you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]goobandit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

to me it should mean someone reacting to something

That’s pretty close to where I’m at with it, and I know people can get different search results or whatever, but look it up and see what you get.

I get that it’s a political science term where the “reactionary” group wants to oppose progressivism, but isn’t progressivism based in challenging the establishment? Like why isn’t that opposition considered reactionary if the establishment status quo has always (at least that’s what progressives say) been conservative? It just seems like another way to add a dismissive connotation. Like, anything that opposes progressivism is “reactionary,” “right-wing,” “ultra-conservative,” really?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I first heard that word I think when I was reading some of Trotsky's works. I wondered if something might have been lost in translation, because he must have been writing in russian originally and I was reading it in english. To me based on the root word react, it didn't seem to be an insult, so why wash e using that word for people that wanted him dead. I learned he wasn't trying to insult them, he was above such tawdry use of words, and was just trying to describe what they were with accurate words. Any time there is a mass movement there is bound to be people that react to it. Re-act. Important distinction. We shouldn't necessarily feel insulted if we are called a reactionary. It should be a way to start a dialectical discussion. What are we reacting to and why, and in what way. Maybe we are right maybe we are wrong, let's discuss it calmly and come to a conclusion. It'd be nice if we could but of course tempers are inflamed.

[–]goobandit 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe we are right maybe we are wrong, let's discuss it calmly and come to a conclusion. It'd be nice if we could but of course tempers are inflamed.

Popper...are you fucking lowkey calling me reactionary right now? =P but just to be clear, I made my initial comment more so feminists could see the framing of them as “reactionary” for going against the “established” idea that trans women are women.

Associating the word with being “right-wing” and “conservative” in several online, normal ass dictionaries is what I’m highlighting. It’s more subversion of language against feminists.

The article is about feminists, specifically TERFs. It’s a very biased article about their “secret internet,” which they created, not unlike other “reactionary” banned communities, further described as hateful, bigoted echo chambers that had to be purged from Reddit for their toxic ideas. And when they mention “reactionary alternatives” like Saidit, oh look Saidit picked up pedogate and watchpeopledie, nice they reacted to preserve their wrongfully banned, very wholesome interests. To me, the crux of the matter is that established authoritarians hate when the groups they expel are fine without them. It’s DIY, which is libertarian, which they also call “right-wing.”

It’s never used in a positive situation, like Hey look at her standing up for what’s right, she’s so reactionary! No, this sharticle is another example of women being told that pointing out inequality makes them “crazy.” Feminists said men can’t be women, and somehow that is “reactionary” and “alternative.”

Also any effort I put into this rant doesn’t correspond with how little I care that the author continues to use the word. I’m not like demanding an apology. The site needs more back and forth like this so I’m doing it.