This question is social/political, and meant to trigger a nice debate on the negatives of imbalanced infinite progressivism we seem to be heading in social and technological spheres, ignoring science, practicality and reason.
Let me put up a disclaimer that I am not trying to poke transgender community here. I am trying to hint towards the “traditional” gender roles that seem to be frowned upon in a cultist manner, even though it is accepted in an unspoken manner that most of us do prefer a lot of “traditional” aspects once we surpass 30s, and life demands responsibility, accountability and maturity.
8values made me think of the fundamental parameters that we gauge ourselves and others on, and this seems like it would have opinions coming from leftists that frown upon traditional values in an almost religious manner, as well as centrists and conservatives that might not have as traditional views as leftists think. Just an open discussion.
We can replace “progressivism” with “liberty” and “nationalism” and create couple more questions, but those are not as debatable I think.
deleted by creator
This thread seems to be going great for OP. /s
What is progressivism, really? It is progress. What is progress? Adaptation to evolving conditions. What is adaptation to evolving conditions? Survival of the species.
I want to live in a world where people have the maximum number of options to express themselves, identify themselves, and otherwise make themselves whoever they choose to be or believe they are born to be. I can’t jump into anyone else’s head, so it is the height of arrogance to second guess their personal decisions.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will.
And before anybody wants to challenge that with whataboutisms, I’ll follow it with the commentary from the author: acts that abuse the will of others, such as rape, should be repressed as they are counter to this law for others. Any conflict that cannot be avoided should be undertaken in the spirit of sport with due respect for your opponent.
These basic tenants are the cornerstone of my understanding of decency, and they need no politics.
Edit: I realized I’ve crossed paths with OP many times before, and I don’t think we’ve ever agreed on a single thing, even when it’s just been lighthearted. I feel like I just found my Mr. Glass—the inverse of everything that I am.
What is progressivism, really? It is progress. What is progress? Adaptation to evolving conditions. What is adaptation to evolving conditions? Survival of the species.
I can see the lolbertarian in you. Someone I never seek to be, proudly so. An understanding as primitive as this leaves no room for critical thinking and open discussion.
I am humbled by the impact of your intelligent response. /s
May we never meet again.
Classic example of JAQing off.
The fact that you pretend to not poke specific groups and still use derogatory language („cult like“) shows that you are not sincere.
If you were interested in a respectful debate, you would start out respectful:
- What is the reason that people find x necessary?
- How do you think y should be handled?
- Who do you think should bear responsibility for z?
Feel free to rephrase your post to reflect that you actually mean to discuss this respectfully instead of pushing right wing ideas.
Thanks
There are no rightwing ideas. This is called open discussion. Nobody is pushing Nazism or pedophilia here so everything else should be open and acceptable for discussion.
Did you read the comment you replied to or did you just spit out this pre-packaed reply that addresses nothing the original comment raised?
If they are calling me “not sincere” and “JAQing off” and pushing rightwing ideas allegedly, this is all I can say. They gave a prepackaged reply.
JAQing off is a documented concept. If you understand it, you know what I‘m accusing you of and if you were sincere, you would ask yourself if that ist the case and answer based on your conclusion instead of flat out denying it without any counterexample. Also, I cited why your way of asking was derogatory, you didnt rebuff that.
From your repeated doubling down, I can only conclude that you‘re a troll. Feel free to prove otherwise. If not you get blocked and thats it.
My goal was to not do this exercise for the sake of it, or to push some BS you seem to think I do, but to gain a consensus or discuss ideas on what exactly is “traditional”, because not everything “traditional” is evil. But seeing everything old as bad seems to be a wrong fad. Defining these ideas and words as society and time progresses is critical to continue getting answers to questions that allow bringing change in society. Our society is metaphorically moving at the speed of light right now, especially with the collapse of rightwing diaspora and us being in late stage capitalism and the fall of Western superimperialist hegemonic order.
Although we‘re moving away from the „thats not the case“ stance of yours, we‘re still not at „yes, pushing ideas by framing the question a certain way isn’t how a healthy discussion works“.
