It really makes me wonder what the common experience is for others not just in tech but Corporate America in general. I myself have run into anti-white and anti-male phenomena, unconscious bias pseudoscience training, diversity pledges, and so on, as have now others in my peer group. Dilbert's commentary has so far been entirely appropriate based on my experience, hence it's puzzling to me when people think there's something particularly conservative about being concerned or critical about these societal changes. Are said changes overblown? Do these people merely think that employees or companies taking positions on "whiteness" see it as totally normal and as something no one would have an issue with? It's just odd to me.
I've taken unconscious bias training. I thought it was very good. I remember catching myself in some meeting talking over a quiet woman who had probably been wanting to talk for quite a while. My brain remembered the training, I shut up, and let her participate in the meeting as an equal. Without the training, I would probably be silently making people miserable. Now I don't do that, as much.
You use the word "pseudoscience" to describe the training, so it's unlikely that you're receptive to this anecdote, but just wanted to share my perspective. Being cognizant of your flaws is the first step in fixing them. I really don't think some training along the lines of "hey, you might be doing this without noticing" is the worst thing in the world. At worst, you waste 45 minutes you were probably going to spend arguing with people on HN. At best, you might make yourself more enjoyable to work with. To me, it's worth the gamble!
It’s entirely possible that all of the following are true:
0 - Many groups have historically and currently been victims of bias.
1 - Good anti-bias training makes us better managers and colleagues.
2 - Psychology research is on much weaker footing (replicability) than most of us would like.
3 - One of the quickest ways to limit your career at a company is to point out when they are going overboard on Diversity and Inclusion initiatives and policies.
This. I believe in bias busting, but when I created a random account to anonymously share cases of blatant illegal discrimination (not accepting resumes based on gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation) but because it was against the minority I was downvoted
> You use the word "pseudoscience" to describe the training, so it's unlikely that you're receptive to this anecdote
Au contraire... I wish I had time to rebut this but I've got some interviews slated for the next 3 hours. I appreciate your perspective, though.
I guess the only argument I can come up with of at the short moment I have left is that similar arguments are made about religion in general, even ones that the mainstream would consider to be "cults." This doesn't actually debate the point you made about my pseudoscience claim, but what I'm saying is that I might agree with you in that sense you were describing regardless of whether unconscious bias training is scientifically valid or not. (although I think there are other problems with it even if some good can come of it)
I don't get the "political" angle - what's political about getting people to think about others? maybe it's a bit heavy-handed in a corporate-do-goody-virtue-signaling way, but "political"? it's not like you're doing workshops arguing what the upper marginal tax rate should be
> I remember catching myself in some meeting talking over a quiet woman who had probably been wanting to talk for quite a while.
As a man who used to be very quiet/timid, and get talked over constantly, I'm fairly unsympathetic to this specific anecdote as having anything at all to do with bias.
If they only started noticing quiet women, but not quiet men, it sounds like the "unconscious bias training" just trained into them a new unconscious bias!
"Unconscious bias" is a really strange thing to call pseudoscience. What would it even mean for unconscious bias to be pseudoscience? That believing oneself to be unbiased is absolute proof of being unbiased?
There's unconscious bias, which is real (that really is a job of the human brain, actually), and then there's unconscious bias testing and training. Like I mentioned elsewhere, I've got ~ 9 minutes until an interview I'll have to attend for multiple hours so I can't adequately respond, but my perspective on unconscious bias is one of skepticism that said bias can be reliably tested for and whether the training is free of negative side effects.
What would it even mean for a human to be completely unbiased? We're big bags of heuristics with a thin skin of pseudo-rationality on top. We can remind ourselves to check our reasoning and maybe we'll make a habit of it but we can't unpick a lifetime of happenstance learning mixed with eons of evolved neural circuitry. We'd be better off just reminding everyone to try to be kind, have empathy and make a point of using good manners.
It was considerate of you to do that, on the other hand adults also need to learn to be assertive to succeed in social aspects of work. If you were cutting her off or not paying attention to a raised hand, sure try to change that. But otherwise you are not doing her any favors for her long term career growth, where she will have to participate in meetings with confident, knowledgeable and busy people focused on work rather than psychology.
