Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

The growth of the internet means that the BBC and other such bodies play no useful or unique role; media that will only report its own spin and bury inconvenient facts are everywhere.

This is similar to the argument Reagan made for killing the fairness doctrine in the US. As a result, there are few limits on blurring the line between news and opinion and propaganda, and there is no requirement to offer both sides to any argument. We got a generation of Rush Limbaugh and another generation of Fox news, leading to MAGA and Trump. As a result, we're quickly undoing the progress we made against racism, sexism and such and willingly conceding our rights in exchange for 'protection' from phantom boogie men.

Nothing less than the future arc of civilization is at stake, as we are marching toward a 1984 style existence and many of us are cheering for it all the way through. The reasons for trying to establish neutral and reasonably objective sources are as clear and pressing as they were then. The reasons certain people don't want objective truth to be told are also clear-they want to enable an oligarchy to take control, or they are useful idiots driven by hate.

Access to honest information is something we have to fight to retain, it seems. So, for the fight, and that it is necessary.

[Sy Borg]

The growth of the internet means that the BBC and other such bodies play no useful or unique role; media that will only report its own spin and bury inconvenient facts are everywhere.

This is similar to the argument Reagan made for killing the fairness doctrine in the US. As a result, there are few limits on blurring the line between news and opinion and propaganda, and there is no requirement to offer both sides to any argument. We got a generation of Rush Limbaugh and another generation of Fox news, leading to MAGA and Trump.

You are giving half of the story. Fox is necessary to counter the equivalent level of left wing bias in CNN and MSNBC. In Australia we has major left wing outlets Guardian, ABC, SMH, the Conversation and Crikey while the right has a few Murdoch outlets.

Philosophers should ideally be capable of impartiality, but I expect that most are deeply biased.

As a result, we're quickly undoing the progress we made against racism, sexism and such and willingly conceding our rights in exchange for 'protection' from phantom boogie men.

All of that progress was, as you say, going well until far left activists took over, discarding the race blindness of MLK that had lead to so many social advances and made race an issue again. Then the gender activists and transvestites claiming to be "non-binary" came in and six decades of work in gradually making transsexuals acceptable, and now there is extraordinary hostility towards this group. There has also been a ton of nauseating and hypocritical virtue signalling that has turned many people off, including me.

Also note that the biggest enemy to transsexuals are far left feminists.

Nothing less than the future arc of civilization is at stake, as we are marching toward a 1984 style existence and many of us are cheering for it all the way through. The reasons for trying to establish neutral and reasonably objective sources are as clear and pressing as they were then. The reasons certain people don't want objective truth to be told are also clear-they want to enable an oligarchy to take control, or they are useful idiots driven by hate.

The right also claimed that the future arc of civilisation was at stake, or did you not notice?

The worst imposition I have seen in this regard is Labour in the UK, who have imprisoned vastly more people for speaking their mind than Putin. Australia is also moving in this direction, and penalties are unevenly handed out (two tier policing).

My family are refugees from Nazi Germany, with at least two relatives gassed. The left, with their mystifying support for corrupt, violent, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic Hamas look and behave far more like Nazis than the right does. It's not even close.

The left have also trivialised Hitler's slaughters with absurd false claims, eg. Trump's Madison Square Garden rally, that appeared to be the opposite to the American Nazi rally of 1939 and outrageous claims that Musk hammily gesturing that his heart goes out to the crowd as a Nazi salute.

So, yes, the BBC is biased and British taxpayers should not be forced to fund a biased outlet.

[chewybrian]

You are giving half of the story. Fox is necessary to counter the equivalent level of left wing bias in CNN and MSNBC. In Australia we has major left wing outlets Guardian, ABC, SMH, the Conversation and Crikey while the right has a few Murdoch outlets.

Philosophers should ideally be capable of impartiality, but I expect that most are deeply biased.

I understand that an appeal to authority can be considered a fallacy. Yet, in some cases it is the fairest option and the only way to show that you are willing to consider a reality beyond your own narrative (It has become clear that you are not willing to do this).

I am using AdFontes to show that I am not using my own impression as 'proof' that the BBC is very close to objective and neutral in their reporting. I can give you my own impressions all day but that won't mean much if you disagree. AdFontes has a business model similar to Snopes, meaning that their product is the truth, and the value of their business goes up in smoke if they try to spin things. This valid and reliable source says you are way off the mark in your impressions of several of these outlets. You have every right to your own opinions, but I have no basis to respect them.

