preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough/ ideals vs people, a discussion on whats ok.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It is possible not to want to offend others because one actually care's about other people.

I have occasionally used the r-word, and never thought much about it. I've had conversations with people who had a hard time with that word being used because of their situation and they explained why they were offended by how I was using it. I consider those people friends, so I stopped using it. Not because of some great "I can't offend people" conspiracy, but simply because "these people are friends and I can see that I was not a good friend by doing something that was hurtful to them".

So here on Dakka I could keep on using the R-word and get baned, I could stop using it because I didn't wan't to get baned, or I could stop using it because I realized it hurt people I cared about. I chose one of those options.

But with all things you have an option. You can chose to be offensive because you believe that it is for a greater good, you can choose to be offensive because you feel that you have the right to be offensive, you can chose to be offensive to point out a wrongdoing, you can choose to be offensive because you are a dick and think it's funny to watch people get upset, and you can choose to be offensive for a whole slew of reasons.

You can also choose not to be offensive because you believe that this will achieve a greater good, you can choose not to be offensive because you think that you will gain something from it, you can choose not to be offensive because you don't want to deal with the consequences of offending someone, you can choose not to be offensive because you care about someone and don't want to hurt them and you can choose not to be offensive for a whole slew of reasons.

I usually try to fall into a mix of "it's just easier not to offend people" and "I care about people and don't want to offend them".

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

jasper76 wrote:
OK, so as not to be cute, I'll produce an example (and be accused of finding the "worst of the worst").

Here is the response of one professor to Gavin McInnes giving a speech, I believe at NYU:

NSFW:

Spoiler:

I watched this annoying thing for one minute. Where does she starts to talk about seizing the means of production? Or class warfare? Or really, anything that shows she is some “Marxist academics”?
From my experience, Marxists tend to shun people that are too invested in the defense of racial or religious minority, or against sexism, as not invested enough into “the real problem that really matters”, i.e. class warfare.

**redleger**

jreilly89 wrote:
redleger wrote:

I would not concede this point so quickly. Examples of "regressive leftists" include Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Abby Martin, Cenk Uygur, Chris Hedges, CJ Werlemann and several others. Now all you have to do is look at the following, and the amount of attention they get in the media to know that liberal progressive media has definitely changed course. Its why so many people are fed up with the media, its getting harder and harder to find someone who just tells it like it is, instead of offering agenda based news.

Tells it like it is? Really? Sinking to Trump talk? Sure, there are examples of regressive leftists, the same way that members of the KKK and neo-nazi organizations support the right. My point was more don't be so quick label one side with a broad brush, when the same can be said of your side.

Since you know me so well, what side am I on then?

**Frazzled**

I thought we were talking about Ableism and how no one will challenge the Great Frazzled in door opening/closing*. The rest seems to have drifted into the US Politics thread.

*If you are a boy aged 15-25 within LOS of my daughter not only will I not hold the door open I will close it on your fingers, rip it off its hinges and beat you silly with it. And if you actually show up as a date, then I'm gonna get nasty.

**redleger**

Frazzled wrote:
I thought we were talking about Ableism and how no one will challenge the Great Frazzled in door opening/closing*. The rest seems to have drifted into the US Politics thread.

*If you are a boy aged 15-25 within LOS of my daughter not only will I not hold the door open I will close it on your fingers, rip it off its hinges and beat you silly with it. And if you actually show up as a date, then I'm gonna get nasty.

I have three daughters, and I am not as opposed to your stance as I should be.

**Frazzled**

redleger wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I thought we were talking about Ableism and how no one will challenge the Great Frazzled in door opening/closing*. The rest seems to have drifted into the US Politics thread.

*If you are a boy aged 15-25 within LOS of my daughter not only will I not hold the door open I will close it on your fingers, rip it off its hinges and beat you silly with it. And if you actually show up as a date, then I'm gonna get nasty.

