In a reductionist sense, sure, to be critical of particular de novo political views is conservative. Yet no one would call progressives conservative or reactionary for opposing the overturning of Roe v Wade. Are progressives being conservative when they oppose nuclear energy? But somehow it's commonly recognized as being conservative to be critical of policies that single out particular groups (the original intent notwithstanding).

That is what I find peculiar. At least in the United States, being "conservative" or "progressive" and their various synonyms aren't really defined strictly by Miriam-Webster but by the zeitgeist.

> You might disagree with the changes being made, but (social) progressives believe they're making them for the betterment of humans.

Most people believe this of their own policies, not just progressives. That's a very unhelpful way of describing these two poles, as is relying on the dictionary.

Under which definition does the belief that you should be able to criticize and push back against changes you believe will be detrimental but still believe that other changes will improve human societies over time belong?

You can do anything if you control the definitions:

Ethno-nationalists want to progress into a world where conflict is avoided by clear borders between naturally antagonistic groups, while globalists want to revert to a time before clear nations and borders, to plunge the world into perpetual ethnic conflict, such as what happened in India and Africa after colonialists drew borders without regard for which groups lived where.

Anti-immigrationists want to progress to strict enforcement of the US border, while pro-immigrationists want to maintain the status quo of loose enforcement and origin-agnostic immigration policy that has been in place since 1965.

Ukraine wants to maintain the nationalist, separatist status quo of an independent country, while Russia wants to progress towards a larger, unified, multicultural whole.

See? Easy.

This sleight of hand would work, if only it weren't for the constantly backward-looking statements on the part of the "progressors" in your examples.

The definitions are not the only thing that matter: how those who propose particular social transformation (or lack thereof) talk about those changes (particularly w.r.t. history or an imagined future) is just as important.

I see. So for example, India's government revoking Kashmir's independence and imposing demographic change on it [1] is progressive, and resisting it is conservative. Likewise, unifying China is progressive, while ethno-religious resistance by the Uyghur's is conservative. The Republicans efforts to advance from a country of immigrants, to a country of natives, is progressive, while Democrats wishing the US remains a country of immigrants is conservative.

But these are just a handful of counter-examples, sorry, exceptions, sorry, sleight-of-hand. Add more epicycles to your theory of how your ideological opponents are just irrationally evil and want to bring back all the worst parts of the past, and all these exceptions will be explained away, and we shall see that the Earth stands still.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new...

If my ideological opponents say "We want to bring back the past", I generally take them at their word.

If they say "We think this is a better way to move forward" and somehow manage to avoid giving the impression that they really just want to try to recreate some imagined version of the past, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt.

"We want to bring back the past regarding ecosystem integrity. We want to move forward with unsustainable fishing and oil drilling."

Because they don't say "bring back the past wholesale" - you are twisting their words. What they say is "bring back the past in these specific cases, and not others". But a motivated listener can always find ways to misunderstand.

> But a motivated listener can always find ways to misunderstand.

No more questions, your honor.