Why is it not also an option to change the way the workplace works? As another commenter already posted, assertiveness doesn't equal knowledge or importance. If our society tends to prioritize things like assertiveness in men and tends to see these characteristics as negative in women, AND if we see these things as necessary and good in the workplace, how doesn't this disadvantage women? Why do women have to change for the workplace, why can't we change workplaces to be better suited to people of different characters?
Because in a meeting of 20 people, it's not practical to constantly worry about people who want to speak but give zero indication that this is the case. Approximately nobody prefers passive-aggressive women to assertive women. If men get away with being pushy and rude more than women, that's a valid problem to address, but assertiveness has nothing to do with these things. Nobody is put off by a raised hand or a quick "excuse me".
“Other people in the world are inconsiderate assholes, therefore I should be an inconsiderate asshole to help my coworkers prepare for the inevitable. And if they can’t handle it, too bad.”
By the same token do you cheat at every game with your children to teach them the cold truth about society?
The recommendation of «you shouldn’t let your quieter coworkers speak unless they interrupt their way into the conversation in meetings because that will set them up for failure when their future coworkers talk right over them» is a pretty uncharitable and needlessly aggressive attitude toward those quieter coworkers.
Raising one's hand to speak is generally taught in kindergarten and future coworkers will likewise expect that everyone mastered this basic skill. These days there are raise hand buttons in video conference software. When raising hand is not applicable, a quick "excuse me" is not considered a big imposition on either current speaker or person who wishes to speak next.
I used to be too shy to talk on the phone, coming to US from a country where I only had phone conversations with relatives by coming to a communication center at time prearranged via a telegram. I got over that and if someone accommodated me instead, they wouldn't have done me any favors, because things like this are generally expected and accommodations will not always be available.
I certainly don't give children participation awards for losing games played by the rules. There are rules for speaking in meetings, and they don't include passive-aggressive silence with no indication that you would like to speak. If you gave an indication through words or gestures, then yes you should be given a chance in a reasonable time.
That's a non-sequitur, there should be only once voice in a room at a time and everyone should know how to request to speak next, for example by raising a hand. If people are choosing to not make contributions when they can, it's on them.
Plain old racism/xenophobia and sexism was very common and still is to some extent, though it is not as socially acceptable as it used to be. So I find it odd to only consider anti-white bias you encountered while ignoring any discrimination in the other direction. I strongly doubt it does not exist.
There is certainly stuff under the diversity banner, especially when done primarily with PR/image concerns that reasonable people can object to. But there are also real issues with discrimination, and efforts to address that are a good idea in my opinion.
To highlight an inconsistency in a system isn't ignoring the system's other problems. If anything, it compliments a broader perspective rather than a narrow one. I don't think a lot of people here are suggesting that there aren't other forms of racism and sexism taking place.
"In other words, people who are racist against white people just have an anti-white bias. People that are racist against black people are actual racists."
This is such an insane statement I don't even know how to reply on a site like HN. Do you personally believe this, or are you just pasting what the (recently modified, I'm sure) current definition of "racism" is?
I've talked with enough "woke" activists to know that they are not oblivious to this glaring contradiction. While most don't say it outright, since whites are perceived to be privileged and the main offenders of racism, racism against them is to be accepted during this "transition" period to equality.
We have a cultural problem in the West that is underpinning all of this. The emperor has no clothes and the sane rational ones are too afraid to talk about it because of the costs.
I disagree. I have a good friend who is conservative about application of government (a 'fiscal conservative'), and very socially progressive. She is a registered Republican, and considers herself a "conservative".
While she is actively dedicated to social progress, (supports gay marriage, believes in the right to abortion, etc.), she feels we will be most successful at achieving this goal with leadership who prioritize fiscal conservativism.
American political terminology is often weird because of the two-party system. It's better to consider the conservative – progressive, (economic) left – right, and collectivist – liberal (or libertarian) three independent axes. The position you describe would then be progressive right liberal.
How's that working out for her? If she has a functioning uterus than I hope she has backup plan for what to do when the government dictates her gynecological care.
> I suspect that many Republicans are in this camp.
