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.
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
The theory is amazing, but the reality is completely different. As an example, let’s look at the current gender perspective divide.
One side (I guess most would call it “traditional”) thinks there are only 2 genders, based on tradition, religion, their view of science (biology) and a slew of other factors.
The other side (what is now commonly known as " woke") thinks there’s a bunch of genders based on preference, emotiinal status, etc.
Now, side 1, and you can by all means show me evidence to the contrary, speaks about how side 2 is wrong using their own consideration on what are the determining factors, and mostly leave it at that, whereas side 2, from what I can see, do the same, but seem to be constantly loud and super-expressive about the ideas.
Look at the pride parades. If I know my train of thought is the right one (that’s what we all think), why would I take one day, or month, to drop everything that has always been considered moral and correct (I’m talking about keeping things where they belong, such as sex belongs in private) and go show everything out, in broad daylight, balls out for all to see?
What I mean is that you don’t see side 1 doing anything remotely similar. It’s the exact same thing as when you scream to try to win because your argument in a discussion did not have the outcome you wanted.
This brings us to “let everyone choose for themselves”, which just doesn’t happen, unless what you choose agrees with the mindset of the other side.
Just look at this post I made, wait for the ridiculous amount of downvotes because every single non-traditional person will hate what I chose. Look at all the downvotes for the OPs posts in this thread, what do you think that’s about?
Humanity has gotten to a place where fanaticism has overriden civil discussions, and it’ll get way worse before it gets any better.
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.
Many are bad, but many are good too. It is all about objectively looking at things, and considering if they are dissociated from the “traditions” we consider bad. This post was made to encourage that.
Tradition effectively holds no weight with me. Is the idea worthwhile? Then why does it matter what people did in the past about it? Is it bad? Then why would I do it?