I have three daughters, and I am not as opposed to your stance as I should be.

Ah someone who understands.

**jasper76**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
OK, so as not to be cute, I'll produce an example (and be accused of finding the "worst of the worst").

Here is the response of one professor to Gavin McInnes giving a speech, I believe at NYU:

NSFW:

Spoiler:

I watched this annoying thing for one minute. Where does she starts to talk about seizing the means of production? Or class warfare? Or really, anything that shows she is some “Marxist academics”?
From my experience, Marxists tend to shun people that are too invested in the defense of racial or religious minority, or against sexism, as not invested enough into “the real problem that really matters”, i.e. class warfare.

OK, I'll play wack-a-mole with you for a bit:

**d-usa**

redleger wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I thought we were talking about Ableism and how no one will challenge the Great Frazzled in door opening/closing*. The rest seems to have drifted into the US Politics thread.

*If you are a boy aged 15-25 within LOS of my daughter not only will I not hold the door open I will close it on your fingers, rip it off its hinges and beat you silly with it. And if you actually show up as a date, then I'm gonna get nasty.

I have three daughters, and I am not as opposed to your stance as I should be.

Meh, I think the whole "scary insane Dad who will murder anyone who wants to date his daughter" is incredibly insulting to our daughters and not healthy at all.

**jreilly89**

redleger wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
redleger wrote:

I would not concede this point so quickly. Examples of "regressive leftists" include Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Abby Martin, Cenk Uygur, Chris Hedges, CJ Werlemann and several others. Now all you have to do is look at the following, and the amount of attention they get in the media to know that liberal progressive media has definitely changed course. Its why so many people are fed up with the media, its getting harder and harder to find someone who just tells it like it is, instead of offering agenda based news.

Tells it like it is? Really? Sinking to Trump talk? Sure, there are examples of regressive leftists, the same way that members of the KKK and neo-nazi organizations support the right. My point was more don't be so quick label one side with a broad brush, when the same can be said of your side.

Since you know me so well, what side am I on then?

Considering "Telling it like it is" is pretty much one of Trump's platforms, I could hazard a guess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
OK, so as not to be cute, I'll produce an example (and be accused of finding the "worst of the worst").

Here is the response of one professor to Gavin McInnes giving a speech, I believe at NYU:

NSFW:

Spoiler:

I watched this annoying thing for one minute. Where does she starts to talk about seizing the means of production? Or class warfare? Or really, anything that shows she is some “Marxist academics”?
From my experience, Marxists tend to shun people that are too invested in the defense of racial or religious minority, or against sexism, as not invested enough into “the real problem that really matters”, i.e. class warfare.

OK, I'll play wack-a-mole with you for a bit:

So NYU and UCLA are both hyper-leftist? I'm shocked, shocked I say! Next you'll tell me BYU is full of conservatives!

**jasper76**

jreilly89 wrote:

So NYU and UCLA are both hyper-leftist? I'm shocked, shocked I say! Next you'll tell me BYU is full of conservatives!

Ummm....weren't you the one who scolded me as being "cute" for not providing examples of Marxist academics. So I produce examples, but they're no good because they come from the wrong universities?

I give up, can't win on this one. No matter what I produce, it won't be good enough.

EDIT: But before I throw in the towel, how could I forget the paragon of social justice Marxism, Cornel West (and his buddy here Wolff seems pretty indoctrinated as well):

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
redleger wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I thought we were talking about Ableism and how no one will challenge the Great Frazzled in door opening/closing*. The rest seems to have drifted into the US Politics thread.

*If you are a boy aged 15-25 within LOS of my daughter not only will I not hold the door open I will close it on your fingers, rip it off its hinges and beat you silly with it. And if you actually show up as a date, then I'm gonna get nasty.

I have three daughters, and I am not as opposed to your stance as I should be.

Meh, I think the whole "scary insane Dad who will murder anyone who wants to date his daughter" is incredibly insulting to our daughters and not healthy at all.