They are delusional. At this point thinking that "fiscal conservativism" is coming anytime soon is about as rational as believing that the rapture is right around the corner. They should open their eyes and see what is actually happening in their country right now, not keep praying in front of the photo of
Ronald Reagan in their personal shrine.
If I have it right, she feels a great deal of frustration and betrayal. But apparently not enough to give up hope that her idea is the best course to achieve progress for society.
But all the true fiscal conservatives have basically been kicked out of the Republican party.
Liz Cheney for speaking out against Trump. Paul Ryan for compromising too much. Jon Huntsman for having adopted Chinese kids.
I too am a fiscal conservative who largely identifies as Republican. Alas, it's very hard for me to say that today's Republicans represent me. No one actually tries to balance the budget and it's all about incredible social wars that kind of doesn't matter. (Like complaining about the number of lesbians in modern cartoons or whatever).
The fiscal conservatives that speak up fail the Republican purity test and are consistently kicked out. Literally all of them.
The few remaining fiscal conservatives have converted into cult of Trump, like Graham, to keep their voters placated.
Wouldn't Rand Paul count as a fiscal conservatives who hasn't been kicked out? And how is Liz Cheney a fiscal conservative? Granted that I don't know enough about US politics to be sure - but isn't Dick Cheney super corrupt. I'm not sure if fiscal conservativism counts if the government is saving money on social programs so they could send it to Halliburton instead.
It's impossible to ask one side to balance the budget without punishing the other side for not balancing the budget. The voters just don't care. The connection between poor policies and their consequences are so drawn out that they've practically been severed.
> Wouldn't Rand Paul count as a fiscal conservatives who hasn't been kicked out?
Rand Paul is more of an isolationist libertarian. America First was really his slogans, before Trump made it cool. Alas, its becoming more obvious that he's a stooge for the Russians these days.
> It's impossible to ask one side to balance the budget without punishing the other side for not balancing the budget.
Name one time under Republican rule that the budget became more balanced. It literally has never happened in our lifetimes.
Regan cut taxes and raised the deficit. Bush cut taxes and raised the deficit. Trump cut taxes and raised the deficit. They're the party of tax cuts, not of fiscal responsibility.
Fiscal Conservatism is just a talking point for Republicans. Actually, it ain't even a talking point anymore. There's nothing fiscally conservative about "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it", complaining about gay people on TV, or anything going on with Dilbert (bringing us back to topic).
Dilbert, the comic strip, is simply a reflection of today's conservative sphere. Republicans want a culture war, that's their #1 focus.
I just thought your list of fiscal conservatives to be quite odd. And isolationist would be more fiscally conservative when compared to the expense of running a world empire.
I'm not here defending Republicans, I consider both parties to be controlled by big businesses.
My point is the electorate isn't going to vote for proper fiscal conservatives so it's a bit ridiculous to expect politicians to be fiscal conservatives. Maybe if the US dollar loses the reserve status and the connection between policy and consequence tightens then maybe after an economic disaster the public may want fiscal conservatism.
> My point is the electorate isn't going to vote for proper fiscal conservatives
My point is that fiscal conservatives don't exist. You have one side just cutting taxes, and the other side ballooning the budget. But at least the other side raises taxes and kinda sorta gets closer to balance.
Have they ever really existed in relevant numbers? Is fiscal conservatism more of a guiding concept than a flag?
It is a guiding principle for conservatives - humans who, like everyone, also have other guiding principle which often conflict and force compromise.
The Right thinks it is focused on the less moderate Left, which makes for a less moderate Right, which makes for a less moderate Left, while the moderate Left thinks it is focused on the less moderate Right, which makes for a less moderate Left, which makes for a less moderate Right, which makes some want to shake it all about.
> Wouldn't Rand Paul count as a fiscal conservatives who hasn't been kicked out?
Rand Paul happily soaks up district money while performatively voting against things that help other people and in 2021 signed onto a deal to hand Israel a bunch of money for Iron Dome. If he's a "fiscal conservative", I am the Queen of France.
Yes, and do you see how roughly the same thing can be said about the Democrat party, in that most people have a hard time identifying with either party? At the end of the day, people flip to 1 or 0.
