[Itse]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

It's refreshing to see a progressive admit that their ideology isn't liberal, isn't about tolerance or trying to build the best life for the most people, but about achieving an artificial level of equality, regardless of the consequences.

Hmm, I actually read that very diffferently.

For example the point about female presidents is IMO not that these kinds of liberals want a whole string of female presidents to balance out the historical scale. The point is that they don't pretend that one or even several female presidents would suddenly end gender inequality.

The Ruth Ginsburg quote about nine female judges is not a point about the liberals wanting nine female judges, but that it's not actually about the number of female judges.

So it's not that progressives think diversity and equality are irrelevant, it's just that they're very far removed from the actual battles being fought right now.

When for example the black community is still at a point where they're fighting for a right to not get shot to death by the police or imprisoned, actual racial equality is so far behing the horizon it's pretty irrelevant to talk about it.

"I’m not fighting for diversity. I’m not fighting for tolerance. I’m fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression."

(For the record, I don't really agree with that view, I'm just explaining how I understood the text.)

This is opposed to the liberal values of tolerance, fairness, individualism, and social support based on individual need.

Funnily enough, you are here doing almost exactly what the writer is essentially calling BS on.

So you don't think they're "real liberals", but so what? This person is clearly capable of judging for himself whether or not he's a liberal. Unless you yourself identify as a progressive liberal and want to specifically opt out of what the writer is saying here, you implying that they're not really following liberal values is completely irrelevant.

The strongest part, and an argument I like to use on occastion, is that conservative morality is too often relativism masquerading as objective morality.

That's actually better put than the article does it