>>510509393
I think reactionary as a term is misleading. It inherently pathologizes the advocacy of any practices or beliefs from the past as noxiously regressive, and thus as a corollary suggests that all social change is inherently good and represents a progressive movement towards something better. Thus it excludes the possibility that any given element of social change might actually be bad and something that it would be sensible to roll back, which when applied to any other field of thought would obviously and correctly be identified as a poor model of reasoning, but when it comes to social change we're all living in the autistic shadow of the Whigs and their fetish for setting tradition alight and insisting that the resultant smoking crater represents another step towards utopia