All of that progress was, as you say, going well until far left activists took over, discarding the race blindness of MLK that had lead to so many social advances and made race an issue again. Then the gender activists and transvestites claiming to be "non-binary" came in and six decades of work in gradually making transsexuals acceptable, and now there is extraordinary hostility towards this group. There has also been a ton of nauseating and hypocritical virtue signalling that has turned many people off, including me.

What an awful narrative that amounts to victim blaming. Do you think that minorities or gays or tans people should apologize to racists, sexists and homophobes for getting them riled up? How many generations do you think these disfavored groups should wait around for fair treatment?

Trump has shown us that racism, sexism and homophobia are alive and well. These groups have every reason to be fearful and angry, because they are still not being treated fairly.

I don't understand the trans lifestyle, but that doesn't mean that I need to be fearful or hateful toward them for being different. It's their life to live as they please. Am I virtue signaling because I say they have a right to their own life? How am I being hypocritical if I ask nothing for them that I don't also reserve for myself?

[Pattern-chaser]

So, yes, the BBC is biased and British taxpayers should not be forced to fund a biased outlet.

Chewybrain offered a fact-checking site. I searched, and found further supporting information. It seems the BBC is, by and large, unbiased.

And yet you simply repeat what you said before. I think you need to examine your own biases. After all, if we cannot all examine our own viewpoints, how can we comment on bias in others?

For myself, it has always seemed that the BBC is not left or right, but pro-establishment, supportive of the status quo; conservative (small "c"). But it seems that I too am mistaken...

[Fried Egg]

So, yes, the BBC is biased and British taxpayers should not be forced to fund a biased outlet.

Chewybrain offered a fact-checking site. I searched, and found further supporting information. It seems the BBC is, by and large, unbiased.

I wouldn't necessary trust the judgement of a "so called" fact checking site (any more than I would necessarily trust the fact checking arm of the BBC - i.e. BBC Verify). Who fact checks the fact checkers?

That said, I suspect that is broadly correct; the BBC might well be roughly neutral on aggregate. I've no doubt that people will be able to identify particular instances in which they feel was biased one way or the other. I suspect that it is probably all but impossible to remain perfectly neutral 100% of the time.

What is neutral anyway? When we say neutral, do we mean it strikes a position roughly centre of the Overton window? I remember the BBC being criticised for having a climate change sceptic on a discussion program about climate change. They argued that since it was such a small minority of scientists that took that view that it didn't deserve to be represented. Is that being more or less biased to include such an individual?

And this position of neutrality would need to shift over time (as does the Overton window) and something that was considered neutral or unbiased 20 years ago might seem horrendously biased today.

Also, the more polarised opinions are in society trying to maintain a neutral, unbiased position is simple going to seem grotesquely one sided from either section of society. In other words, no one is ever going to be happy.

[Sy Borg]

You are giving half of the story. Fox is necessary to counter the equivalent level of left wing bias in CNN and MSNBC. In Australia we has major left wing outlets Guardian, ABC, SMH, the Conversation and Crikey while the right has a few Murdoch outlets.

Philosophers should ideally be capable of impartiality, but I expect that most are deeply biased.

I understand that an appeal to authority can be considered a fallacy. Yet, in some cases it is the fairest option and the only way to show that you are willing to consider a reality beyond your own narrative (It has become clear that you are not willing to do this).

I am using AdFontes to show that I am not using my own impression as 'proof' that the BBC is very close to objective and neutral in their reporting. I can give you my own impressions all day but that won't mean much if you disagree. AdFontes has a business model similar to Snopes, meaning that their product is the truth, and the value of their business goes up in smoke if they try to spin things. This valid and reliable source says you are way off the mark in your impressions of several of these outlets. You have every right to your own opinions, but I have no basis to respect them.

Are you really so unaware, or just pretending to be so? Normally you display intelligence, but here you are acting as if that the numerous small strategic methods of implementing bias in media outlets don't exist.

As Egg said, who checks the fact-checkers? If they are basing their sociological or political assessments on academia, then they are basing their "objective" view on a heavily left wing slant. It's been well documented that academics in the social sciences are overwhelmingly left wing. These professors often reward political compliance and punish other lines of thought.