Would it be far from the truth to say that we've just been through two election cycles in which Republicans who voted for Trump probably didn't "support" Trump, and Democrats who voted for Clinton or Biden probably didn't "support" either?
How do you come to that conclusion? The field of politics has to find answers for many different question: e.g. fiscal conservatism vs. more debt-based spending, gay-marriage vs. no gay-marriage. Why do you consider it insane to agree with one party on one topic and with another party on another topic? Requiring full commitment to one true party line seems to be the insane position to me.
First, supporting the Republican party for fiscal reasons necessarily means that you're supporting their social positions as well. To paraphrase the old line, what do you call someone who only voted for the Nazis because they supported their economic policies? A Nazi.
In other words, the social policies of a party, especially insofar as they affect the repression of minority groups, a permanent and undeniable stain upon any degree of economic progress that they may also create through their policies.
To put it yet another, more personal way: If you were in a group that the Republicans have targeted with hateful rhetoric or legislation in the last 20 years (gay, trans, Muslim, Latino, etc.), would you forgive me for voting for them if I rationalized it by saying "Well, I think their policies are better for the economy. Sorry that you can't get married / are facing discrimination in your daily life. Thoughts and prayers!"
Second, the data does not support the theory that Republicans are better for the economy. Under Republicans, GDP on average does far worse, recessions are more likely, employment goes down, debt and deficit go up... by just about any metric, they are simply not very good at governing the economy.
So if someone says they vote for Republicans for economic reasons, it's because they like the Republican lines on 'lower taxes' and 'personal responsibility' at a dogmatic level, not because they've done any kind of thoughtful analysis.
The United States used to have a strong union culture in various industries, which has been worn down tremendously over the past century. Throughout that time many people in various places on the left end of the political spectrum have expressed their concern about that change. Is that conservatism?
No, because it doesn't rest on the fundamental assumption that the past was right, nor the corresponding political will to return to "the way things were."
History is a record of advances and regressions. Referencing history does not fundamentally result in a conservative political outlook; what makes an outlook conservative is the one-dimensional (and frequently reactionary) analysis that things must go back to how they were, or as closely as possible.
My comment addressed gingerrr's assertion that "being worried about societal change" is the defining point of conservatism. I provided a counterexample; of course adherents of any ideology would be concerned about changes that indicate increasing currency of a competing ideology.
> what makes an outlook conservative is the one-dimensional (and frequently reactionary) analysis that things must go back to how they were, or as closely as possible
I'm wary of any attempt to sum up an ideology in a one-liner, since they tend to be lossy and dismissive. Your definition lines up more neatly with anarcho-primitivism than conservatism (at least modern American conservatism, with which I'm most familiar).
In general people live their lives based on what they are convinced is ethically right, they aren't brainless automatons following a simple algorithm of "old good, new bad" or "new good, old bad"
> Your definition lines up more neatly with anarcho-primitivism than conservatism (at least modern American conservatism, with which I'm most familiar).
Anarcho-primitivism is a discrete variant of the overarching conservative phenomenon: when an-prims go say "go back" they mean a specific and particularly reactionary set of social transformations. This doesn't mean that ordinary conservatives don't desire social regression; it just makes them not as openly reactionary as the most reactionary social conservatives.
You're right, of course: any short and pithy summary of an ideology is going to have gaps. American conservatism is "funny" in the sense that it admits of additional gaps: there is a significant (although continually diminishing) population of "purely fiscal" conservatives who have dominated American intellectual conservatism, for example. And this is true for progressive movements as well, particular in the context of labor.
This is an interesting take on conservatism. I suppose it must be a fairly common take among people who consider themselves progressive, and helps makes sense of some things I've observed recently.
I consider myself generally conservative but would sum up my outlook more along the lines of "change isn't necessarily/automatically good" than "the past was right". Chesterton's Fence etc.
Nobody thinks that change is inherently good. Change is a product of time, not a moral dimension.
I don't consider myself a progressive per se, but I think their framing would be something like this: change, if not good in itself, frequently begets opportunities to make things better.
