I would disagree that "conservatives" are a reaction to what is the current leftist position is, but rather that conservatives are progressives who are simply lagging behind the even more progressive faction.
Honestly, this is a tomayto/tomahto argument in that it ultimately doesn't matter what their specific function is, because it all ends the same way. Are they reactionaries? Are they actually progressives? Are they overwhelmingly controlled opposition? None of it matters because the end result is unified: they allow progressive ideas at a slow enough pace to prevent pushback.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no such thing as "too far", only too fast. Change shit slow enough and normies will accept it.
FYI for clarity's sake I am defining "reactionary" as someone who explicitly rejects specific liberal/progressive core values, not someone who is merely responding to the latest liberal/progressive platform.
I think that's the issue. It's a mismatch of definitions.
Except reactionary doesn't have to be total opposites, merely in opposition. And generally to a point/topic/issue that is usually largely ignored by other positions. It's key feature is being in reaction to something else, not that it's in opposites.
Using a linguistic argument, it could be said that many democrats are reactionary not in opposition, but rather in support of Current Topic™. Be that current topic immigration, vaccination, taxation, transgenderism, etc, etc, etc. Their support isn't based on anything other than a reaction, but rather than the stereotypical reaction of opposition, the reaction is knee-jerk support.
I may be a little late in future replies
We're on the internet. Contrary to the current dominant belief/entitlement to instant gratification, the benefit of a forum is that you can take as long or as little time as you like to respond (generally within reason though. It's a bit odd if you leave months to respond).
Honestly, this is a tomayto/tomahto argument in that it ultimately doesn't matter what their specific function is, because it all ends the same way. Are they reactionaries? Are they actually progressives? Are they overwhelmingly controlled opposition? None of it matters because the end result is unified: they allow progressive ideas at a slow enough pace to prevent pushback.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no such thing as "too far", only too fast. Change shit slow enough and normies will accept it.
I think that's the issue. It's a mismatch of definitions.
Except reactionary doesn't have to be total opposites, merely in opposition. And generally to a point/topic/issue that is usually largely ignored by other positions. It's key feature is being in reaction to something else, not that it's in opposites.
Using a linguistic argument, it could be said that many democrats are reactionary not in opposition, but rather in support of Current Topic™. Be that current topic immigration, vaccination, taxation, transgenderism, etc, etc, etc. Their support isn't based on anything other than a reaction, but rather than the stereotypical reaction of opposition, the reaction is knee-jerk support.
We're on the internet. Contrary to the current dominant belief/entitlement to instant gratification, the benefit of a forum is that you can take as long or as little time as you like to respond (generally within reason though. It's a bit odd if you leave months to respond).