A: Because there are a large number of conservatives who have tried to explicitly call themselves "progressives" despite their ideology directly contradicting progressivism by allowing conservatism in order to mask that they are conservatives. Therefore, the added modifier term of "consistent" becomes necessary to differentiate from the other so-called "progressives" who are not actually progressive in the slightest. (If such an option was empirically viable, it would have been preferred that it just be called 'progressivism', which is what Consistent Progressives colloquially refer to it as anyway.) And no, there is not any such thing as "inconsistent progressivism" because progressivism is a static stance, being the total negation of all forms of conservatism; it is not possible to have an inconsistent version of this because it only has one singular version to begin with. At the instant that the "progressivism" of anyone allows conservatism, it is no longer progressivism. Similar to how a light switch can only ever be on or off at once, but would not be considered "off" if it was merely dim or flickering, as off is its own seperate static condition within the binary of "off" and "on".
(Please read the "The Spectrum of Conservatism" article for more theory on this topic.)

A: No it does not, as no objectivity can be found in the use of "status quo" or "traditional values" as part of the definition. The only semblance of truth to them being associated with conservatism at all is that they are both empirically conservative. But it is that exact reason- that they are only empirically conservative, why they can't be part of the definition. Traditions are empirically conservative because it just so happens to be that all of history has been filled with far more examples of conservatism in practice than progressivism; consistent conservative societies have existed numerous times in many places, compared to very few consistent progressive ones, if any at all. This same reasoning applies to the status quo; the status quo is conservative, but only as of right now. The thing making these not able to be included in the definition is the fact that it is entirely possible for both traditions and the status quo to switch to progressivism; if a progressive society were to be established, the status quo there would change from conservatism to progressivism, and eventually as it continues to exist over time, progressivism would eventually become a tradition there. Traditions and the status quo are entirely subjective based on the time and place- they are empirical statements rather than intrinsic connections, which is the reason they cannot have anything to do with the definition of "conservatism". Not only are they merely empirical statements however, but they're also commonly used by conservatives to try to create a smokescreen around conservatism in order to trick unsuspecting "centrists" into thinking that these empirical statements are somehow the definition, so that when they explain it to an unsuspecting apolitical, the apolitical is tricked into falling under the smokescreen and viewing conservatism as "not that bad if it just means 'traditions'", entirely unaware that the specific "traditions" conservatives support are the conservative ones: the genocidal, pro-slavery, discriminatory ones. "Traditional values" and the "status quo" are smokescreens, and Consistent Progressivism seeks to break the smokescreen.
(Please read the "Centrism as an impossibility" article for more theory on this topic.)

A: Consistent Progressives are vehemently against all conservatives and forms of conservatism, period. However, this is a question that makes no sense from the start, because conservatism is not a "lifestyle"; it is not an identity nor a personal stance of any kind. Conservatism is strictly an interpersonal stance on the identities of others, in that their identities are viewed as "subhuman"; there is no such thing as a "conservative lifestyle" because conservatism exists through the interpersonal, not the personal.
(Please read the "The Spectrum of Conservatism" article for more theory on this topic.)

A: Deprogramming conservative language is defined as the process of emphasizing definitional clarity in terminology to defend against conservative buzzwords and smokescreened terms with unclear, incorrect, and/or multiple conflicting and/or unrelated meanings. When a conservative is trying to talk to you, i.e. saying that some individuals are 'too young' to do anything, and you force them to define what specifically it means to be 'too young' to do something, interrogating the many unrelated conflicting meanings that conservatives package with the word 'age', that is language deprogramming. When a conservative is trying to trick you into allying with them to work against your identity under the guise of 'leftism' and you force them to define what specifically 'leftism' means and who all is included under that label, that is language deprogramming. When a conservative is trying to appeal to normies by advocating for the removal of 'men from women sports', and you call them out for enforcing gender norms, segregation, & transphobia, that is language deprogramming. It is the process of tearing down the conservative stronghold over language upheld by the smokescreens that conservatives build up through euphemisms, to force it to be undeniably clear what is meant by their terms.
(Please read the "An Extension to Liberation" article for more theory on this topic.)

A: It's already deprogrammed from the start! Right here. And also here. If there's any remaining terminological confusion, progressives should be more than happy to provide clarity.

A: The Consistent Progressive platform does not take any official positive stance on economics, as individual consistent progressives may hold varying mutually compatible views on the topic. However, there is an official negative stance, being that we obviously do not support any economic systems that allow for or require conservatism, which would include currently existing "capitalism"/corporatism, and all forms of non-stateless "socialism"/"communism" (the central planning/DOTP kind). We do not support central planning, reformism, state regulations/intervention, corporations, landlordism dynamics, absentee/"private" (according to some definitions) property, hierarchies, or the state as a whole, as all of these are viewed as forms of conservatism.
(Please read the "The Benefits of Decentralization" article for more theory on this topic.)