Similarly I would doubt that anyone actually thinks that the past was good simply because it came before the present. The desire to return to "the way things were" is born of a critique of specific aspects of "the way things are", combined with a sense that tradition is likely to embody hard-earned wisdom that may not be immediately apparent or perfectly defensible by abstract argument.
And antibiotics? And anti-X-ray? There's a million different medical advances, you can always find someone against (or suspicious of) a few of them. That doesn't mean all of conservatism is against all of them, as woodruffw would have you believe.
I don't understand where you believe it's been claimed that conservatism is unilaterally against all technological progress. It isn't. Conservatism is best understood as a social phenomenon that interacts with technological progress varyingly, depending on the effect that whatever particular technology has on social values any particular group of conservatives happen to priotitize.
X-rays do not particularly threaten any social scheme.
Because the definition of the word conservatism is "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change".
If you're worried about society changing, there is no definition of the word "progressive" you fulfill unless it's your tax bracket. Words have meaning, even in the mouths of sophists.
> If you're worried about society changing, there is no definition of the word "progressive" you fulfill unless it's your tax bracket.
If you saw the "progressive" movement take a turn toward something you consider immoral, like say, eugenics, would you consider yourself non-progressive for opposing it?
Or does "progressive" include some kind of moral judgement, which leads to a "no true Scotsman" situation, where "only social changes which I personally consider morally good can be considered progressive, anything else is conservative or regressive"?
Determining something as progressive requires a more historical perspective - for an alarmingly high percentage of our history as social creatures, eugenics were accepted as science (or divine judgment). It's only in the last century that we have started to unpick those ideas as repugnant, and it's not a universal opinion.
If a progressive movement started advocating eugenics, they would be advocating a return to previous social mores - that's conservatism in a nutshell. Just because that movement also happens to hold "woke" ideas doesn't change the direction they want to carry progress.
This isn't a moral gotcha for anyone who has more historical memory than a goldfish - the problem is that most people don't seem to care to, so they come up with contrived examples like yours bc they can't keep the thread of human history for longer than a generation.
By your definition, the “progressive” view is the one that doesn’t try to keep society the same. At some point, eugenics came around, and the world now thought this was a good way to progress. Opposing this adoption at the time, according to your definitions, would make someone a conservative.
My point is that opposing certain directions that society may be moving toward doesn’t need to be viewed as “conservative” or “anti progress.” There are certain things, like eugenics, that we can preemptively say, or should have potentially said are not a good idea. We don’t need change for its own sake.
I think that's why you and the person you replied to are disagreeing. You're using "conservative" as the definition of the word itself, i.e. inclined against changing the status quo for better or worse, while the person you replied to is using "conservative" to refer to the meaning that the word has taken on with regard to American politics.
To your example about them therefore not being "progressive", I think they are saying, "I wish society would not change in that direction, I wish it to change in this direction instead." Which would be progressive.
Let's say that some country didn't have the Sharia in their tradition, and that a new social movement proposed to adopt it. By your definition, those opposing that proposed change should be defined "conservatives", even if, for example, they were opposing it to conserve women's rights in the country.
> Because the definition of the word conservatism is "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change".
The word conservatism is a descendant from the latin root conservare which means to preserve. What should be preserved is not necessarily defined. And preserving the functioning of a society or the value of truth[1] is something everybody interested in a modern and essentially free livestyle should be interested in. Conservatism as a word does not imply opposition to every kind of change, but that is often claimed, as my the previous poster did. Although for some self-proclaimed conservatives, that is certainly true.
A progressive movement that is in favor of race-based, age-based, sex-based or ideology-based hiring instead of merit-based hiring is repeating some of the errors of early communist countries. And they too will learn, like so many generations before, that it is far simpler to destroy a society than to create a better one.
On the other hand to preserve the western achievements, the western societies have to change, e.g. because of the climate or because of growing dangers from the outside. And they have to change because younger generations want to change some things. That is nothing new. New, is only the magnitude of the loudness of the wish for change.
[1]: And the importance of truth and honesty is under attack from the political left as much as from the political right.
> So it was conservative to worry about the rise of Trump and the Alt Right?
No, because as we saw in the 1930 and 40s this strain of virulent fascism is not new, but sadly quite traditional - this was the conservatism bubbling through in reaction to modern liberalism.
