[traject_]

Why is "reactionary" inherently wrong or "progressive" inherently correct? Why can't people use more clear language rather than relying on Whig history to make their points. If what they are saying is morally wrong according to the truth (and that might be so), clearly state why that is the case rather than obscuring with terms like "progressive", "social justice" or "reactionary".

“We are fond of talking about 'liberty'; but the way we end up actually talking of it is an attempt to avoid discussing what is 'good.' We are fond of talking about 'progress'; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about 'education'; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good." - G.K. Chesterton

[woodruffw]

I didn’t use the word “progressive.” I only used the word “reactionary.”

I’m not interested in an argument about “Whig history,” because this isn’t a house party. It’s a comment chain on a tech forum where the originating post doesn’t even do us the dignity of substantiating itself: it just proudly assumes that we all know these things, and that we’re all going to agree with the author if we can just pay attention for long enough and get over the “ick” factor.

That isn’t moral reasoning, of the kind you’re talking about with the Good. It’s just a sneaky way to say “we all know I’m right.”

[fsckboy]

use of the word reactionary 99% marks you as a progressive, reactionary is a dog whistle. If you don't like that others have polluted your word, easy to edit your post and choose another word.

[uoaei]

"Why is progress bad?" is not a take I'd have expected to see on HN considering the wealth of techno-utopianism happily and repeatedly expressed here.

[Nevermark]

I think the point is when talking about any specific issue X, arguments for or against X need to be specific too, to have any validity.

As a generality, we all want "progress". Nothing controversial about that.

That "cutting red tape" is progress, is not a controversial viewpoint. Bad regulations impede better results, and decrease the freedom of some people.

But "adding accountability" is also generally considered progress. Critical regulations avoid serious harms, and increase the level of trust in society, which increases people's freedom.

As generalities they can both be "true".

But in every specific instance, they are contradictory. You can't conflate "removing a regulation" with "progress by cutting red tape" and "adding a regulation" to "progress by adding accountability", because in specific cases these are contradictory actions.

So general arguments for progress are beside the point. The question is, in specific cases, does having regulation X result in a better situation than not having regulation X.

--

Likewise, "reactionary" is a general term. Reactionary things as a generality are considered extreme and poorly thought out.

But in specific cases, labeling something X "reactionary", and therefore "bad", isn't helpful. Arguments for whether X is good or bad need to be specific to X. Not based on a generality.

--

Of course, in normal discourse we often use over-generalized talk as short hand for viewpoints, and expect others to fill in the specifics in their minds. Which is valid, but sacrifices clarity for brevity, and often contributes to poor individual thinking and raises barriers of confused communication to resolving conflicts.

[uoaei]

Reactionary behavior is bad, a priori, for the simple fact that it displaces and forbids reasoned discussion. This makes sense for things where "the science is settled" but for many things, especially inherently subjective ones, reactionary behavior simply has no place. For this reason "reactionary politics" is a contradiction in terms while "progressive politics" is not. One can stand for the principles of progress without becoming aligned or dogmatic with respect to one or another vision of the way "forward".

[Nevermark]

Right, it is a true that reactionary things are bad, by definition.

But saying something specific is bad, by labelling it reactionary is an empty argument! It reverses the condition -> implication relationship. It is circular, or at best, charged but unsupported reasoning.

To show something is bad, and possibly reactionary, you have to be specific about what is bad about the specific thing.

[harvey9]

There's a variety of viewpoints on here. One view repeatedly expressed does not, fortunately, preclude other views.

[uoaei]

Right but every culture has its taboos. I am merely re-evaluating the way I understand HN culture.

[stametseater]

If that which is called 'progressive' is necessary progress because it contains the substring 'progress', then the DPRK must be a democratic republic.