It's hardly a 'team sports style perspective' to use descriptive terms that aren't so useless and broad that they apply to everyone. If you can describe everybody on the planet as conservative, then that term has lost any differentiating value and meaning, hasn't it?
A) Some people act on different philosophical premises that conservative or progressive. A revolutionary communist cares not about preserving the good things we have nor attempting to make what we have better, they want to destroy the current system in its entirety.
B) A term that describes literally everyone to different degrees in different ways can still be differentiating. Every person has a height, you don't say short people have no height, but you can still use that metric to differentiate, and have specific categories based on outliers in that metric.
I'm for whatever makes the most sense. The ridiculous thing is that people here can't even admit when something conservatives are for is the better option. Because if you think what progressives are for is always the better thing to do, that's just admitting you can't critically think through anything.
I might implore you to slightly change your perspective. "What makes the most sense" is a dangerous standard because people have flawed perspectives just as part of the human condition. Sometimes the thing that seems to make most sense to people is a terrible idea that leads to immense suffering. I far prefer the option that leads to the best results, even if it doesn't make sense to people that it does so.
But seriously, you can agree to the premise that you're somewhat conservative. Pragmatism requires a certain amount of conservative thinking. Agema agrees to thinking that way, and Silvanus definitely thinks that way whether willing to admit it or not. This is the sort of thing I try to get people to see the distinctions between philosophies. Even a staunch progressive has more philosophically in common with me than they do a communist, assuming they are genuinely progressive and not just coopting that word as cover for their revolutionary leftism. Likewise, conservatives have more in common with progressives in their reasoning than they do with theocrats or even libertarians. An American conservative and a libertarian will often find common ground in their conclusions, but the reasoning to get there is infinitely different. And instead of appreciating that, society as a whole has just drawn a line between right and left (where that line is drawn may vary), and treats one side of the line as one team and the other side as the other team, even though the line typically takes the whole ball of pragmatic people, cuts it in half down the middle, and hands each half over to fringe idealogues.
Yes, well, isn't that the issue? To a lot of conservatives, progress is transgressive.
Progress can be transgressive, and transgression can lead to progress. But there's a difference in intention. A progressive looks at the current state of thing and wants to attempt changes to improve outcomes. Imagine a park with a gazebo that has been there for years. A conservative position is likely to quite simply want to keep the gazebo. A progressive position could be to renovate it, or replace it, or maybe even just tear it down if its existence is causing problems and even having nothing there would alleviate those problems. The transgressive position is to tear it down
because its part of the old culture and also because conservatives want to keep it.
"Anti-capitalism" was in your list of progressive positions, but that's just transgressive. It's just a "tear down the old" position, without any thought given as to what the consequences of tearing down the old would be, nor what alternative would they advocate to lead to better results.