All of that progress was, as you say, going well until far left activists took over, discarding the race blindness of MLK that had lead to so many social advances and made race an issue again. Then the gender activists and transvestites claiming to be "non-binary" came in and six decades of work in gradually making transsexuals acceptable, and now there is extraordinary hostility towards this group. There has also been a ton of nauseating and hypocritical virtue signalling that has turned many people off, including me.

What an awful narrative that amounts to victim blaming. Do you think that minorities or gays or tans people should apologize to racists, sexists and homophobes for getting them riled up? How many generations do you think these disfavored groups should wait around for fair treatment?

Classic far left response. To decry a simple centrist viewpoint as "awful". The left love to use shame as a weopon, to paint those who don't toe the line as morally deficient.

Alas, you may be well-meaning, but naive "rescuers" like you are damaging western society; it's not the minorities (aside from Muslims in Europe). Numerous gay people are furious at the foolishness of activists that has eroded their hard-won gains. Not so long ago, the reputation of gays and transpeople in society had never been better. Now decades of gains are being lost due to extremism, and the public shaming of those who don't reflexively follow the extremist narrative.

If nothing else, it's bad strategy, like a chess player who can only look one move ahead.

In an ideal world, sure, everyone could just be themselves without judgement. It is not an ideal world. The starting point regarding queer people in society was extreme prejudice, as happens today in Muslim nations. Tremendous social progress has been made since then, but so much of that slowly gathered goodwill has now been squandered by extremists - extremists who have been encouraged by pandering do-gooders.

"Normies" will not accept children going on puberty-blockers, bearded transvestites playing "genderf*ck" in women's bathrooms, sexualised queer promotion in children's books, or transwomen in women's sport or in women's refuges. They do not accept that race and gender should be considered more important than merit.

Whatever you may think should be the case in these issues, pushing too much too far was always going to cause a lashback. It's the foolishness of a movement spearheaded by young and inexperienced people. Activists have shown an inability to be pragmatic, to accept that you can't have everything you want immediately. They refuse to accept that history and latency stand in the way of the changes they wish to make, and that is valid.

Their job is to convince people, but activists seem more intent on virtue-signalling and performative behaviour than considered the best way to improve things. As I say, it's bad strategy seemingly driven by contempt for "normies".

Trump has shown us that racism, sexism and homophobia are alive and well. These groups have every reason to be fearful and angry, because they are still not being treated fairly.

I don't understand the trans lifestyle, but that doesn't mean that I need to be fearful or hateful toward them for being different. It's their life to live as they please. Am I virtue signaling because I say they have a right to their own life? How am I being hypocritical if I ask nothing for them that I don't also reserve for myself?

You must really love the BBC

See above. Yeah, you are a keen virtue signaller. I get it. Until recently, I was too. Then I realised that I'd been manipulated for decades by a deeply biased academia, whom I had (naively) trusted implicitly. You know ... the fact checkers.

I think the straight world can handle transpeople fine if they make an effort to fit in. Regular society is not ready for bearded men in dresses - who make no effort whatsoever to look the part - demanding to use Ladies' rest rooms. There is a significant safety issue there. The vast majority would not pose a danger, but attacks have been reported.

Likewise, you will find that people who have tatts and multiple piercings all over their face tend to garner mixed results from "normies". Like those playing "genderf*ck", such people are being deliberately outrageous and provocative. Thus, they have no grounds to play victim when people are outraged and provoked by them.

That is very different to the Blair White kind of trans, who simply had a sex change without attention seeking so she could live in a role more comfortable for her. It's the difference between transsexual and transvestite.

One day, society may not care about transvestites in women's spaces and the like, but it is not this day.

[chewybrian]

Sy, I guess you are pragmatic, but that's never been me. My brain doesn't work like that and it never will. I approach life like it's a math problem, not an episode of Survivor. That is part of the appeal of philosophy over real life to me. You may be right about what will move things along best in the end, and I don't claim to be an authority on that. I still think you're wrong about the BBC, though.

Also, it's unclear in your style whether you actually want to advance the rights of these groups or to discriminate against them using the pragmatism as cover. I often take things too literally, but this last post was the first time I got the impression that you did actually care about these folks. Maybe I'm just a mutton head or maybe it's your presentation...(?)

