[ohCh6zos]

Why is it bad if it pulls people to the reactionary? We might as well say the glamorization of cosmopolitanism is a recruiting tool for neoliberalism.

[woodruffw]

The claim is predicated on the mutual understanding that being a white nationalist is bad. If you lack that mutual understanding, there are bigger problems at hand!

[ohCh6zos]

There is no way to be reactionary without being a white nationalist and the two are interchangeable but you chose one instead of the other for some reason?

[b800h]

Whoah there:

Reactionary != White Nationalist

[woodruffw]

Sure. You can substitute “white nationalist” for “any kind of reactionary, including white nationalist” in my previous comment, if you find that more palatable.

[b800h]

" opposed to political or social change

* a reactionary government * reactionary politics"

That's about half of the people in most countries, so your argument just ends up as a sort of statement of your political beliefs.

There are more pejorative uses of the term; I guess we just end up in a semantic debate.

[dragonwriter]

> Reactionary != White Nationalist

There are certainly places in the world where there are significant local reactionary ideologies that are not White Nationalist, but the US is not among them.

[dragonwriter]

> Why is it bad if it pulls people to the reactionary?

Because, and to the extent, that the thing it pulls people toward is bad.

> We might as well say the glamorization of cosmopolitanism is a recruiting tool for neoliberalism.

That's less true, though, but, yes, glamorization of cosmopolitanism feeds a bunch of ideologies that are not the same ones the “trad... ” movement feeds.

[mantas]

Is it bad or do you just dislike it? Both sides have good and bad aspects as well as good and bad individuals.

What if progressivism went too far and some reaction to that is needed to bring balance?