zlacker

That is kind of the point Paul is making in his essay. The most progressive people are pushing an ever evolving definition of what it means to be racist or anti-science or a bigot.

This is why Trump won. People got tired of being told they were a bigot if they expressed any concerns that were not inline with the most recent trends of progressivism.

>>gitfan+(OP)
> That is kind of the point Paul is making in his essay. The most progressive people are pushing an ever evolving definition of what it means to be racist or anti-science or a bigot.

This isn't what progressives are doing as much as it's what conservatives characterize it as what progressives are doing.

> This is why Trump won. People got tired of being told they were a bigot if they expressed any concerns that were not inline with the most recent trends of progressivism.

This isn't why Trump won, data we have access to shows that.

>>btreec+Rb
Just read the threads here. People are specifically saying Obama's criticism of Woke are no longer valid because the word has changed. But Paul is using the same definition that Obama used.

Is is the progressives who have decided unilaterally that woke is now a pejorative that racists use to demonize progressives and doesn't mean what it used to mean 5 years ago.

>>gitfan+Gj
Obama isn't progressive!

He's not using the progressive definition, hes using the conservative one, just like PG is. Both are wrong in this aspect.

>Is is the progressives who have decided unilaterally that woke is now a pejorative that racists use to demonize progressives and doesn't mean what it used to mean 5 years ago.

this is incorrect. I welcome you providing some sort of "proof" otherwise?

>>btreec+Fz
Just look up the history of the word on wikipedia. You think a right wing person got edit access to that page and added the most recent change?