On free speech they are more likely to prioritise protecting marginalised groups from hate speech than protecting everyone's right to free speech and are much less concerned about 'political correctness going too far' than any other segment.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I wish more people would remember that 'free speech' means being able to express political views without retribution from the state, not failing to control what comes out of their mouth.
Free speech is not about saying what you like or simply spouting lies. It is about justifying your standpoint with accurate and truthful information. It is about correcting your inaccuracies and apologising to those you caused upset or harm to, or face the consequences - as David Irving found out.
They also take a different view of how to achieve social change than other segments, they are the only segment to believe breaking the law can be necessary to create change, and the only group more likely to say Just Stop Oil is a force for good rather than bad.
Of course having outlier views isn't a problem in of itself and can be what drives social change. But the report identifies ways in which PAs approach to campaigning actually risks creating backlash rather than winning people over.
I've tried to discuss issues with ppl further left than me and it's hard work. They didn't want to give an inch, and see Starmer as no different to the Tories.
Firstly progressive activists tend to overestimate how many people share their views, often overestimating by a factor of 2-3 the prevalence of more 'progressive' views. This can lead to campaigners thinking they can take an 'activation' rather than 'persuasion' approach.
Is there somewhere you can see how you define these groups? After experiencing the perils of "psychographic segmentation" in my last job, I'm a bit suspicious of the value of these sorts of classifications of people.
Interesting to see it actually being measured/estimated (sample), but not surprising results overall, although the 3X overestimation on refugees caught my eye in particular 👀
Where exactly does the report actually support the latter part of what you're saying here, about "activation rather than persuasion", or are you just editorialising?
Also, would be much more interesting to see this showing the gaps that other groups have in comparison.
2) Progressive Activists have a tendency to impose purity tests on who they'll campaign with. 67% would not campaign with someone who voted Reform, 46% with someone who voted Tory, 40% with an evangelical Christian. In doing so would be allies are excluded meaning a smaller tent
you should make a dumb little chart about if think tank morons tend to misunderstand and misrepresent what one political group is doing (refusing to bargain people’s human rights)
None of those people are would-be allies, they're specifically the opponents of the 'progressive activists'. Why would they be campaigning together? Would you say the Tories are imposing 'purity tests' if they won't campaign with Labour?
yes & this describes the values reflex esp of the Concerned Ethical Values Mode (in CDSM terms - see https://www.cultdyn.co.uk) seeking ethical clarity. Watchwords - only with the right people for the right reasons in the right ways. a small tent blueprint. see also http://threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org/?p=2305
How about we flip this on its head. What will regressive conservatives do to work with me a homosexual they want to vanish off the face of the earth? Lol. How will conservatives constrain their urge to be racist and punch down at anyone who they find different lol.
We-eel .. you'll find that report that Luke authored focuses purely on 'progressive activists' and those other questions were conveniently out of scope.
luke this is really stupid... unless you're specifically trying to create a "progressives are The Problem" in the midst of an effectively global rise of fascism.
IS that what you're trying to do? sure looks like that way.
No but an evangelical Christian and a progressive might share the same views on wanting to increase foreign aid. Or a Reform voter and a progressive on better workplace conditions.
Can you explain why anyone should consider people who oppose the things you care about, and/or object to the existence and/or rights of minority groups, allies?
Don't hang this on progressives alone. Several studies have shown just how difficult it is to move people on any topic, because people hate to admit they're wrong, or their actions caused pain.
And yeah, I don't have a lot of compassion in, or trust towards, someone who gleefully voted to hurt.
Hi Luke, Reform want to deport, murder or forcibly detransition half of my friends. I'm not going to campaign alongside them because this would encourage and further them politically.
Have you only just discovered the concept of solidarity, or is this all new to you?
I am fine working with former Tory or Reform voters who’ve changed their minds, and I have no issue working with anyone of any religion. I have an issue only working with bigots. Ideological purity tests are important. Fascism is a cancer. If you facilitate it, it will kill you.
These people are not "would be allies" though. Just the inability to understand that is incredible to me, "what, there are people out there who have moral principles they aren't willing to abandon? No, they must be deluded!"
3) Progressive Activists are more likely to adopt 'no debate' policies and to think some view points are too harmful for debate. This can lead to them appearing unwilling to defend their positions and reduce opportunities for persuasion.
4) Progressive Activists are more likely to think it helpful to criticise mistakes on things like diversity, which can cause resentment. They're less likely to celebrate progress on things like climate or to dismiss schemes like homes for Ukraine, so other segments feel their work is for nothing
There are loads, as the report says on economic issues PAs and the groups more likely to vote reform are more aligned. So it might be more regulation of big business, better employment conditions, measures to keep children safe online?
The bias here does seem systematic but relatively smaller than I'd expect -- this group does appear to know that their views are not held by a majority of the country, and not to overestimate the prevalence of these views by a huge amount. Are there comparable measures for other groups?
Obviously, the only way to make left-wing views more popular is to be more right-wing. Stupid leftists with their "slavery is bad" and "migrants are humans" nonsense
Zero surprise that most comments below this thread are insufferable Progressive Activists - intolerant beyond belief and totally assured of their righteousness in face of all evidence.
But call a right winger a racist, and a large part of those people who supposedly want free speech for anyone are loudly salivating over silencing the speaker through a frivolous defamation lawsuit (see for example the leader of the “free speech” union). This framing is dishonest.
Comments
An entirely logical position, surely, given that's the purpose of hate crime legislation and that hate speech is not protected speech?
Gaslighting rubbish.
Also, would be much more interesting to see this showing the gaps that other groups have in comparison.
IS that what you're trying to do? sure looks like that way.
And yeah, I don't have a lot of compassion in, or trust towards, someone who gleefully voted to hurt.
That's not a reliable person.
Have you only just discovered the concept of solidarity, or is this all new to you?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-given-4m-from-tax-haven-based-hedge-fund-with-shares-in-oil-and-arms/
Poor you‼️ Likkle baby wanna bokkle⁉️ 🍼🍼