7 ms·

And on top of that, the politics and policies of these so-called progressive utopia cities in California are frequently the subject of scorn and derision by act

And on top of that, the politics and policies of these so-called progressive utopia cities in California are frequently the subject of scorn and derision by actual progressives I know of. I don't know anyone who would genuinely call it a "progressive utopia." It's a laughable idea unless you're trying to sell headline clicks.

magicink81 5y ago
The "utopia" part is a jab at fantasy thinking, lacking practicality, and most likely leading to poor outcomes. "Utopia" is generally used in a derogatory way by people who consider themselves practical.
wk_end 5y ago
I don't know if that's completely fair. I agree that San Francisco fails as a "true progressive utopia", but it feels like this is maybe a kind of "no true Scotsman". Labelling things is hard, but as far as "progressive utopias" can and do manifest themselves in the United States, San Francisco is probably as close as it gets.
- Talanes 5y ago
  San Francisco isn't even as close to progressive utopia as it gets in the Bay.
  - freyir 5y ago
    Where would that be?
- epistasis 5y ago
  I find very little to be actually progressive in San Francisco, unless it's for national level politics. Anything that affects local political power hierarchies is extremely regressive.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  Why limit to the United states? That's quite a severe restriction that cuts out the best real-world examples in Northern Europe. That also feels like a kind of "no true Scotsman" clause, an "ah well, but those aren't _American_ progressive Utopias".
  - wk_end 5y ago
    Well, it's this trouble with labeling things. The San Francisco electorate, by and large, would likely call themselves "very progressive", probably more so than any other major city in the country. Almost all of the significant power brokers, all the way up to the governor's office, in San Francisco politics would call themselves "very progressive". In that sense, San Francisco's government represents the one of the purest embodiments of what is a real political bloc or viewpoint or movement, one that calls itself "progressive", and what it might hope to achieve. Friedersdorf wants to call this politics "progressive" too; you object, and say this "American progressiveness", and the utopia created in its image to the best of its abilities, has little to do with "real progressives" and what their utopia might be like. But either way, I think what I'm trying to get at is - regardless of what you want to call it, it's real. And I think there's something to be said for, "Conor Friedersdorf is an American, writing in an American magazine, about American politics" that makes it reasonable to highlight that distinction, or default to an American understanding of the term. I'm not trying to say that "Nordic progressiveness" isn't better than "American progressiveness", or that it isn't good or workable, but I'm hesitant to say that it's "truer" than "American progressiveness" - that's the fallacy. (and, for what it's worth: highlighting a real distinction is certainly a rhetorical feint, and maybe a case of moving the goalposts, but it's not the same as No True Scotsman, where the distinction is, as Wikipedia puts it, "rhetoric [that] takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes") But to be clear, I do like this reply a lot. And also to be clear, I'm Canadian, and in most respects like the way Canada is more progressive (in any sense, really) than the US, and think both of us would be better off if we were more like the Nordic countries. So I think it's valuable to ask, then: why is it that, Sweden, say, is more successful at producing good "real" "progressive utopias" than San Francisco?
    - 5y ago
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  No, it's not "no true Scotsman," because when you look at commonly held progressive values, little of them line up with how San Fran actually is. Again: massive wealth inequality, the housing crisis, gentrification, concentration of capital in VCs who gamble by funding unethical and scantily regulated tech companies. None of that is progressive! The only thing about it that's progressive is its social culture, in some ways, such as how it's a very LGBT-friendly city. That's all that comes to mind.
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    If the supermajority of progressives SF can't create a progressive city, then it simply isn't possible.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > If the supermajority of progressives SF can't create a progressive city, then it simply isn't possible Or, one of a) They're not really, deep down, as progressive as they claim to be. b) it's not possible, _within the USA as it currently operates_. c) Related to b, power to "create a progressive city" doesn't actually lie with the "supermajority" of voters, but with a few powerful people who are fine with things the way they are. I suspect, with no evidence, a bit of all of these.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

magicink81 5y ago

The "utopia" part is a jab at fantasy thinking, lacking practicality, and most likely leading to poor outcomes. "Utopia" is generally used in a derogatory way by people who consider themselves practical.

wk_end 5y ago

I don't know if that's completely fair. I agree that San Francisco fails as a "true progressive utopia", but it feels like this is maybe a kind of "no true Scotsman". Labelling things is hard, but as far as "progressive utopias" can and do manifest themselves in the United States, San Francisco is probably as close as it gets.

Talanes 5y ago
San Francisco isn't even as close to progressive utopia as it gets in the Bay.
- freyir 5y ago
  Where would that be?
epistasis 5y ago
I find very little to be actually progressive in San Francisco, unless it's for national level politics. Anything that affects local political power hierarchies is extremely regressive.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
Why limit to the United states? That's quite a severe restriction that cuts out the best real-world examples in Northern Europe. That also feels like a kind of "no true Scotsman" clause, an "ah well, but those aren't _American_ progressive Utopias".
- wk_end 5y ago
  Well, it's this trouble with labeling things. The San Francisco electorate, by and large, would likely call themselves "very progressive", probably more so than any other major city in the country. Almost all of the significant power brokers, all the way up to the governor's office, in San Francisco politics would call themselves "very progressive". In that sense, San Francisco's government represents the one of the purest embodiments of what is a real political bloc or viewpoint or movement, one that calls itself "progressive", and what it might hope to achieve. Friedersdorf wants to call this politics "progressive" too; you object, and say this "American progressiveness", and the utopia created in its image to the best of its abilities, has little to do with "real progressives" and what their utopia might be like. But either way, I think what I'm trying to get at is - regardless of what you want to call it, it's real. And I think there's something to be said for, "Conor Friedersdorf is an American, writing in an American magazine, about American politics" that makes it reasonable to highlight that distinction, or default to an American understanding of the term. I'm not trying to say that "Nordic progressiveness" isn't better than "American progressiveness", or that it isn't good or workable, but I'm hesitant to say that it's "truer" than "American progressiveness" - that's the fallacy. (and, for what it's worth: highlighting a real distinction is certainly a rhetorical feint, and maybe a case of moving the goalposts, but it's not the same as No True Scotsman, where the distinction is, as Wikipedia puts it, "rhetoric [that] takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes") But to be clear, I do like this reply a lot. And also to be clear, I'm Canadian, and in most respects like the way Canada is more progressive (in any sense, really) than the US, and think both of us would be better off if we were more like the Nordic countries. So I think it's valuable to ask, then: why is it that, Sweden, say, is more successful at producing good "real" "progressive utopias" than San Francisco?
  - 5y ago
salt-thrower 5y ago
No, it's not "no true Scotsman," because when you look at commonly held progressive values, little of them line up with how San Fran actually is. Again: massive wealth inequality, the housing crisis, gentrification, concentration of capital in VCs who gamble by funding unethical and scantily regulated tech companies. None of that is progressive! The only thing about it that's progressive is its social culture, in some ways, such as how it's a very LGBT-friendly city. That's all that comes to mind.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  If the supermajority of progressives SF can't create a progressive city, then it simply isn't possible.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > If the supermajority of progressives SF can't create a progressive city, then it simply isn't possible Or, one of a) They're not really, deep down, as progressive as they claim to be. b) it's not possible, _within the USA as it currently operates_. c) Related to b, power to "create a progressive city" doesn't actually lie with the "supermajority" of voters, but with a few powerful people who are fine with things the way they are. I suspect, with no evidence, a bit of all of these.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]