> It's conservative to wish Roe had remained on the books?
If Roe had been an office worker they wouldn't have even qualified for early retirement, that's how briefly those rights existed - then reactionary conservatism struck to return us to the good old days.
If to make a "point" about history you have to limit your discussion to things that changed only in the last 30-50 years, you might have an alternate agenda.
Two projects I was trying to start at a FANG company were cancelled during inception because they were unlikely to meet diversity quotas. Not enough women, hispanics and african americans. My sub-field is so dominated by men that it would have been impossible to meet the quota without drastically lowering standards to the point the project wouldn't be viable anyway. It was a no-win situation and one of the main reasons I had to leave the FANG company and start my own small company.
Fortunately for me my competition are multi-nationals and they all went through the same diversity quota overhaul. I think their management just wanted more compliant cheaper devs. Big companies have a lot of inertia but they got so inefficient that they're now taking forever to come out with new tech. I'm slowly stealing their customers.
As a consultant who sees a lot of different big company cultures, and even done some work specifically on diversity stuff: They’re overblown.
I’ve yet to see anything noteworthy. I’m convinced the stupid stuff is more or less confined to California. I’m sure people will be eager to show their anecdotes otherwise but I’m not really interested in that.
Here's an active job opening from a University in Canada, seeking a Research Chair in Experimental Physics. This stuff is everywhere. Even in science.
"Candidates must be from one or more of the following equity-seeking groups to apply: women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and racialized groups"
Not a consultant but my experience mirrors yours. Among my friends, several of whom work typical corporate jobs, nobody has experienced anything beyond basic diversity training that would be tame by the standards of the 90s. The only real new thing is just respecting people's pronouns but that strikes me as basic decency and professional conduct.
Another anecdote: I have seem women be more confident in asking about leadership, internal promotions, and putting management pressure on ensuring that they are represented in leadership. Once a startup I worked at got to a certain size where we had 5+ teams or 2+ managers-of-managers, women started to ask why there are 0 women leads. And honestly when you get to multiple teams and multiple levels of management thats probably a pretty solid question to at least ask, even if the answer is a totally normal "it just hasn't worked out that way for now".
As a consultant you wouldn't see it. As an employee experiencing the day to day it usually comes in sporadic waves from HR depending on whatever cause they are pushing. I'm speaking from experience working for companies on the East coast, Midwest, and West coast.
The man hasn't worked a corporate job since the 90s by his own account. His perception of the current corporate culture seems to be based on media reports and grievance anecdotes.
It is VERY clear that he spends most of his time at home making content. This isn't a dig, this is an observation about the amount of time he spends live-streaming from his home.
My manager had director level approval to hold out job openings to women only. They same manager complained that they were sick of “men and Asian women” making up the team. They asked me for resumes but said they only wanted non-male, non-white or LGBTQ resumes. They were recognized as a diversity champion in the company.
If this is in the U.S., surely this is a violation of federal law. And if you complied you are an accomplice. I would document everything and report it to the feds promptly, to cover your ass.
> Dilbert's commentary has so far been entirely appropriate based on my experience, hence it's puzzling to me when people think there's something particularly conservative about being concerned or critical about these societal changes
Isn't it pretty much by definition (social) conservative?
> Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional social institutions and practices
> In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favour a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which that person believes possessed positive characteristics absent from contemporary society
> Progressivism is a way of thinking that holds that it is possible through political action for human societies to improve over time. As a political movement, progressivism purports to advance the human condition through social reform based on advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization
You might disagree with the changes being made, but (social) progressives believe they're making them for the betterment of humans. (Social) conservatives want to stop them, (social) reactionaries want to go back to "the good old times" where the woman kept the house etc.
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.
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.
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.
I guess the situation is probably not “overblown” in general. Here is a job advertisement for the University of Guelph in Ontario that was posted a couple of days ago. It’s for a position in experimental physics. It explicitly says that no white people need apply:
Calling these concerns “conservative” is a brilliant tactical play by progressives to use Trump-era polarization as a weapon against moderate liberals. Because nobody left of center wants to be associated with Trump, moderates will fold in the face of such criticism instead of push back.
