Counter point: Islamic empires until the Ottoman empire collapse post WWI. They flourished, yet were not "progressive" in the modern Western sense of the word.

That's not a counter-point. It only points out that there is more than 1 way to promote strength. (Or that progressiveness has nothing to do with the strength at all).

I don't think thats a counter point! Depending on which time frame you are talking about, the ottoman empire was a cosmopolitan fairly free empire. There was freedom of religion (of sorts, there was a tithe.) and a civil law system that appeared to have some semblance of working for the lay man.

If you compare the treatment of jews in venice, parts of the ottoman empire were a haven. Spain's loss was the ottoman's gain.

That's why I said they were not "progressive" in the modern Western sense. Islam is able to perfectly accommodate different cultures, and lead the host society to prosperity.

but they were progressive, comparative to the western world at the time. Hence why they were a mecca (excuse the pun) for creative and scientific types.

I agree. Though these are examples of progressive 'class politics'. That doesn't exist in the west like it once did. Thanks to neoliberalism and its promotion of individualism, progressives now focus on identity. Worthy yes, but an ineffective replacement in terms of promoting unity amongst those with legitimate grievances.

The problem here is the definition of the term "progressive". If you take it to mean "forward-looking" then yes, being progressive is a sure strategy for success in the long run, even if such success may come at a price in the short term. This, however, is not what most current "progressive" ideologies do, instead of looking forward they often look backward in time in search for grievances in need of redress. This, in combination with the rise of identity politics which drives people apart into groups vying for current or historical claims of being oppressed does the opposite of the original progressivism. This modern interpretation of progressivism - adherents of which are often called "regressive left" - does not lead to flourishing societies, the opposite is true.

Identify politics has been on the rise for a long time. The right heavily contribute to identity politics. See: openly racist GQP leaders, transgender bathroom ban, mexican "caravans" conveniently appearing in the news around election time, satanic panic, homophobia, muslim ban, "Kung flu".

In no way can you place the blame for the rise of identity politics squarely on progressives. I get the feeling that most people opposed to a more fair and equitable society are the ones currently benefitting the most from inequity.

Please don't use HN for political or ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Understood. I will refrain. Is there something about my comment that's more political than the ones above it? Like I guess I used a lot of buzzwords instead of vague political terms.

I don't know—we can't come close to seeing all the comments. If there are specific posts that you think should have been moderated, you can always let us know. But when a post hasn't been moderated, it doesn't follow that we must somehow approve of it—that's a big non sequitur!

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

it doesn't even matter. this whole discussion is people blaming the material decline of the west on their cultural hobby horse. basically, things you don't like on twitter is the cause, according to the comments here. i think we're totally blinkard by culture.

I do not "blame" the rise of identity politics on anyone, I merely point out that it has been taken up by many people who consider themselves to be "progressive" and that it, in combination with the adoption of critical theory - specifically the practice of "deconstruction" - leads to a witches brew of regressive and destructive ideologies.

It looks like you've created a new account to do ideological battle on HN. That's not what this site is for, so I've banned it. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you want to use HN as intended and will follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

yeah, but do material realities factor in at all, or do empires rise on fall on attitude alone?

That is a good question to which I do not have a sensible answer other than a vague "both, probably". I suspect empires follow more or less the same trajectory as many family fortunes do: the founders build a base upon which subsequent enterprising generations build an empire. Once the empire has been established and more and more generations grow up with the certainty of it being there decay sets in. Eventually the empire either falls prey to its neighbours, decays without outside intervention or enters a steady state. The steady state makes it vulnerable to new ideas which might not necessarily be better than current ones but at least they are new or progressive.

Seriously? "Mexican Caravans"? 18,000 UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN were "dumped" across the US-Mexico border in MARCH of 2021. And the current administration refuses to admit the "may" be a problem. Your selective ignorance is astounding.

Please don't use HN for political or ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do it.

Crossing into personal attack and name-calling is particularly not cool. No more of that, please.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html