This is true. Thats why GC was raised to be fierce. Don't worry about me. Worry about my Beretta wielding daughter.
Plus its completely natural. We know what you are thinking. Not if you're willing to undergo certain surgeries...

**redleger**

jreilly89 wrote:
redleger wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
redleger wrote:

I would not concede this point so quickly. Examples of "regressive leftists" include Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Abby Martin, Cenk Uygur, Chris Hedges, CJ Werlemann and several others. Now all you have to do is look at the following, and the amount of attention they get in the media to know that liberal progressive media has definitely changed course. Its why so many people are fed up with the media, its getting harder and harder to find someone who just tells it like it is, instead of offering agenda based news.

Tells it like it is? Really? Sinking to Trump talk? Sure, there are examples of regressive leftists, the same way that members of the KKK and neo-nazi organizations support the right. My point was more don't be so quick label one side with a broad brush, when the same can be said of your side.

Since you know me so well, what side am I on then?

Considering "Telling it like it is" is pretty much one of Trump's platforms, I could hazard a guess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
OK, so as not to be cute, I'll produce an example (and be accused of finding the "worst of the worst").

Here is the response of one professor to Gavin McInnes giving a speech, I believe at NYU:

NSFW:

Spoiler:

I watched this annoying thing for one minute. Where does she starts to talk about seizing the means of production? Or class warfare? Or really, anything that shows she is some “Marxist academics”?
From my experience, Marxists tend to shun people that are too invested in the defense of racial or religious minority, or against sexism, as not invested enough into “the real problem that really matters”, i.e. class warfare.

OK, I'll play wack-a-mole with you for a bit:

So NYU and UCLA are both hyper-leftist? I'm shocked, shocked I say! Next you'll tell me BYU is full of conservatives!

Ok, I'll try this again. Telling it like it is means to me, in the context provided in my quote that I want fact based news, without a political bias, to allow Americans to learn what the facts are and make educated decisions. The fact that I am an open atheist almost excludes me from being on the Trump band wagon but in case you need to hear me say it, I am a libertarian who did not support Trump but now that he is here I hope for success, because to want otherwise is like sticking a bar in your bicycle front tire then blaming someone else. That does not however mean I am a fanboy. I am however unique in many views due life experience as we all are. So if you are attempting to cut me off at the knees because you think I am a trump lover maybe try again.

**jreilly89**

Yeah, I'm out. Fear the progressive left, banning dictionaries, all bad words, any criticism. Only the rightwing can save us!

**jasper76**

jreilly89 wrote:
Yeah, I'm out. Fear the progressive left, banning dictionaries, all bad words, any criticism. Only the rightwing can save us!

It's funny that you say that. I am a liberal, a registered Democrat, and I have never voted for a Republican or a conservative in my life, except Ross Perot when I was young and more foolish than I am today.

Incidentally, I've not been criticizing the progressive left, but rather the regressive left.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Frazzled wrote:
I thought we were talking about Ableism and how no one will challenge the Great Frazzled in door opening/closing*. The rest seems to have drifted into the US Politics thread.

*If you are a boy aged 15-25 within LOS of my daughter not only will I not hold the door open I will close it on your fingers, rip it off its hinges and beat you silly with it. And if you actually show up as a date, then I'm gonna get nasty.

Let us all hope your approach doesn't backfire. I knew a lot of young women in college, and the ones who were finally escaping from an overprotective father tended to be the ones who went everywhere faster. And I mean everywhere.

"Julie, your parents were probably right about heroin."
"Shut up! I'm my own person now! I know what I'm doing! Now you and Flizz better give me that syringe and take your pants off."

(Dramatization. Names and events have been altered to protect the not-so-innocent.)

**Popsghostly**

This thread is still going? I remember about 12 pages ago when it was about the use of "lame."

