Talk:Progressive stack

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

OWS (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject OWS, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OWSWikipedia:WikiProject OWSTemplate:WikiProject OWSOWS

Why is Sue Gardner's personal opinion of the progressive stack concept relevant? She is the Wikimedia Executive--that's all well and good. But what makes her opinion of this subject relevant enough to be included in this encyclopedia article?

I challenge this inclusion, because I don't consider it notable, but more to the point, it is a self-published source! (Self-published sources for citations are largely against Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources)

If it cannot be defended, I'm going to remove it. I mean no offense. 71.162.106.224 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So this

Is how the Occupy movement died, lumbering and wheezing under the weight of its own political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.12.140 (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It died when the corporate/political money backing the OWS movement dried up because it had ceased being an effective political tool for leftist politicians. Ironlion45 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. It did die when it was hijacked by identity politics. The base OWS movement had nothing to do with identity politics but was warped from the inside by infiltrators who didn't care about corruption in the banking sector but instead co-opted the movement to talk about completely unrelated issues and introduced tripe such as this "progressive stack" where speakers are ordered by oppression and other people's ideas go unheard because they happen to be straight white males. This led to dissatisfaction with this state of affairs and the lack of a precise, clear set of goals, which had as a result the implosion of the movement.

Same thing happened with atheism. Identity proponents tried to hijack the atheist movement by injecting identity politics into it, with what was called atheism+. Identity politics have absolutely zero zilch nada relevance to atheism, but some zealots saw fit to try and co-opt atheism to use its platforms and supporters for their own ends. What happened is that the atheism community completely split between "atheism+" and unadulterated atheism. If atheism had been a movement sparking by a singular event like OWS and not a general philosophy, I'm not sure it would have survived either.

This happens more often than you'd think. In every single movement, there's a more or less successful "subset" of IP zealots attempting to hijack it and use it as a tool to further identity politics. Curiously, and somewhat ironically, even Christianity is not immune to this. 74.58.15.135 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I think it's worth linking this page to "genetic fallacy" or "circumstantial ad hominem", as they are both committed in some way here, and they're both integral to these peoples' debating style. 108.7.207.22 (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be a criticism section, or this page ought to be deleted. 70.162.145.194 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provide some sources of said criticism. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references on how the stack works

Chris Hedges's Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt talking about how the stack was used during Occupy.
Cultivate Coop, a wiki for people wanting to build their own cooperatives, while not Occupy, the exact same technique is explained here, showing that this technique is embraced by other organizational theories that believe in minimizing corruption.

68.170.73.158 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with criticizing the "progressive stack."

Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on "anti-progressivism." But it would probably show that the people who would criticize this mostly haven't yet caught on to calling it "the progressive stack." --BenMcLean (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]