This is a rhetorical issue. Your point might be valid but „not everything traditional is evil“ and „cultlike“ are both terrible ways of communicating it.
Another example of this would be saying „the cultlike thinking that everything needs to stay the way it is“ or „not everything progressive is evil“. Those are not ways to discuss this.
The first one is manipulative same as asking „How stupid do you think you are?“ The second one is a strawman as it implies people would really think that everything traditional is bad. You most definitely know thats not the case. This is often used to make „arguments“ which they really arent.
Examples for a healthy (because neutral) approach:
- How can we mend the divide between healthy progression and keeping what is already good?
- How do we identify when progression for the sake of progression is wrong, same as keeping tradition for traditions sake?
The reason I bother to discuss this with you is because I think party politics is a way to divide and conquer the population so they can be exploited further. I‘d like to see that change but the first step must be to talk to each other in a more respectful, less manipulative way.
Have a good one.
Your point might be valid but „not everything traditional is evil“ and „cultlike“ are both terrible ways of communicating it.
I had trouble communicating it because I did not know how to frame it. It is not like I have seen this being asked anywhere either, so I thought it would make for an interesting Asklemmy.
How do we identify when progression for the sake of progression is wrong, same as keeping tradition for traditions sake?
I can see it being offensive too, for those who want questions to not challenge their worldviews at all. There is no easy way around it, even if I could word it better.
There is no intent of manipulating people, if you checked my history, or checked that I have had an account on Lemmygrad instance for a good while. Socialists are not very forgiving of grifters, if I happened to be one.
Thank Professor X, but I choose how I open my debates and discussions and you choose if you want to participate or not. The same applies to everyone else. Freedom of speech does not apply only to the woke.
Having said that, let’s get this party started.
Yeah, no. Your tone and comment history already tells me enough. Have fun on my block list. Good bye.
They’re opposite. One is about everyone trying to get larger pieces of pie. The pie is only so big though, so it means people miss out, and it only ends when one person has the entire pie to themselves.
“Progressivism” is about ensuring everyone gets as close to the same amount of pie as possible. Once everyone has equal access to the pie, there’s nothing more be done.
It should be pretty clear why one is more sustainable than the other
Is equal portion of the pie not an economic prospect, rather than a societal one? Is progressivism not about social change using rational consensus?
The pie is everything. Economic equality, social equality, it’s all in scope
Progressivism is a process for the outcome, whereas economic equality is the ultimate outcome as far as resource (and role) distribution goes. I could be wrong but to me it looks like that, since its all about the class war, and to end class war, capital distribution seems to become the defining target for all things.
I was trying to look at it from a different lens, one where progressive people tend to irrationally see anything “traditional” as bad. How do we define it? It is a thought poking my head for a while, and is what makes me try and pursue my own path on the leftist spectrum, distancing myself even from capitalists disguised as socdems.
Something isn’t bad if people have genuine consent as to whether they participate in it.
The very idea of something being traditional though exists precisely to pressure people in to certain ways of doing things. Ways that work for some, but not others.
Get rid of the pressure, let everyone choose for themselves, and we’re all good
Removed by mod
Alternative perspective: many “traditional” things are in fact bad. Not everything, but many things, and we should dump those things.
100% agree with that. Now, all we need to do is come to a consensus on what those things are and how to eliminate them with as little “acceptable losses” as possible.
Sorry you’re getting down voted & “dunked on” so much in this post. Your question was asked in good faith. It doesn’t deserve all of this negativity.
I’ll go on record as thanking you for asking! It’s a fair question!
Thanks a lot! I find it stupid that this reddit behaviour is being replicated here. I assume this is happening because I am trying to pose an intellectually challenging question and not a lighthearted post, or some people are just unable to tolerate questions that may shake up their worldviews.
progressivism happens because society progresses. talking about cult like members and how being traditional past your 30s is somehow more responsible and mature is highly disingenuous. might wanna think about that
Nice debates are easier to trigger if you actually explain what you mean by stuff like “unbalanced infinite progressivism” and whether you see any of it around. Sounds a lot like a false premise or vaguely strawmannish to me.
If that’s a false premise then so is infinite growth, which nobody has ever seen either