**Galas**

Spoiler:

I'm sure in USA its different, but at least in Spain I have seen that this "The left will kill us ALL!" its very internet exageration and propaganda. Yeah, uncultured people of leftish ideology its more common in the university (And normally in arts and literature related career, where in economic ones its more right-wing ideology people) just as in the Army, Police and other groups you have more Right ideology uncultured people.

Internet its full of Echo Chambers, and now we live in the age of, as I like to call it "The Echo-chambers Wars". Groups of people that has spend the last years in Echo-chambers convincing each other of THE reality, that now they have opened to the world and are fighting with other Echo-chambers to push their agenda/Vision of the world as the only true one.

One example of this: Today, I see more people of right wing ideology being "triggered" by the mere mention of the word sexism or Feminism, that actual Feminist and Radical Feminist being triggered for things.

Internet its so toxic... but yeah, this threat has become US politic thread 2.0: The Trumpire Strikes Back

**jasper76**

Galas wrote:

Internet its so toxic... but yeah, this threat has become US politic thread 2.0: The Trumpire Strikes Back

It's all related. The argument about whether the words like "lame" are offensive is an issue of political correctness. The overreach of PC culture is directly responsible for the rise of Trump.

See how I did that?

**Galas**

Sorry if you interpreted that as an attack against Trump supporters or Right Wing people, it was just a joke, I wasnt' calling people here toxic, it was a generalization.

And yes, now that the "left culture" its the one dominant, its the time for the more right ideologies to be the "counter culture". Personally, I don't like the over use of Political Correctness of today, because that thing has always existed and will always exist. In Spain, 30 years ago, the Catholic Church was the one to say what its "Political Correct" to say. But now its something weaponised as if it was a thing of the Left, when its a thing of the Dominant-Culture of the time, independent of right-left.

A shame for me because no one of the too represents how I see the world, in general people its very extremist to me, they jump from one extreme to the other, without wanting to find a reasonable approach
And I come late to talk about the cultural Marxist that are very popular in today society. A shame, because I hate how they give a bad name to the genius criticism from a economical and political point of view that Karl Marx did to the Capitalism. The division of society in "social clases" based in gender, sex, skin colour, etc... of the Social Marxist its absurd.
Thats why you encounter people that call black people, woman, muslims, etc... "traitor" or "insider-X" if they don't think how that group should think. They are people! People are individuals with his own opinions!

**jasper76**

No worries. I didn't take your comment as an attack against Trump or his supporters (not that I would care if you did...I was yelling from the mountaintops to anyone who would listen not to vote for the guy, but that was mostly due to his coziness with Putin and his campaigns ties with the Russian oligarchs, which for the time being would seem to be overcome by recent events).

**redleger**

I just watched the Dave Rubin interview with Trae Crowder. This directly relates to what we have been talking about and I found it interesting since there seems to be such a denial that the regressive left is not in the majority. He told a story about being on stage, telling a satirical joke. He was quoting a fake homophobe and in the bit he used the F word. Well the immediate follow on to the bit was where he tears this satirical homophobe a new one in order to show the ridiculousness of thinking that way. By and large his feedback was negative simply because he used the word, regardless of context and it didn't matter that he was using satire. Dave Rubin immediately understood the point of the satire, and agrees we need more satire to help root out, and bring light of major issues.

So if context has no bearing in your opinion, then is satire now off limits? This is for everyone, i am not typing to any one person.

Edit: Trae Crowder's whole schtick is he is a redneck liberal. He uses his status as former white trailer park trash to create satire based on how he grew up and his liberal views as a southerner.

**Galas**

I spend some years as a political figure in my natal town. In carnival, we have a festival where different groups sing popular songs of the year adapted to the popular topics of the town in a satirical and humorous way.

Some years, they enter even in attacking my personal life and my sons, ridiculizing them even when they were young. At the moment, obviously, I was upset, but no. I don't think satire should had limits.

