The post is, after its intro, a dive down a rabbit hole that is guaranteed to kill brain cells, but it makes an interesting point up front.

We call them SJWs (social justice warriors) and fight against their attempt to take over pop culture and dictate public opinion. It proved to be an arduous task, mainly because so many of the general public are ‘passive regressives’: they buy into the pretense of SJWs to fight for social justice, so they blindly take their side even though they do not share their regressive values.

Putting aside the hyperbole, there is merit to the notion that many people who believe in equality, who believe in “justice,” tend to align themselves with progressives. After all, if you aren’t against equality, aren’t against “justice,” and surely are against Trump, what else can you possibly be?

And that’s about as deep as it gets. All the accouterments, from the socialism to the intersectionality, is either unknown, unrecognized or sloughed off as just some crazy crap at the outer fringes of no relevance to any sane person.

What this reflects is a conflation of liberal values with the rhetoric of social justice, where those of us who support equality rather than “equity,” who believe in a safety net but not government control being the answer to all societal problems, who support constitutional rights even when they don’t produce the outcome we prefer, are now relegated to the squishy description of “centrists,” as if that meant anything other than not on either extreme, or, to the progressive left, conservatives. To the believers, any non-believer is the enemy, whether old school liberal or arch conservative.

Having had this discussion many times, with many people, it’s been a problem that has lacked a decent means of expression. Is “passive regressive” a good characterization? It’s unclear to me what that phrase means, per se. Does it suggest a simplistic adoption of the rhetorical values without any recognition of how one gets there? Is that why the first word is “passive,” that people simply assume that if a putative goal is “equality,” it must be good?

A commenter stated that he viewed himself as a progressive, while simultaneously not quite believing in the orthodoxy. I replied that was like calling oneself a Catholic but not believing in the Pope. Similarly, former president of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen, was on a free speech panel some years ago where she strongly supported the First Amendment while simultaneously asserting that she believed in social justice. How does one claim to be part of an ideological group while disavowing its ideology?

To the extent “passive regressive,” as a descriptor, means anything, however, the point about people feeling as if they’re progressive (while rejecting all the “craziness” of identity politics, victimhood, political correctness, intersectionality, and the list goes one) based on little more than their preferred outcomes aligning with the preferred platitudes is very real.

Scratch many “progressives” and you’ll find a basic liberal who finds Trump reprehensible, believes in equal opportunity and that the government has a role to play, although limited. But what they don’t feel is guilt and loathing for their race or gender, and they’re not prepared to give up their home, car, job or kid’s college seat to the next marginalized person on the list. Are they progressive, or are they “passive regressive” because the rhetoric strikes a bell and they can’t be bothered, or refuse to accept, the baggage that goes along with the religion?

Or do they care nothing of the means and only of the ends, no matter who has to be sacrificed to achieve social justice Utopia?