The difference in meaning to progressives is that it is grounded moreso in being capable of making happen

Not "trying with insufficient knowledge and assumptions"

Yeah, it does seem more like a rule of thumb. I guess I just liked the word

Progressives seem to just want to change whatever moral structures they deem "outdated"

It's an escalation of liberalism, like communism is to socialism

Makes sense that they're the other end of conservatism

Or just like the puritians but more leftist

Degenerates?

That'd be the opposite, right?

Well tell me what your definition of liberalism is

Well forcing rules on others. Being moral busy bodies

I'd say liberalism is a generally positive demeanor to altering existing social constructs and laws to allow more people to feel more freedom in the way they live their life

That's authrotianism if your forcing rules on others, not liberalism

https://scontent.fluk1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26230351_577394872652716_6452651993878109720_n.jpg?oh=a9a311f4d7605ccad4235ee0bd11fbc3&oe=5AEBF416

Through democracy?

Oh referencing the puritans

I wouldn't say progressivism is an escalation of liberalism as progressivism seems fine with barring previous freedoms in favor of their own definition of "progress"

Through democracy is the more complex bit

Like how we have them on both ends

if they think shutting down this one freedom to protect what they think the future will look like they will

Let's get some extreme polar opposites, for some ground

And for such superficial reasons.

it's generally because it makes them feel good lol

How is "oh, you might offend this group of people", any different from, "oh, you might offend the government?"

Being steadfast in retaining and preserving the social and political structure as it is

it's warped hypocritical liberalism. Not liberalism pushed to an extreme

Regardless of any possible improvements that may be introduced

OR

A group of people have a face while the government doesn't; if you know what I mean

Stay caused it worked before or change cause it might be for the better

Being breaking down any boundaries that are, regardless of their protection or importance and stability they may provide

Everything is relevant and therefore everyone has equal power

Those are the two polar opposites, right?

yeah pretty much

So where is the common ground in these two

Assuming horse shoe theory

preserving certain values that help benefit or don't harm while getting rid of values that don't benefit and may harm

Wanting to exist and retain existence

the problem is some values may seem harmful or inane but do more than that is apparent

and some values can be taken too far and become abusive

Well, there's also trying to change stuff without fully understanding what you're even trying to change. A perfect example of this is "the wage gap", wherein women make less money than men. It's easy to look at this and go "oh well that isn't right, we need to fix this."
The problem comes into play when no one bothers asking or looking into *why* this is the case.