A: Yes, along with incest, zoophilia, necrophilia, and all of the other paraphilias. What's important to emphasize is that all of these should be differentiated from rape (sexual relations with a living being who did not communicate opting-in to such relation), which Consistent Progressives do not support, as it is a form of conservatism. We support all of these happening strictly through the VSR model, like all other relations should.
(Please read the "Abolish Families", "Abolish Families (An Appendix)", "Para-Progressivism", & "An Extension to Liberation" articles for more theory on this topic.)

A: Progressives are strictly pro-contact for all sexualities via the VSR model; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Any other stance implies unwelcomed intervention into a VSR to infringe on Free Love and would hence be a form of conservatism.
(Please read the "Para-Progressivism" article for more theory on this topic.)

A: Identities are 'problematic' only to those holding the conservative mindset in their head that compells them to believe they are. Identity is a canvas for concentrated self-expression; only conservatives would be threatened by that. Fakeclaimers view identity as a rigid ruleset of qualifiers, antis view it as a checklist of arbitrary exclusions for 'purity', and most other conservatives hold no regard for it at all, following an arbitrary ruleset of immuntability, eugenicism, and hierarchy. Progressivism rejects all three of these conservative flavors, viewing identity neither as a strict rulebook nor a floating force in need of 'regulation' for 'the vulnerable', but instead as a blank canvas of queerness freely accessible for all to paint in expression innate to the self. It exists firstly through the personal, and extends to the interpersonal through some forms of expression, all of which are supported to the fullest extent. There is no 'all identities welcome except [insert random identity]' in progressivism; all identities are supported, as are their expressions, to the fullest extent possible.
(Please read the "Para-Progressivism" article for more theory on this topic.)

A: Yes. There is no fine text, arbitrary rules, or hidden clauses of 'we fight for all identities unless you're a pedo/zoo/incester/endo/non-dysphoric/disabled/MUD/contraidentity/etc'; 'all identities' means ALL identities, including the 'problematic' ones. Actually, especially the 'problematic' ones, because beings holding those identities face persecution to a far greater scale, being abandoned and left out of spaces that they thought they would be accepted by but turned out to have fallen to conservatism. All that is asked is that you share our energy, sentiments, and vibes (this meaning that you don't leave any queers out either and fight with us for all of them), and you will stand amongst your fellow progressives, united in the liberation of all queers.

A: Identities are innate to the self; they are rooted from the personal. This makes them distinct from ideologies, which are rooted from the interpersonal; ideologies are worldviews held about politics, a topic defined by sets of belief systems in regards to the general organization of society, consisting of the beings that make up said society. A distinction between identities and ideologies is vital to make for reasons such as this very question, because if the distinction is not made, conservatives will exploit that to gaslight queers with nonsensical propositions like this.

To answer the question however, because identities are innate expressions of the self, if someone were to base their identity around an ideology, they would be treated as what their identity is. If a conservative terminology exploiter decided they wanted to try to sneak into progressive spaces with conservatism as their 'identity', they would be treated exactly as what their identity is, to affirm their self-expression. To put this in simpler terms, if someone's identity is 'conservatism', progressives will affirm their identity and treat them like what they are: a conservative.
(Please read the "An Extension to Liberation" article for more theory on this topic.)

A: This question can be answered with a series of questions.

Do you feel any sort of authoritorial obligation to obey their general commands?

Are there any things they hold authority to prohibit you from possessing, knowing, or otherwise gaining access to?

Would they do anything to you if they generally told you to do something and you refused?

Do they hold the 'legal' ability to involve you into things on your un-agreed to behalf?

Is there anything they hold the authority to do to/with you, your body, or your presence, without you having to agree to it first?

Do you feel you require their prior acknowledgement or agreement of any kind to engage in anything of which they are not involved with in any way other than to 'consent' to your presence?

Is there anything you do not feel you hold the autonomy to engage with on your own without their involvement?

Do you believe any of the members involved in this 'family' would hold a negative outlook of you in any capacity if you expressed every single facet about your identity to them?

Are there any members involved in this 'family' who are not aware and supportive of any aspect of your identity?

In the event of your identity being under fire by conservatives, are there any members in your 'family' that you do not feel would defend all aspects of your identity in the face of conservatives?

Are any members of your 'family' themselves conservative?

Is there anything stopping you from simply choosing to leave your 'family' to go on your own or find a different one if you ever wanted to?

Have you at any point felt that remaining involved in the 'family' is not something that is to the abolute benefit of your identity, expression of such, autonomy, and pleasure?

