My personal thought on this is that those who devote themselves to these movements internalise them in such a way that the movements define their identity.

Once the goal of the movement is achieved, that part of their identity necessarily needs to disappear and because this is such a difficult thing to do they simply shift the movement's goalposts to keep their internal purpose alive (usually toward a regressive point).

Yep. Examples of organisations who achieved their original goals and then said "well, time to pack it up!" are vanishingly rare.

I think this is part of it. I also think that humans are essentially greedy when it comes to progress. I am fortunate to have a nearly limitless supply of clean water, at nearly any temperature I want. Yet I still curse the shower for taking a minute or so to warm up. It just is never good enough, moving the goalposts as you say.

I think it was Joe Rogan who mentioned a similar point where, until a goal is reached those who want equity and those who just want a position of power are pointed in the exact same direction. It is only once the goal is reached that the difference between the two ideals becomes apparent.

That idea has existed since before Joe Rogan was born, and been explored in far more depth. Crediting it to him seems a bit odd, but perhaps it's telling.

There's no credit being given other than a mention of where it was heard. He said it recently, I remembered it, I said as much.

It's not a profound or difficult concept, but interesting to have articulated.

excellent video. I wish I could get a point across as eloquently as Pinker...

It seems these movements don't have a defined point where they can say the goal has been achieved and everybody can go home. Instead I think it's the opposite and the movement wins in strength. The more traction the movement gets the more power and influence it gets and the bigger its goals will get.

His example about child protection is great. There is no cutoff point.

I would also argue that shareholder capitalism has reached the same state. In a lot of circles it's not even OK to question the current trend of inequality and it's not OK to think about ways to raise standards for everyone.

Jonathan Haidt's thoughts on the matter are also quite enlightening, and he also describes a theory of how this culture came about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K92rOsjyLBs (Safe Spaces — Sam Harris and Jonathan Haidt on the Disturbing Trend of Vindictive Protectiveness )

Yup, if I recall corectly MADD had a problem with this recently where someone who was on board very early basically said "y'all are crazy, I'm out of here"

Thanks for this link. I have (independently) been thinking the same thing, that movements become regressive after a huge goal is achieved. Steven puts the point across well.