[Sy Borg]

Sy, I guess you are pragmatic, but that's never been me. My brain doesn't work like that and it never will. I approach life like it's a math problem, not an episode of Survivor. That is part of the appeal of philosophy over real life to me. You may be right about what will move things along best in the end, and I don't claim to be an authority on that. I still think you're wrong about the BBC, though.

Also, it's unclear in your style whether you actually want to advance the rights of these groups or to discriminate against them using the pragmatism as cover. I often take things too literally, but this last post was the first time I got the impression that you did actually care about these folks. Maybe I'm just a mutton head or maybe it's your presentation...(?)

I don't want to discriminate against people unless they cause damage. Like most "demographics", queer people have their good and bad.

I used to be idealistic, but I have come to realise that ideals are the reason for the maxim, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". I noticed that people in underdog positions quite often do much to contribute to their problems. It's pointless to point to "level playing fields" because they don't exist. People who are further removed from their tribal roots build better civilisations (no doubt they would make worse tribes but civilisations > tribes on most areas). Colonisation is the natural state of humans - the whole of human (and pre-human) history is basically a succession of conquests and failures.

The BBC is guilty of curating its information so that "right wing morons" won't get the wrong idea, eg. avoiding revealing when Muslims are responsible for crimes. No, give us the facts. The Beeb's bias comes in the choice of material, and the choices of material omitted.

In the old days, national broadcasters were a godsend for rural people needing to stay in touch and for those who disliked ads and lowbrow commercial content. Thanks to the internet (including the now-reviled Musk's satellite links) rural people and more discerning media consumers don't need national broadcasters.

The Beeb could disappear and it wouldn't change any narratives since the Guardian and the BBC and ABC operate in lockstep.

I laughed at you enjoying philosophy over real life. I relate in a way. I often use science to "escape" from human complexities - space, nature, Earth sciences and microbes, or shlepping around the garden or playing with dogs. But when philosophy intersects with politics and society, I'm all for pragmatism rather than making people suffer through experimentation with luxury beliefs.

Europe needs to find its identity before it loses it. YouTube served me up an interesting piece by French philosopher, Pascal Bruckner, about this subject. Similarly pragmatic. Some at the BBC would find it problematic because they are at the vanguard of British guilt and self-loathing (verified by academics and "fact"-checkers):

[Pattern-chaser]

I wouldn't necessary trust the judgement of a "so called" fact checking site (any more than I would necessarily trust the fact checking arm of the BBC - i.e. BBC Verify). Who fact checks the fact checkers?

We do. We just have to apply a little common sense, based on the empirical observation that you have to trust someone, sometime, or you will be paralysed.

That said, I suspect that is broadly correct; the BBC might well be roughly neutral on aggregate. I've no doubt that people will be able to identify particular instances in which they feel was biased one way or the other. I suspect that it is probably all but impossible to remain perfectly neutral 100% of the time.

What is neutral anyway? When we say neutral, do we mean it strikes a position roughly centre of the Overton window? I remember the BBC being criticised for having a climate change sceptic on a discussion program about climate change. They argued that since it was such a small minority of scientists that took that view that it didn't deserve to be represented. Is that being more or less biased to include such an individual?

If it was possible, common sense would indicate that the individual should've been there, but not given as much microphone-time as those who represented a *far more* widely-held view. These things are never clear-cut, are they?

And this position of neutrality would need to shift over time (as does the Overton window) and something that was considered neutral or unbiased 20 years ago might seem horrendously biased today.

Also, the more polarised opinions are in society trying to maintain a neutral, unbiased position is simple going to seem grotesquely one sided from either section of society. In other words, no one is ever going to be happy.

In other words, most (but not all) people are happy some (but not all) of the time.

[Pattern-chaser]

As Egg said, who checks the fact-checkers? If they are basing their sociological or political assessments on academia, then they are basing their "objective" view on a heavily left wing slant. It's been well documented that academics in the social sciences are overwhelmingly left wing. These professors often reward political compliance and punish other lines of thought.

First, a simple and factual observation: those who are conservative (small "c"), politically or otherwise, tend toward being reactionary: preferring to stick with what we have, or hark back to how things were. Such people are not going to fit well in an environment that exists to consider new or different ways of looking at things. So there will be fewer right-wingers in academia, simply out of preference by the prospective students.



