words

There will always be those who shout that progressive legislation doesn't go far enough.

Folks who are one bad tweet away from insisting that incremental progress is somehow worse than no progress at all.

By setting an impossibly high bar for what constitutes "true" progressivism, the purists effectively create a circular firing squad, one in which no one can ever measure up to their exacting standards.

There will always be those who shout that progressive legislation doesn't go far enough.

Folks who are one bad tweet away from insisting that incremental progress is somehow worse than no progress at all.

By setting an impossibly high bar for what constitutes "true" progressivism, the purists effectively create a circular firing squad, one in which no one can ever measure up to their exacting standards.

https://www.joanwestenberg.com/the-perils-of-purity-politics

I write about tech + humans + philosophy. Farcaster OG. FID 3305 founder of /theindex 

https://www.joanwestenberg.com/

Maybe personally I'm not in the group you're talking about because I believe incremental progress is very important. Yet I somehow feel I belong in this "purist" group (I rather call it "left")

I think this article misses two important points:

1. Progressives / leftists often don't get the need for leftist groups in shaping the conversation.

2. Progressives often themselves actually don't agree with the said progress (see the current TERF movement) in time.

After all, the last century's entire social progress in the West on race, gender, sexual orientation are all enabled by what people like to call "purists" or "far left". All of these groups made powerful protests that caused inconvenience to liberals or so-called progressives before they caught on the shift in public conversation and finally adopted them in legistlation.