of his used here, but it seems sharply at odds with the Chomsky of today who tends to characterise pretty much any negative world event as being almost entirely the fault of the West and pretty much nobody else.
+James Donnelly I actually haven't really seen 'regressive' used improperly in the way David describes here myself, but then I'm not exactly researching its usage. I'm pretty much maxed-out with regards to the type of people who would fit that description without ever needing to go looking for more of them.
Interestingly, I've tended to refrain from using 'SJW' if at all possible, if only because it's one of those terms that rightly or wrongly tends to raise hackles, so as a small nod to keeping the Internet flames doused I try and find other ways to address the same kind of people, usually substituting it with 'regressive' these days.
That said, given the things those kind of people are prepared to call others without any cause, I'm increasingly less bothered about seeing people throw the by-comparison incredibly tame 'SJW' back at them.
And if you think that Gamers calling "Feminist critics" out has nothing to do with liberal values, go have a talk with Sargon of Akkad.
The term "regressive left" is an oxymoron. Regressive means " being, characterized by, or developing in the course of an evolutionary process involving increasing simplification of bodily structure" (Merriam-Webster) or "Returning to a former or less developed state; characterized by regression." (Oxford English Dictionary). Ergo, if "regressive left" means anything, it means a left wing advocacy of a previous state of society, or a previously held, and simpler left wing ideology. If "regressive left" is anything more than an insult designed to ease past a lack of actual analysis, it should be possible to identify the prior state of society, or previous, primitive ideology that the supposed regressive left adheres to. Of course, no such identification has been made, nor can be made for the term has always, only been an insult.
That David would defend so ridiculous a term has significantly reduced my respect for him.
16:15 Wait, wait, wait. "When a video gamer" WTF? So now gamers are right wingers because they disagree with feminist criticism of video games? This is laughable.
+FifthGear what do you expect from someone who believes in the wage gap?
+FifthGear No, he's talking about the insanely STUPID "Gamergate" controversy, which is the first time I personally heard (was called) the meme, "SJW". I was very happy he mentioned that idiotic mosh pit of morons. Believe it or not, there's more to feminism than Anita Sarkeesian or whoever boogie-woman gamers raged against. And there's more to life than your video games as well.
FifthGear Are you triggered or what?
so when a feminist lie about a game in order to inject her dogmatic and divisive stances into a debate, and label all criticism of her actions as harassment and misogyny...it's not regressive? there is a reason I never believe it when a feminist scream about anything anymore... 9/10 times its either a misrepresentation or an outright lie.
The word bigot is overly used to stop a conversation as well... So stop using it
+Alan Mendez "Regressive" is also used that way, and it's being used that way more and more as time goes on.
I think it's a cop out to refrain from calling bigots bigots. Some people really do hold positions solely or largely because they are bigots.
mrbadguysan
But it hurts their fee-fees. I agree with you completely.
+mrbadguysan No, you can just point out how they are wrong. Bigot is a slur, it doesn't show or prove that someone is bigoted.
Furthermore, "bigotry" is a useless word as it can mean one is vehemently against an idea. Is that automatically something bad?
Sen Tient firstly, I never said that you shouldn't engage in discussion, I just said you shouldn't refrain from calling bigots bigots.
Secondly, bigotry is defined as being irrationally and obstinately against an idea. That is what makes it a bad.
I can be just as vehemently against Islam as an actual bigot, but I could have rational reasons and a conclusion that could be changed with evidence. He wouldn't.
No, "video gamers" who criticize certain feminists are not misusing the term "regressive left". i.e., when Anita Sarkeesian has been proven time and time again to be blatantly dishonest/hypocritical/equivocal in her analyses of video games, and Anita's only response is to disable comments and label criticism as sexism, then she is indeed being a regressive who does not value ideological debate.
This video was really good up until the point you mentioned video gamers with your sweeping generalization. I'm not just saying this because i disagree with your stance on gamergate; I'm saying this because it doesn't make sense for you to accept criticism of religion and social justice yet berate criticism of new-wave feminism relating to video games. Believe it or not, I'd say that a huge portion of libertarian-leftists are video gamers, and most gamergaters probably align with the libertarian-left as well.
This is so well done.
Spot on. I'm neither progressive nor left but this video further proves David's legitimacy as an honest voice of the left. I rarely agree with David's point of view but he is becoming a more and more reliable place for good information regardless of ideology. It seems that we are not too far away from a joining of Libertarian and modern progressive camps to form a political coalition of reasoned centrists that may actually take back some of the political landscape from extremists on both sides. Religion in the public square would seem to be the biggest obstacle to a centrist political party from the right. As well, support of Bernie Sanders and his redistributionist platform as a viable Presidential candidate is certainly troubling from the left. But we can see on the horizon a voting block large enough to support an eventual third party or to move one of the two current parties much more to the middle thereby ensuring a more socially and economically fair America and the rights of individuals against state or religious totalitarianism of any kind. Or that is my hope in any case.
Thank you for making this. I was just last night struggling to explain to my parents what the regressive left, identity politics, and culture wars are. I shall resume my hunt for anything approaching an objective summation of the latter issues.
Well said, David.