| 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. |