I grew up in a very conservative part of the Bible belt in the 70s and 80s. Turns out that was great training for dealing with today's Progressives. Keep your mouth shut and trust no one.

> This quasi-ideology [..] holds that, inter alia: (1) All demographic groups are roughly equal on all socially valued traits; (2) racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry are ubiquitous; (3) almost all demographic disparities are caused by unfair discrimination; (4) diversity is an unalloyed good;

Aren't points 2 and 4 in conflict? Why would you want to give up or diminish your majority status, if minorities are discriminated (and discriminate themselves)? Out of some vague hope that racism will disappear once the demographics change sufficiently?

What I find interesting (and unappealing) about progressivism is seems like a regression to a more primitive moral framework. Religion had hard-coded concepts of good and evil but modernism, science and technology helped show that moral relativism is a more accurate view of the world. Different cultures value different things and there's no flying monster in the sky laying out a universal moral code.

Starting in the late 2000s it seems as if a new breed of puritanical thought arose in the form of social justice. Progressives have very firmly held ideas around what's "good" and "evil". There's no room for discussion, no room for alternative view points. It seems strange though since it's not backed by religion, where is this universal code coming from? How can a small subset of upper middle class Westerners possibly define what's best for the entire human population?

If there are any progressives here (and I know there are), I'd love to hear how you came about your moral code minus religion and how you think it applies universally as it's a concept I still can't wrap my head around.