[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No, it describes a tactic used by the more dogmatic enthusiasts on the left to narrow debate and enforce conformity. In a truly diverse society, everything can be discussed and challenged in public dialogue. In a truly tolerant society, citizens recognize that others have the right to express opinions they find disagreeable. And in a truly liberal society, people are free to make dumb and bad choices, and accept the risks that go along with that freedom.

I'll give you an example. There's been some controversy in the geek sphere over the safety of women at gaming conventions. In a recent forum discussion, some said women don't go to conventions to be hit on. Others responded that reasonable adults can tell the difference between flirting and harassment, and that any gathering of large numbers of men and women at a convention will likely see flirtation and hook-ups. Then white knights stepped in to condemn the notion of hook-ups at a convention, and, most tellingly, made the presumption that only men would initiate something so sordid.

That's where regressive comes it. It's the recognition that many on the left today are fearful of the freedoms that progressives fought for 40-50 years ago. They're anxious, fragile, and judgemental, and demonstrate a kind of prudish piety that used to be confined to church-going conservatives. And they're motivated by the same desire as conservatives - to enforce a narrow social conformity in order to make themselves feel secure and safe, and to give themselves license to indulge in the pleasure of public shaming.

This explanation feels a lot more colored by personal opinion than the rational approach taken above.