Most progressives and most liberals have become a shell of their former selves

Political Correctness

Servers. Not waiter and waitress. Actors. Not actress. (Who came up with all this sexist “tress” ending for females?) Flight attendant. Not steward and stewardess. Peoplekind or humankind. Not mankind. The US. Not “America.” There are three Americas: North America, Central America and South America. The US is a country without a name so it stole the name of the entire hemisphere: America. The people who live in the US are US citizens or USians. It’s not “Americans and Canadians” because Canadians are Americans too. They live in North America the same as the people in the US. It’s pro-choice. Not pro-abortion.

They are a few examples that come to mind of how former-progressives have severely deteriorated. Most people don’t care about that anymore. They used to. Genuine progressives were language people. That’s where PC language came from. Today? They’re just as sloppy as the far-right. In fact the two groups often use the same language. Infuriating. Then when this is pointed out to the former-progressives, they get bent out of shape. Too bad.

Airport terminals use the correct language: “International Arrivals.”
These terminals don’t say “Foreign Arrivals.”

So why do people refer to “foreign” countries? Well, I don’t, but many people do. And they’ve been brainwashed with the term so they’re not about to abandon it — just like other words they have been brainwashed to say — because it would cause them to engage some critical thinking skills and thought processes.

This is especially the case for the former-progressives and former-liberals who still think they are on the Left, whilst they have become an empty shell of their former selves. From my observations based on people’s online comments, most of the former-progressives and former-liberals have returned to using the outdated language from the 1950s or before — before politically correct language began — and the same language used by the far-right, with few exceptions.

These days, I don’t relate well to many (most?) commenters on the so-called “progressive” or “liberal” sites because, well, they’re no longer progressives, with few exceptions. They just pretend to be. I’ve not changed over the years, but they have. They’ve become so watered down. They have gradually abandoned their former selves even though they still live under illusions that they are a “progressive” or “liberal.” Many of them cheer lead for the status quo whilst saying, “What we progressives need to do is….” Usually what they say they need to do, they never do.

In many ways, these days it’s hard to tell the difference between the former-progressives, former-liberals and the far-right. I’ve found that most of the former-progressives are as closed-minded as the far-right, which was revealing. It’s not the way they used to be some 20 years ago when most were genuine progressives or genuine liberals, from my experience. They’re also quite the hypocrites. For example, in the era of COVID, the former-progressives rail against the far-right for having large gatherings and super-spreader events/protests. Yet the former-progressives see nothing wrong with their own large gatherings and super-spreader events. In fact, they’re quick to defend them because “Hey, I’m a progressive” (translation: And those health guidelines don’t apply to OUR protests). The thinking is: It’s all right when I do it, but not when you (far-right) do it.

Then, when one is critical of the former-progressives, they ask: Why are you “throwing shade” on progressives? They hate the truth being told about themselves. What, am I only suppose to criticise the far-right? I don’t operate that way. What’s wrong with telling the truth about people regardless of what side they’re on?

Have I told you how much I hate hypocrites?

These days, former-progressives are adamant about using the same language as the far-right, even when this is pointed out to them, whilst they hate on the far-right. They seem to enjoy their hypocrisy.

Some of these former-progressives say, “I’m a socialist.” (roll eyes) Well that’s your problem, stupid one. I don’t have a very high regard for socialists — I once did to some degree until I experienced them — or least the socialists I’ve had contact with, which I have found to be very off-putting. One variety of socialists — they’re quite the assholes — that comes to mind, they are sexist, chauvinistic, misogynistic and homophobic. They also abhor politically-correct language, such as peoplekind. They prefer the sexist and outdated “mankind” language instead. And when called on this, the female socialists are the first to defend “mankind.” Insanity. That’s right out of the 1940-50s playbook or before. And just like the former-progressives, these socialists adamantly defend outdated, non-politically correct language.

Countries are international countries — they are global; of the world — and their people are internationals, not “foreigners.”

Why do people refer to “foreign” countries? I touched on that above. It’s considered a pejorative by many people (including myself) — as in “us versus them/’the foreigners'” — and “foreign country/countries” is part of the US Military Industrial Complex Killing Machine’s selective “Enemy of the Day” thinking.

A country is only “foreign” or unknown because of one’s willful-ignorance about said country. I know what the conservative dictionary definition is, but I reject that because it’s outdated.

Language and words change over time, as is the case with the word “foreign” versus international. Dictionaries are rarely updated to reflect changes in our language and words. And with the Internet, there is a plethora of information available today about any country one might be interested in so the country would no longer be “foreign” to Mr/Ms Willful-Ignorant.