But we should not trust anyone blindly, even though we have to trust someone, sometime, as we can't do it all on our own. We need to stand on the shoulders of our giant predecessors. And the methodology used by fact-checkers has to be considered, as you have observed.

For example, our present UK government comes from the Labour Party, notionally a left-wing party. But Keir Starmer's version of Labour is like Tony Blair's — ditch the socialism, become a 'friend of business', and get elected! And so if the BBC reported something in a way that was sympathetic to the government, would that be seen as being (very mildly) biased toward the left-wing? After all, socialism is anathema to them.

There will be examples from the other (political) side too. I just chose to post this one.

And so I conclude that no fact-checker can ever be 100% correct and accurate. But they do the best they can, in an imperfect world, and we use our common sense to bridge what's left of the gap(s), yes?

[Fried Egg]

And so I conclude that no fact-checker can ever be 100% correct and accurate. But they do the best they can, in an imperfect world, and we use our common sense to bridge what's left of the gap(s), yes?

I recall reading fairly recently about one of the so called "fact checkers", the Global Disinformation Index, turned out to be incredibly biased (in that their list if proscribed websites almost exclusively leaned to the right). And to top it all, organisations such as this get funding from a number of governments (including our own).

The BBC's own fact checking service (BBC Verify) has had to do a substantial number of corrections and retractions. My main concern here is just that the label of "fact checker" gives one an air of objectivity and leads the unsuspecting to give them more trust than other media sources. I just don't think they are any more trustworthy than anything else.

Ultimately, we should expect all media sources to do their own fact checking but we can never rely on any source to be objective. The only thing we can do is look for multiple sources of information (especially from different sides of the political spectrum) so at least you will be aware when certain statements, views or opinions are challenged by others. That will give you a better basis to form your own opinion.

[Sy Borg]

As Egg said, who checks the fact-checkers? If they are basing their sociological or political assessments on academia, then they are basing their "objective" view on a heavily left wing slant. It's been well documented that academics in the social sciences are overwhelmingly left wing. These professors often reward political compliance and punish other lines of thought.

First, a simple and factual observation: those who are conservative (small "c"), politically or otherwise, tend toward being reactionary: preferring to stick with what we have, or hark back to how things were. Such people are not going to fit well in an environment that exists to consider new or different ways of looking at things. So there will be fewer right-wingers in academia, simply out of preference by the prospective students.

No, conservatives don't tend to be reactionary, certainly they are less so than socialists. Yes, conservatives do seem to prefer the status quo or the past, especially after very rapid changes made in the last decade.

However, this does not mean conservatives are ill-suited to being educated (being introduced to new ways of looking at things). Rather, conservatives tend to be easier to educate because they tend to respond better to authority.

There are right wingers in academia to be found in areas like Economics, Business Administration/Management, Finance, Accounting, Engineering, Computer Science, Agricultural Science, Mining Engineering, Military Science/ROTC Programs, Petroleum Engineering, Aviation/Aeronautics, Construction Management, Marketing, Criminal Justice, Theology/Religious Studies, Physics etc.

I think major reasons for the extreme left wing bias of universities stems from the fact that university professors lead protected lives in their ivory towers without exposure to the "real world", enabling luxury beliefs. Add this to the tendency of young people to be naive and idealistic and universities have moved fatally biased towards the left.

The Marxist plan for "The Long March Through the Institutions" is doing brilliantly. It's well on the way to bringing Europe down.

But we should not trust anyone blindly, even though we have to trust someone, sometime, as we can't do it all on our own. We need to stand on the shoulders of our giant predecessors. And the methodology used by fact-checkers has to be considered, as you have observed.

We have no choice but to trust others n a pluralist society. That's why the blatant biases of fact-checkers should be addressed.

For example, our present UK government comes from the Labour Party, notionally a left-wing party. But Keir Starmer's version of Labour is like Tony Blair's — ditch the socialism, become a 'friend of business', and get elected! And so if the BBC reported something in a way that was sympathetic to the government, would that be seen as being (very mildly) biased toward the left-wing? After all, socialism is anathema to them. 🤔

There will be examples from the other (political) side too. I just chose to post this one. 👍

And so I conclude that no fact-checker can ever be 100% correct and accurate. But they do the best they can, in an imperfect world, and we use our common sense to bridge what's left of the gap(s), yes?