I'm not gonna be friend with people that uses that freedom to attack and insult people that is not a public figure, not I'm gonna think that people deserves any respect, but I'm not gonna restrain their freedom to choose that path.

**AlmightyWalrus**

redleger wrote:
I just watched the Dave Rubin interview with Trae Crowder. This directly relates to what we have been talking about and I found it interesting since there seems to be such a denial that the regressive left is not in the majority.

You are now making a quantifiable claim. Show us that the "regressive left" is in majority, and don't forget to define what actually constitutes "regressive left". Go ahead, we're waiting.

**ulgurstasta**

Spoiler:

I´m not familiar with Cornel West, but quickly skimming through his wikipedia I found this

West has described himself as a "non-Marxist socialist" (partly because he does not view Marxism and Christianity as reconcilable)[64] and serves as honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, which he has described as "the first multiracial, socialist organization close enough to my politics that I could join".[14] He also described himself as a "radical democrat, suspicious of all forms of authority" on the Matrix-themed documentary The Burly Man Chronicles.[65]

So doesn´t seem to be a fervent Marxist, if a Marxist at all!

Wolff on the other hand is a Marxian economic and professor of economics. But I have never seen anything to suggest that he would fit the "regressive" label nor is he an indication of "Marxian takeover" as the Marxists are a small minority in the field of economics.

**Kilkrazy**

redleger wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I thought we were talking about Ableism and how no one will challenge the Great Frazzled in door opening/closing*. The rest seems to have drifted into the US Politics thread.

*If you are a boy aged 15-25 within LOS of my daughter not only will I not hold the door open I will close it on your fingers, rip it off its hinges and beat you silly with it. And if you actually show up as a date, then I'm gonna get nasty.

I have three daughters, and I am not as opposed to your stance as I should be.

There is a scene in Broadchurch season 3, episode 7 that you are going to love!

**jasper76**

ulgurstasta wrote:

Spoiler:

jasper76 wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

So NYU and UCLA are both hyper-leftist? I'm shocked, shocked I say! Next you'll tell me BYU is full of conservatives!

Ummm....weren't you the one who scolded me as being "cute" for not providing examples of Marxist academics. So I produce examples, but they're no good because they come from the wrong universities? I give up, can't win on this one. No matter what I produce, it won't be good enough.

EDIT: But before I throw in the towel, how could I forget the paragon of social justice Marxism, Cornel West (and his buddy here Wolff seems pretty indoctrinated as well):

I´m not familiar with Cornel West, but quickly skimming through his wikipedia I found this

West has described himself as a "non-Marxist socialist" (partly because he does not view Marxism and Christianity as reconcilable)[64] and serves as honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, which he has described as "the first multiracial, socialist organization close enough to my politics that I could join".[14] He also described himself as a "radical democrat, suspicious of all forms of authority" on the Matrix-themed documentary The Burly Man Chronicles.[65]

So doesn´t seem to be a fervent Marxist, if a Marxist at all!

If it talks like a Marxist, acts like a Marxist, and thinks like a Marxist....

But honestly Cornel West's worldview, at least his ability to explain his worldview, is pretty much an incoherent mess.

Watch one of his many appearances on the Bill Maher show sometime. He babbles on and on and I can't tell what the feth he's even trying to say. Bill Maher paints him up as some kind of genius because he can say big words in a cadence similar to a preacher, but there is no significant substance...GW Bush's "soft bigotry of low expectations" in action.

**CplPunishment**

Trump 42,016!
Make the Imperium GREAT again!

**redleger**

Kilkrazy wrote:
redleger wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I thought we were talking about Ableism and how no one will challenge the Great Frazzled in door opening/closing*. The rest seems to have drifted into the US Politics thread.

*If you are a boy aged 15-25 within LOS of my daughter not only will I not hold the door open I will close it on your fingers, rip it off its hinges and beat you silly with it. And if you actually show up as a date, then I'm gonna get nasty.