I realise many conservative governments still use both outdated terms (“foreign” and “foreigner”) but that doesn’t make it right. That’s expect of them because governments are heavily based in outdated conservative traditions, which the conservatives/far-right rush to defend. These days, so do the former-progressives and former-liberals who adamantly support and conform to the Status Quo. So rather than a country renaming their “Foreign Minister” their International Minister — which sounds much better and more global and non-offensive — countries stay with rigid conservative tradition, or they’ve never considered a change in language because they’ve never given it any thought. “It’s always been called that” they would likely say. As if that makes it right. Yes, Black people have “always been called niggers too” but that doesn’t make it right, los pendejos. And of course the conservatives and former-progressives agree and rush to adamantly defend the outdated language at every opportunity. In part, so that they don’t have to change their own outdated language which would disturb their own comfort level.

A better word is international (not “foreign”) countries. It’s more global. And its people are internationals (not “foreigners”).

The same for languages: International languages and not “foreign” languages. Or world languages is acceptable. And in the last year I found that the former-progressives seem to get pleasure out of disrespecting international languages. On a couple of occasions, I politely corrected one former-progressive who was writing a German word incorrectly. The same with español. Well, she continued to write it incorrectly after being corrected twice. Others were writing it incorrectly as well but I didn’t waste my time with them. Mi amigo/My friend said: They could have a least had the maturity to respond to you with: “Thanks for the correction. I didn’t realise I was writing it incorrectly, and won’t from now on. Appreciate it.” Well, maturity is really not what many or most of the former progressives are about.

Mi amigo/My friend said: International sounds much better. Yes it does.

I’ve noticed that Asians in their comments use international whereas US Americans use “foreign” and that’s what I would expect from the people in the non-United States: To be backward.

These are countries on the Earth. The Earth is not “foreign” so why should countries be deemed “foreign” just because they’re outside one’s own border? That’s insane.

Does anyone think of Canada as a “foreign country” to the US just because Canada is outside the US border? I can’t conceive of that. I suppose that is something no one has ever thought of. But all of the above goes right over the head of the conservatives and the former-progressives/liberals who can’t be bothered with such details. The basura.

Some/Many student exchange programmes have changed their name to International Student Exchange programme from “Foreign Student Exchange Programme.” That’s very good to see.

I tried to explain all of this to one person online who pretends to be a progressive and a socialist. You know what happened? I felt very frustrated because I got absolutely no where with the person. And I was so turned off by it that I haven’t been back there since. I felt like I was in a discussion with a fundamentalist christian — the same mentality — someone on the far-right, regardless of the person claiming to be a socialist and progressive. Ha! That person’s mind was closed shut and had no intention of abandoning the word “foreign” no matter who it offends.

We live in a lovely world, don’t we?

This also reminds me of the pejorative term “third world countries.” That’s outdated Cold War era language. There’s only one world that we all live on, so how can there be a “third world?”

I heard Juan González of DemocracyNow! — of all people; a Latino — use the pejorative term, “third world country” in one of their broadcast. Sigh. I’ve also heard other non-politically-correct language from hyped-out Amy Goodman. She’s the Executive Producer of her show so she’s directly responsible for the language used on her show. Don’t these people pretend to be progressives?

Both Amy Goodman and Rachel Maddow — mi amigo watches both of them to some degree — look very conservative and Establishment. Nothing rad(ical) “liberal” or “progressive”-looking about either one of them. Rachel is always in the same all-black shroud-looking get-up. I said something about that in an online comment about a year ago only to be pounded by her cultists rushing to defend her. They said, “I think she looks nice.” Well it used to be that women did not want to be seen wearing the same attire more than once on camera or wear the same thing occasionally. I guess that’s all changed. Someone who wears all-black — the same thing — in every broadcast looks nice to you former-progressives, eh? Amy seems terrified of colour of any kind. She’s usually in funeral black, black-purple or drab grey. Both Amy and Rachel both look like they’re going to or just came back from a funeral. Amy does have a reddish-orange jacket she wears on the odd occasion. That must utterly shock her system! Some colour, finally?

So these days when someone tells me, “I’m a progressive” or “I’m on the left” or “I’m a liberal” I think to myself: Yeah right. Yes, I’m sure you are. [sarcasm intended] Give me a few minutes and I’ll likely begin to tear down that “progressive, liberal or left” façade you put up, beginning with “Do you eat dead animals — known as “meat” — and pretend to care about our environment out of the other side of your mouth? If so, you are a fraud because the Meat Industrial Complex is one of the main contributors to climate change and the destruction of our environment. Look it up.

These days, people call themselves anything without it having any basis in reality.

It’s the former-progressives and former-liberals who continue to vote for the right-wing and imperialistic “Democratic” Party at voting time whilst pretending to be on the left, which is not something that a genuine progressive or genuine liberal would do because that would be a contradiction in one’s principle. Chau.—el barrio rosa