If all of my policy preferences code as progressive but I think Kendi and the white fragility lady are jackasses, what does that make me then under your definition?

Charitably, cognitively dissonant and more harshly, a useful idiot some would say. I’d assume an egalitarian person who means well and has started to become suspicious of the more illiberal aspects of progressive motivations.

Wow. So, what, I have to vote Trump now? That won't be happening but always interesting to hear different perspectives.

> So, what, I have to vote Trump now?

Why is that the implied option?

Americans live in a two party system. The only realistic alternative to the Democrats, who are associated with progressives, are the Republicans.

Even if you believe that a two party system is the only possibility, you can do many things that don’t involve voting for Trump.

The 'useful idiot' part that I replied to.

“Useful idiot” is a term coined back in the day to describe people who unwittingly spread the propaganda of communists without really understanding the ultimate goals. In this case being a progressive while disagreeing with the leading ideas of the movement.

And no it doesn’t mean a vote for Trump. It means not supporting candidates that parrot this type of rhetoric and to not support causes/movements that are a part of it. FWIW Trump did ban critical race theory from being brought into federal offices and Biden quickly reinstated it under the guise of “learning to be nice to each other” - which it isn’t. Biden, in this case, I believe is a useful idiot for propagating their propaganda, mistaking it for harmless “diversity training”. There’s a big difference!

Worth reflecting on how the John Birch Society looks in retrospect, now that you mention it.

Prophets, or paranoid fools? Are we looking back and saying, gosh, we should have listened to them, that damn Jane Fonda ruined America.

according to kendi's framework, you would be a racist.

Someone who is looking for another group. Kendi and DiAngelo’s ideas are what progressives are actually enacting.

I think that the issue goes both ways. Modern conservatives have adopted a strategy of ignoring or exploiting discrimination and inequality. So if someone cares about addressing those issues, then the current progressives are the only game in town.

> So if someone cares about addressing those issues, then the current progressives are the only game in town.

If you believe in the approach of Kendi and DiAngelo, they are the only game in town.

If you believe Kendi and DiAngelo’s approach is counterproductive then supporting modern progressives is acting against the very issues you care about.

You don’t have to make a choice of which foot to shoot yourself in. You can simply not fire.

There are plenty of more moderate political voices, even within the parties. You can support them and you can denounce the groups whose policies you dislike.

Modern progressives are only in the ‘game’ because people support them. If you don’t like what they represent, you can stop.

> Modern conservatives have adopted a strategy of ignoring or exploiting discrimination and inequality

Are you saying that conservatives today are more likely to engage in "exploiting discrimination and inequality" than conservatives yesterday? Or what did you mean by "modern"?