I have three daughters, and I am not as opposed to your stance as I should be.

There is a scene in Broadchurch season 3, episode 7 that you are going to love!

Holy gak,broadchurch is on season 3? Not showing up here in the US yet :(

**jasper76**

I'm trying to envision how they can possibly extend the story of Broadchurch to a 3rd Season, and I'm coming up blank.

I hope they don't jump the shark. I loved the first 2 seasons.

I want some more Happy Valley...that was another good one from the UK.

**redleger**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
redleger wrote:
I just watched the Dave Rubin interview with Trae Crowder. This directly relates to what we have been talking about and I found it interesting since there seems to be such a denial that the regressive left is not in the majority.

You are now making a quantifiable claim. Show us that the "regressive left" is in majority, and don't forget to define what actually constitutes "regressive left". Go ahead, we're waiting.

Ok, sir, Here are some answers from bloggers I am putting in spoiler tags, since you are looking for definitions, these are long, but well stated.

Spoiler:

Rohit Tripathy, left leaning atheist

The "Regressive left" is primarily a pejorative term applied to a sub group within left leaning liberals who engage in apologism for Islamic conservatism and extremism. At it's core it is about ideological inconsistency. Liberals typically speak out vociferously against illiberal ideas such as homophobia, misogyny, blasphemy laws etc. when it applies to the majority religion (that would be Christianity in the western world). Some liberals, however, view ideas through a cultural relativistic lens. So when the same illiberal ideas are espoused by minorities, it is explained away as "it's their culture". Everytime there is an act of Islamic terrorism, the default reflex of some liberals is to point out that this has nothing to do with Islam, that western policy is to blame, that minorities are marginalized if their religious ideology is attacked, that there are right wing terrorists upon whom there should be an equal focus and so on. Most importantly, however, the defining characteristic of a regressive leftist is a deep rooted inability to listen to uncomfortable and contrary viewpoints without dishing out accusations of bigotry, racism, white supremacism, imperialism, Islamophobia and so on. The term "regressive left" was coined by Maajid Nawaz, a counter extremism activist based in the UK who also happens to be a person of color and a Muslim who often gets accused of being a lapdog for western imperialist interests. Very recently, Maajid Nawaz co-authored a book with Sam Harris, a vocal critic of Islam. His collaboration with Harris resulted in accusations such as "native informant" and "porch monkey".

Examples of "regressive leftists" include Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Abby Martin, Cenk Uygur, Chris Hedges, CJ Werlemann and several others. I think what really turns off many sane liberals on the left about the regressives is the constant lying, smearing and dishonesty in their dealings. Cenk Uygur, the host of the online liberal webcast "The Young Turks", produced a series of videos recently, attacking Sam Harris' positions on profiling, nuclear first strike and torture. It's not that he couldn't make videos disagreeing with Sam. Instead, he essentially labelled Sam Harris a bigot after having thoroughly misrepresented all of his views.

More recently the label "regressive leftist" has been extended to those elements on the left who consistently engage in language policing online and on university campuses and seek to shut down honest exchanges of ideas without tossing around accusations of bigotry.

Ironically, it seems like many who latched onto the "regressive left" label have begun dishing it out like candy to everyone that disgrees with their view. Sooner or later there will be a pushback against this group as well.

I think ultimately, as Bill Maher would say, liberals need to stand up for liberal principles. There are undoubtedly real problems concerning racism and anti-Muslim bigotry. But it is unhelpful to shut down conversations surrounding Islamic extremism by name calling every critic of Islam and anyone who dares point out a connection between specific doctrines of the religion and the actions of it's extremists. A clear distinction can be made between ideas and people. Unfortunately, the reality is neither people on the left nor on the right are particularly capable of nuance.

Spoiler:

John Smith
Updated Mar 25, 2016
The "Regressive Left" in a modern sense is the split between classic liberals and extreme liberals, not necessarily in terms of what types of issues are raised, but instead how to SOLVE said issues.