I don't believe fact-checkers implicitly, but what I think doesn't matter when a fact-checker can impact the minds of millions. The whole point of fact-checkers was to take away that element of uncertainty but, as usual, socialists found a way to take over.

An investigation found that approximately 5% of all BBC Verify articles since its launch required correction, clarification, or withdrawal because they contained misinformation. Who checks the fact checker?

More important are the points chosen to be checked. Consider the Trump/Harris debate where Trump was repeatedly fact-checked while Harris was allowed to get away with a number of blatant lies without being checked. The most egregious was the claim that Trump was racists because he called demonstrators in Charlottesville "very fine people". The clip used to induct Trump was incomplete, clipping off the part where he explicitly denounces the Nazis there, and his
"very fine people on both sides" statement excluded the Nazis.

Starmer has imprisoned almost ten times more people for free speech transgressions than Putin in the last year - all of them from the right. Starmer's London banker oligarchs are equivalent to those in other countries, though especially toxic. The only UK politician to cause trouble for London baker was Liz Truss (on the right) and she was slaughtered and ousted by The Machine with awesome efficiency.

[Pattern-chaser]

No, conservatives don't tend to be reactionary, certainly they are less so than socialists.

Oh? Hmmm.

In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante—the previous political state of society—which the person believes possessed positive characteristics that are absent from contemporary society. As a descriptor term, reactionary derives from the ideological context of the left–right political spectrum. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a status quo ante.

As an ideology, reactionism is a tradition in right-wing politics; the reactionary stance opposes policies for the social transformation of society, whereas conservatives seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present. In popular usage, reactionary refers to a strong traditionalist conservative political perspective of a person opposed to social, political, and economic change.

Reactionary ideologies can be radical in the sense of political extremism in service to re-establishing past conditions.

There really does seem to be a clear connection between conservatism and "reactionary" politics...?

[Pattern-chaser]

And so I conclude that no fact-checker can ever be 100% correct and accurate. But they do the best they can, in an imperfect world, and we use our common sense to bridge what's left of the gap(s), yes?

I recall reading fairly recently about one of the so called "fact checkers", the Global Disinformation Index, turned out to be incredibly biased (in that their list if proscribed websites almost exclusively leaned to the right). And to top it all, organisations such as this get funding from a number of governments (including our own).

The BBC's own fact checking service (BBC Verify) has had to do a substantial number of corrections and retractions. My main concern here is just that the label of "fact checker" gives one an air of objectivity and leads the unsuspecting to give them more trust than other media sources. I just don't think they are any more trustworthy than anything else.

Ultimately, we should expect all media sources to do their own fact checking but we can never rely on any source to be objective. The only thing we can do is look for multiple sources of information (especially from different sides of the political spectrum) so at least you will be aware when certain statements, views or opinions are challenged by others. That will give you a better basis to form your own opinion.

I wouldn't really call it biased if their list of subsidiary websites is biased, although it isn't quite what we might hope for, in an ideal world. But that's a judgement call that could go either way.

Well, you have to trust someone, sometime, don't you? As I said not long ago, in a previous note, we have little choice but to stand on the shoulders of the giants who preceded us. And also on the shoulders of our information-providers.

Exactly. We trust the fact-checkers, but also understand they could be wrong, or they might simply disagree with us to the point that we are *unable* to accept what they say, even when it is actually factual. So we read, and we look, and we listen, and we consider carefully for ourselves. Just as prudent thinkers always have done.

P.S. The way our social media works today, a fact-checking site that published incorrect facts or advice would quickly lose its raison d'etre, as the news of its unreliability spread. No more clicks = no more money from Google.

[Pattern-chaser]

First, a simple and factual observation: those who are conservative (small "c"), politically or otherwise, tend toward being reactionary: preferring to stick with what we have, or hark back to how things were.

No, conservatives don't tend to be reactionary, certainly they are less so than socialists.
Yes, conservatives do seem to prefer the status quo or the past...

But that's what "reactionary" means, isn't it? "[P]referring to stick with what we have, or hark back to how things were." Politically, that's more or less a definition of the word...?

You seem to be contradicting yourself?