Indeed it is, but the 'hard right' doesn't exist on CNN. I wouldn't expect people to bring up the problems with progressive commentators on a thread about, say, Fox News, because they don't exist over there.
To me, in this thread with this topic, this reads as whataboutism.
The GP presented these properties as if they are unique to progressives. It's not whataboutism to point out that they aren't.
If they'd simply attributed activism and an "everything is political" attitude to CNN, that would have been reasonable since this discussion is about CNN, but they decided to expand this attribution to to "progressives", which is a very different thing.
>"The GP presented these properties as if they are unique to progressives. "
I genuinely wasn't trying to do that. The article, and discussion, was around progressives when I shared my observation and thoughts about them. Wanting to stay in focus, I kept my comment and observation about them only.
I'm genuinely surprised that by not bringing up a contrast with other political ideologies I'm perceived as believing it is unique to them.
To be honest, I think using "people" rather than "progressives" would be less insightful and would ignore a genuine perception that I, and probably many others, have with progressives as a whole. They are insistent, they are vocal, and they seem particularly driven and uncompromising when it comes to fighting for what they believe. I wanted to present this in a neutral or matter-of-fact way. It can either be seen as a negative (progressives are pushy and obstinate), or it can be seen as virtuous (progressives are relentless in the pursuit of justice).
After reading through all the comments in this thread, I get the sense that many commenters want to dismiss any perception that is remotely negative about the behavior of progressives by attributing the alleged attributes as something that, one, other groups do more, and two, something that everyone does. But in so doing, progressivism becomes something you can only ascribe unquestionably positive attributes to.
I'm not sure how to reconcile "I want to present this as neutral" with "but I also want to say, without supporting evidence, that progressives do this more."
I make absolutely no claims about being able to objectively say which side does this more, but it is clear to me that both sides do it a ton, so trying to attribute it more to one side in any significant way requires some evidence that hasn't been offered.
And for the record, I'd have made the same objection if in some alternate universe comment thread you'd tried to claim this was a particularly conservative trait too. There are unlimited examples of either side being egregiously bias-driven, insistent, vocal, uncompromising, hyper-partisan, activist, etc. There is remarkably little news on either side that's free of it. Note also that this isn't an "I will ignore that because both sides do it" argument. It's deeply disappointing in all cases.
I'm not equipped to provide the sort of evidence you're seeking. In fact, I don't know where to start. If I cited examples in recent memory, they would likely (and possibly rightly) be dismissed as anecdotal, or potentially unrepresentative (along the lines of: so and so isn't actually a progressive). I'm not sure a there is a peer reviewed study available out there, somewhere, that relates to my observation. And I don't feel like hoping on JSTOR to find one!
More broadly, one of the things I am feeling dismayed about is the increasing expectation of 'evidence' on personal observations. I have formed an opinion based on what I have seen, and I wasn't keeping track of everything that informed my perception. Indeed, even if I had, it would not be in an acceptable format because it would be too easy to dismiss for lack of academic rigor. There's something demoralizing about having ideas that you share dismissed so readily because they're not presented with a myriad of citations to back them up. Especially considering I am not sharing them in an academic setting. It also feels stifling because I want to write a few sentences without having to compile a bibliography in an attempt to rout potential naysayers.
I hope this doesn't come across as an attack - I'm just feeling very worn out.
Well, ok, that's perfectly fair, and if you want to make statements about what you personally perceive about progressives, then that's one thing, but it seemed like you were arguing fairly hard that this is "well-known" to be a fundamental part of progressivism, which is why you got some push-back. If you're just offering your personal opinion, I'll go ahead and revise my original response to, "nuh-uh." :)
Edit: would you have accepted a suggestion of changing "progressives" to "partisans" instead of changing "progressives" to "people"? That seems pretty fair to me.
To me, in this thread with this topic, this reads as whataboutism.