5 ms·

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 Scot

by 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?
  - stormbrew 5y ago
    To me the reason why I don't think it really matters how the people of SF self-label is that they profess a lot of beliefs that they fail to carry out, in spite of the overwhelming electoral power they possess. People in SF, and California at large, will talk until they're blue in the face about wanting various things to be better (like, as I mentioned in my first post, universal health care: something that is clearly within the power of a state to enact) but when it comes time for anyone to enact those policies it fails time and time again. In other words, while I think it's important to recognize the significance of self-identification, doing so while ignoring incredibly evident hypocrisy is a kind of solipsism.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      Exactly. I'll add that the universal healthcare question is IMHO, underrated in it's power to reveal how close to a "progressive utopia" a place really is. I have considered moving to the USA (which is a viable option for me, for reasons that I wont go into here), and the question "but, which state?" always stops me. I start with the revealing question "what's the guns-to-healthcare ratio there?" In the words of US/Canadian author William Gibson: "People who feel safer with a gun than with guaranteed medical insurance don't yet have a fully adult concept of scary" https://twitter.com/greatdismal/status/385249887891111936 https://twitter.com/greatdismal/status/385249887891111936
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.

by wk_end 5y ago

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?
- stormbrew 5y ago
  To me the reason why I don't think it really matters how the people of SF self-label is that they profess a lot of beliefs that they fail to carry out, in spite of the overwhelming electoral power they possess. People in SF, and California at large, will talk until they're blue in the face about wanting various things to be better (like, as I mentioned in my first post, universal health care: something that is clearly within the power of a state to enact) but when it comes time for anyone to enact those policies it fails time and time again. In other words, while I think it's important to recognize the significance of self-identification, doing so while ignoring incredibly evident hypocrisy is a kind of solipsism.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    Exactly. I'll add that the universal healthcare question is IMHO, underrated in it's power to reveal how close to a "progressive utopia" a place really is. I have considered moving to the USA (which is a viable option for me, for reasons that I wont go into here), and the question "but, which state?" always stops me. I start with the revealing question "what's the guns-to-healthcare ratio there?" In the words of US/Canadian author William Gibson: "People who feel safer with a gun than with guaranteed medical insurance don't yet have a fully adult concept of scary" https://twitter.com/greatdismal/status/385249887891111936 https://twitter.com/greatdismal/status/385249887891111936

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.