AMA - Bsh1

This comment again fails to take into account important distinctions between sex and gender. I may call someone a woman because their sex is female, but I may also do so because their gender is female.

I engage with them all the time, but that does not mean I will engage with every one I encounter. 

(a) why those goals come to be an ideology's goals and (b) how the ideology plans to pursue those goals. Saying that "because progressivism and populism share a goal, they are linked or the same" is fundamentally absurd.

I am using liberalism in the American political sense, not in the classic sense.

Apply it to the water example. If I was referring to the specific qualitites then Earth A water is different to Earth B water but if I only speak about the functions they are the same. Do you disagree?

This is absurd because the goals needed to reduce the income inequality is taking from the rich.

You didn't engage with the problems of a liberal and progressive

they are the same in their qualities and functions, but differ in their make up.

That is oversimplified in the extreme, and overlooks the nuances of my response to you.

I said that progressivism is the socioeconomic component of American political liberalism. 

That's easy. Reactionary approaches are not rooted in ideological cores. Progressivism is rooted in an ideological core, and thus not reactionary.

What is it we are progressing from, problems faced by society?

Yes exactly the same with trans women

When there is a left wing populist. What doesn't make them a progressive?

A liberal can have socioeconomic components that are not considered progressive. This can be being for free trade. 

What is it we are progressing from, problems faced by society?

I don't honestly find that to be an important question. It is a name, and names of political movements are often designed to advertise rather than describe. Even so, if we are progressing from something, it is probably the past. Progressivism, as a name, implies a steady movement forward.

it does not have an identity, which is a constructed self-image. 

Water does have an identity. It is the one we chose to give it.

Populism is reactionary, progressivism is ideological. Therein lies the difference.

I would not describe free trade as a liberal idea either, though some liberals believe in it.

Water does have an identity. It is the one we chose to give it.

That is an asinine thing to say. Water--as a word--has meaning, but having a meaning is not the same has having an identity. Similarly, water--as a thing--has a name, but having a name is not the same as having an identity. "John" is not someone's identity though it is a name which has meaning.

An identity, as I used and am using the term, is a self-constructed idea of who we are as entities. Since water is not self-aware, it is precluded from having an identity. And, because water only has properties and functions, it is not a good analog to trans women, who also have identities. 

Consider: John may identify as American even if John not an American citizen. Suppose perhaps that John has spent 80 of his 81 years alive in this country, and therefore has constructed an identity for himself which constitutes him as American.

Similarly: Mary may identify as a Woman even if Mary is not a biological female. Suppose perhaps that Mary has spent 20 of her 23 years alive feeling like she is a woman, and therefore has constructed an identity for herself which constitutes her as a Woman.

When someone calls John an American (or when he calls himself that), he is not being called that because of his properties and abilities, but because of his identity. When someone calls Mary a Woman (or when she calls herself that), she is not being called that because of her properties and abilities, but because of her identity. Therefore, when one understands the difference between sex and gender, it is not illogical or incorrect to refer to trans women as women, given that their gender identity is female.

What makes something reactionary?

Populism is not an ideology?

Something is reactionary when it arises as a backlash to an ongoing issue, when it is almost exclusively geared towards addressing that one issue, and when it is not rooted in some kind of structured philosophy.

I might refer to populism as an ideology, but strictly speaking, I don't think that's correct. It is rather a descriptor for certain kinds of movements or sociopolitical waves.

How is this not a liberal idea? 

For example, if the Democrats nominated someone like Tulsi Gabbard, I might actually vote for someone like Huntsman or Kasich. Otherwise, probably not.

What specifically about Tulsi do you dislike, please don't tell me her looks :( ?