If you answered 'no' to all of these questions, you have a VSR, and your relation would remain untouched in progressivism, exactly as it is now.
If you answered 'yes' or even so much as had to 'think about it' to any of these questions, probably re-evaluate whether that's a relation you want to be involved with in the first place, and realize that those are the kind of relations that the 'family institution' is used in reference to within family abolition; family abolition is the Consistent Progressive stance that all beings of all identities should be able to, without giving a second thought, answer 'no' to all of the questions.
(Please read the "Abolish Families" & "Abolish Families (An Appendix)" articles for more theory on this topic.)

A: This premise is predicated on a fundamental and fatal misreading of what progressivism is and advocates. None of the positions of progressivism posit opposition to violence as a concept; conceptually it is nothing more than a tool with which praxis is driven. Wielded by the wrong ideology, it does indeed become a mechanism to be opposed, but this is true of all tools in any case. Progressivism is the negation of conservatism- that is, all of the stances of progressivism are rooted to anti-conservatism; progressivism manifests from a love of queerness and identity, and thus an absolute antipathy to anything that would impede on such. Whether the conservatives use violence or not is entirely irrelevant; the reason conservatives are opposed is for the simple reason that they are conservatives at all to begin with: that they make the active conscious choice to orient with disdain for and persecution of queer identities. Any who would impede on a queer in any capacity is to be opposed, regardless of whether they do so "violently" or not.

Furthermore, pacifism is itself fundamentally the death of everything it touches- this remains true regardless of whether it were conservative or progressive, as it serves exclusively to render any who use it to fall entirely to the mercy of whom they are opposed.
(Please read the "The Noveltist Analysis of Pacifism" article from the progressive tor site for more theory on this topic.)

A: If someone 'disagrees' with the 'opinion' that identities shouldn't be enslaved or genocided, if someone 'disagrees' with the principle that no identities are subhuman, and if someone 'disagrees' with the fundamental rights of freedom of identity, bodily autonomy, and free love, then to put it as bluntly as possible, yes. Our existence is not up for debate. As the saying goes, "respect queer existence, or expect queer resistance". Liberation is non-negotiable.

A: Not according to the accuser's own sources! Pretty much every single source conservatives love citing when they make their laughable attacks against progressivism identifies genocide as the "systemic killing of a racial, cultural, sexual, or ethnic" group. Progressive wording shortens it to simply "the mass killing/erasure of identities", because if we had to specify every single time that genocide is "when groups are mass-killed for being black, lesbian, gay, paraphiles, disabled, neurodivergent, transgender, non-binary, etc" that would be quite a mouthful, no? Furthermore, such claims are extremely laughable in the face of the supermajority of conservatives who openly advocate actual genocide (woodchippers, anyone?), so if anything queer anti-pacifism should more accurately be described as queer justice. Justice for every single queer (of which there are billions) that have been killed for arbitrary aspects of their identity, as well as the living queers who remain in solitary confinement by centralists. Say the word 'pedo' in any conservative space, look at queer homicide & suicide numbers over the years, do a bit of reading into our history of persecution as well as ongoing persecution to this day, and then come back and say with a straight face to a queer's face, that the queer is the one in the "wrong" here for advocating the abolition of individuals who think that such extensive actual genocide is good.
(Please read the "The Noveltist Analysis of Pacifism" article from the progressive tor site for more theory on this topic.)

A: That's great! Education of conservatives is promoted in progressivism as far as to the extent that it is empirically viable. In other words, if a conservative goes to great lengths to demonstrate a legitimate desire to learn about queer identities, change, and convert to progressivism, they will be welcomed within educational spaces. However, it is important to emphasize that conservatives are not owed this welcoming by queers; they must first demonstrate an extensive legitimate desire to earn our time. Many conservatives don't, and instead exploit the openness of queers to educate in order to gain information on progressive movement and praxis in order to sabotage the ideology. Many queers have been lost out of an exploitation of their feeling of obligation to "give conservatives a chance". Hence progressivism putting an end to that; queers owe conservatives nothing. Our hand will extend to open-minded conservatives when they can demonstrate that they deserve to earn it.
(Please read the "The Spectrum of Conservatism" article for more theory on this topic.)

A: See the progressive tor site.

A: It is generally advised in progressivism to steer clear of the term 'anarchism' to begin with (exponentially more so for 'libertarianism'), as it is one of many terminological smokescreens conservatives hide under, even if to a far lesser extent than most. But if taken by the definitions used among most anarchist theorists, those being the 'rejection of the existence of hierarchies and/or the state', then yes, anarchism is indeed deployed within Consistent Progressivism; however, it is seen as one of many fundamentals of the ideology, deployed through the vital core of decentralization. Consistent Progressivism broadens the scope of rejection to a more general and clearly-defined focus, that being the rejection of centralism, defined as the concentration of the societal general defense apparatus (i.e. police, military, courts, etc) into the hands of the few upheld in a small minority of overarching organizations who maintain a monopoly over resources which is used to enforce their conservatism and lock out everyone else from equal access to said resources and defense, leaving them in reliance on the centralists as their only viable option. Centralism is rejected on the basis of it being a form of conservatism, so it would probably be better phrased that anarchism is one of many components of progressivism as opposed to progressivism being a form of it.
(Please read the "The Noveltist Analysis of the state" & "The Benefits of Decentralization" articles for more theory on this topic.)