For example, both classic liberals and regressive leftists will agree that sexual assault and rape are horrible crimes that need to be addressed. However, while a classic liberal may try to address the issue by enacting stricter security measures and protocols, creating safer environments for victims to speak up, and harsher punishments for those who are tried and found guilty of such crimes, a regressive leftist will propose throwing an entire demographic, such as men, under the bus by forcing them all to take mandatory "consent classes," treating all men as though they are potential criminals. As well as proposing the idea of "Listen and believe," meaning to accept an alleged victim's claim of being sexually assaulted as true before offering due process to the accused, undermining the entire classic liberal concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Another issue that may be brought up is the idea that particular students need "safe spaces." While both classic liberals and regressive leftists recognize that different groups require different needs, a classic liberal understands that at the end of the day, everyone has the same rights. Whereas a regressive leftist will set up a "Black Student's Safe Space," for example, which may sound noble in nature, but ultimately begins to create a segregation of space between different races of students that classic liberals fought so hard to break down, which is why these far leftists are called regressive, "to go backwards to a less developed state." Essentially regressive leftists are calling for the same sort of segregation that classic liberals knocked down a few decades ago.

So it's not so much that liberals and regressive leftists don't share the same concerns with race, gender, religion, and other common liberal talking points; it's simply how they diverge in how to solve said issues. Ultimately this leads to a political science concept known as "Horseshoe Theory;" the idea that someone can go so far left of the political spectrum that they end up sounding extreme right wing.

This is brought on by a far left view on "Identity Politics" and "Intersectionality;" the idea that any person who is not intrinsically part of a particular demographic cannot have any say on any matters, politically or economically, pertaining to that demographic. For example, a man can never question any principle on feminism because he is a man. Or a straight person can never weigh in on LGBT issues because he is not gay.

This ultimately leads into what is known as the "Progressive Stack;" the more boxes a person can check (woman, disabled, racial minority, LGBT, religious minority, etc), the more "disadvantaged" they are. And in the common Social Marxist view of the oppressor vs. oppressed dichotomy, an oppressed person by definition cannot harm their oppressor. So in this world view, for example, a woman cannot be sexist towards a man, because men are oppressors and women are oppressed. Or racial minorities cannot be racist towards white people because white people are oppressors and racial minorities are the oppressed.

This circles back to the Horseshoe Theory that while these beliefs are coming from far left wing followers, they inherently sound fascist in principle, as colleges and workplaces begin to allow this type of behavior and anyone who speaks up against it is often ostracized.

Examples of regressive leftism can include anything from popular millennial media (Buzzfeed, Gawker, Salon, etc) to politicians such as Bernie Sanders.

Now to quantify that it is currently the largest group within the left, you need only look at this article, then see the sphere of influence these people have, and the immense following. They literally preach regressiveness in a way similar to religion. Want to win an argument, wait for a race related issue, call the person a racist. Want to prove your right, wait for religious discussion, say that person is a bigot. The following article is well written.

Spoiler:

Here is a quote from this article.

Spoiler:

so right off the bat, Ben Affleck gained an immense following when he used regressive speech against Sam Harris on Bill Maher. Twitter blew up saying Ben destroyed Sam. this was simply not the case, as Ben's answer was simply to call Sam a racist. The amount of influence he showed to have shows a leaning towards a large number of followers who believe that is always the right answer.

In my attempt to find actual numbers I was unable to. But I see the inliniation when the New York times has to publish https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0 to show that there are valid opinions and they are not necessarily in line with your own(as it was speaking to liberals). It says alot that a liberal paper has to make this statement about the tenant displayed.

I personally like numbers and graphs, however I could find none as it seems most of the studies take place on how it affects colleges. It is a proven fact that conservatives literally hide in the closet till receiving tenure for fear of losing their job. If that is not regressive I don't know what is.