What does it mean to be “progressive”? Well, that’s an easy one. A “progressive” person is anyone that fights for social justice, rises against systematic oppression, and believes Donald Trump is evil. Well, kind of. See, I think that a “progressive” person, fundamentally needs to know what making realprogress is. And by real, I mean changes and impacts that anyone and everyone can make, micro-socially, on a daily basis in any setting.

I understand that people are passionate about social justice, political correctness, awareness of current events, activism, and the fight for FREEDOM in the United States. These are all important ideas that people should be partaking in, and speaking up for justice is a concept I openly support and agree about. Some issues are very real and very problematic, and often times need to be discussed and talked about.

However, when a certain situation or problem arises to start a conversation, whether it’s on social media or in real life, and this topic upsets a group of people or a specific person to a point where they are attacking, accusing, and shaming another person for their opinions and their beliefs, this is where the problem arises. Don’t get me wrong, if you are a person who has experienced a lifetime or even a moment of social or political injustice, you have every right to be outraged and upset about a certain topic, and no one else can say otherwise. Systematic and everyday oppression and discrimination is a cruel, unvirtuous wheel barrel that never seems to stop turning, affecting demographics after demographics of people every day.

HOWEVER, many times we see this rightful frustration turn to something that is almost as dangerous and suppressive. When this rage begins to belittle and devalue the opinion of another person because of the same prejudice and the same over-generalization, this begins to become a real problem. Many times people begin attempting to silence the person they are upset at by turning everything they say into fuel for the outraged fire, dismissing every thought, opinion, and very reason of existence because of a specific opinion. At this point, you are FORCING them to just step down from their stance and entitled opinion through fear of shame and ridicule (to be clear, not because they “lost the debate” or “have nothing intelligent to say”), and this is where we enter the realm of CENSORSHIP. Too often times, too many people are resilient in the “You’re wrong, and that’s that” mindset. Instead of the conversation being focused to teach, converse, and communicate to the person about the problem at hand, the reasons behind it, and what to do about it, the conversation becomes an outright assail on this person to the point of distress. In other words, don’t become the oppressor in an attempt to be the liberator.

Let’s say for example, that you come across a child playing in the mud.

What do you say?

No, you do NOT yell at this child, call him or her an ignorant brat who doesn’t know and understand “obvious” things. You do not angrily shame this child with accusations and hurtful words. NO.

You tell this child:

“Hey, you are playing in the mud. You should already know not to do this. But it appears that this wasn’t clear. Well, you shouldn’t, and here’s why: 1. it’s messy. Someone’s going to have to clean you up. 2. it’s dirty. Mud is unsanitary. 3. it’s not a good thing to do.”

THIS is a conversation with education, not a dictation and angered ridicule.

You are still implying shame. You are still stating the thesis problem. You are rationally and reasonably explaining why there is a problem, and you are educating the child on what the actual issue is. (Of course, this scenario isn't always the case. Sometimes there are people who go out of their way to be rude and awful. There are children who know they're not supposed to play in the mud, but still do. These people are assholes. In this case, it is more ok to yell at the child for their choice of ignorance and insensitivity.)
This is really how any conversation that involves misunderstandings, miscommunications, or even just a lack of education about the topic should go.

The bottom line is that people don't like being told what to do. People don't like being wrong. People don't like being yelled at. People don't like not understanding a problem, but still facing a consequence without knowing the reason. This is human nature and these are all things people naturally DON'T like. If you're calling a person a negative and hurtful word, getting aggressive, and calling them out for a problem, without opening a CONVERSATION, without calmly explaining why, without letting them know what the issue is and your opinions about it, they’re not going to want to listen. They don't want to do anything you want them to, because they don't know why, and they don't have reason to listen to what they perceive as maybe a “typical angry social justice tyrant”. Without a conversation that lets both parties speak their minds, the person would just be resorted to defending themselves so they don't look like something they're not, which only makes the situation more digressive. This in itself is DECONSTRUCTIVE and actually more harmful to any movement that you may be defending, because now out of fear of being yelled at and being shamed, (not to mention that now they think everyone about the topic are assholes) they are less inclined to get involved in the movement or even listen to any word from it.

The Hegelian dialectic, a principle of communication and society, states that when there is a thesis (any idea, concept, opinion, or statement), there is always an antithesis (any idea opposing the original idea). And with conversation, both parties can address each other’s concerns, and there a compromise can be found. This is what you call a synthesis (a new idea that evenly acknowledges both sides), and this synthesis becomes a new thesis with its own antithesis, and so on and so forth. This is the basis of how humans interact and make progress on minuscule levels that all add and build up to create real progress and change on larger scales. If your goal is to silence and censor the thesis with your antithesis (or the other way around), you're not creating progress. Without the opportunity of proper presentation of BOTH thesis and antithesis and a conversation, it is not educational, and it is not constructive.

In conclusion, find synthesis people. Be progressive, and make real progress! Find a voice and an opinion, and aspire to educate and converse, not attack and accuse. Your opinions matter, but so do everyone else's. No one is in any place to censor and silence an "adversary" because of their opinion. THIS IS WRONG. Don't aim to always be right, because even if you may be right, not everyone may see it that way.