A: No. Liberalism in nearly all definitions is a conservative ideology, defined by the support of an un-agreed to 'social contract' binding all beings to the authority of a government, which is viewed as needing to be the 'defender' of individual rights and 'democracy'; the former being something progressives do not need to rely on a centralist for, and the latter being generally rejected in general (with a few exceptions depending on the variant and its applications).

A: See the 'Economics & Philosophy' question.

A: Xenoanarchism is viewed among progressives as essentially being 'unfinished progressivism' or 'progressivism-lite', as nearly all aspects of the ideology hold some overlap with Consistent Progressivism; however, the ideology has (at least to public knowledge) seemingly become mostly abandoned, with no theory documents of any kind written to expand on the concepts laid out by it. Consistent Progressivism, while created independently of xenoanarchism, does coincidentally expand on its concepts to their logical conclusion.

A: While there are some aspects of xenosatanism that are mutually compatible & overlap with progressivism (i.e. total anti-ageism + no AoC/conservative existence time criteria for autonomy, public encouragement of paras/sexuality & nudism [referred to by xenosatanism as queer behaviors], free body modifications & drugs, etc), there are also aspects of xenosatanism that are not mutually compatible (i.e. xenosatanism's support for genuine noncon/rape as opposed to progressivism prohibiting explicitly-opted-out-of sexual relations for queers, xenosatanism's support for the self-collapsing smokescreen of 'free speech' vs the progressivism paradox of acceptance theory, etc). Consistent Progressivism was created independently without any prior knowledge of the existence of xenosatanism, so any degress of overlap between the two at all would be entirely coincidental.

A: Consistent Progressivism is the logical conclusion of all queer movements, fighting for all queers of all identities and leaving none behind. Every principle, policy, stance, and belief of Consistent Progressivism is formed entirely around what would be liberatory to the fullest extent for every queer identity, providing an individual absolute analysis for the struggles of every last one and what every identity needs to be expressed to the fullest capacity.

A: Another label for Consistent Progressivism, used mainly as another shortener other than just "progressivism".

A: Technically no; it shares similarities with blankqueers but is made distinct by being a political ideology rather than an identity category. Some blankqueers admittedly do tread into ideological territory (i.e. the 'anti-contact'/'pro-recovery' ones), but the official definition of blankqueers technically does not include Consistent Progressivism, and even if it did, progressives shouldn't want it to be considered a blankqueer anyway due to the affiliation it has with the conservative ones as well as progressivism being the logical conclusion of queer movements.

A: This is a really bizarre claim to emerge from conservatism, and unfortunately, as awesome as it would be to have an aesthetic based around gay pentagrams and pedo succubi, no; according to formal definitions, progressivism does not qualify as a cult. We have no enforced religion, overarching leader (the founder openly invites collaboration to expand the theory), or churches. Some progressives do like to humor and parody these bizarre claims though, since some fringe conservatives like to make conspiracy theories about the secret Gay Agenda™ of the pedo overlords, so if you really insist on calling us a "cult", we prefer to go by 'Dark Progressivism'.

A: It wouldn't be advised to do that because Consistent Progressivism is an ideology, but progressives won't stop you from doing so. That said, if such a thing were done, it would essentially create an infinite circular loop of egoism (progressivism being the liberation of all identities, but some queers wanting progressivism [the liberation of all identities] as their identity, looping back into itself ad infinitum), so hold that knowledge in doing so. (There have been some known identities based on progressivism that have been proposed to work through this however; i.e. permaprogressive, transconsistentprogressive, & conservativesadist, so your mileage may vary; if it works out for you, all the more power to you.)

A: Anywhere and everywhere. Progressivism is not a monolith; it is a movement of pissed off queers fed up with being abandoned by other queers who were supposed to be their 'allies' but instead opted for conservatism in order to save their own asses from it. It is a movement of uncompromising queers finally willing to come together in support for one another, creating a revolutionary movement that this time, leaves no identities out. It is a movement of knowledged violent queers who are fully aware of the atrocities committed onto their fellow queers by conservatives on a daily basis, and who are willing to fight ruthlessly to avenge every single queer fallen victim to conservatives. If you know anyone who fits that description, you already have a progressive, and can direct them to the larger movement via the resources provided to you here. If you don't know anyone who fits that description, you can use the aforementioned resources to create new ones. If you're looking for social spaces specifically designated for progressives however, you may unfortunately find that there aren't many known public ones outside of the Discord. Yet.