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.

  • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    I would be careful not to mix up what I’ll distinguish here as liberal social progressivism and communist societal progressivism. I’m sure there are more established terms for these concepts but I don’t know them or can’t think of them.

    The imbalance we see in the liberal version is because it is, just like social conservatism, a reaction to current material conditions without a proper (ie dialectic) understanding of these how these conditions came to be and how they can be changed. Therefore it falls into the same paradigms and pitfalls which liberalism itself does, and is incapable of actually fixing the issues of the day. Then they get all caught up in things like “traditional” vs “modern” values, distinctions which are meaningless since both broad groups have been enforced across history in intimate relation to the reigning ruling class ideology of the time.

    Whereas the type of progressivism we communists see as necessary is a holistic remaking of society, not limited to pushing for equal treatment of out groups, but banishing even the concept of out groups to the scrapheap of history, just to give one example. We go even further though, not in an “endless growth” type of sociopathic way, but in a strategic and structured way so as to fundamentally change the structure of society around us also on the political and economic levels, so that we can peacefully coexist on a human level rather than constantly struggling for who gets the upper hand.

    • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      not in an “endless growth” type of sociopathic way, but in a strategic and structured way so as to fundamentally change the structure of society

      Grad users keep swinging me back :/

      necessary is a holistic remaking of society

      What exactly would classify as not “traditional” in a pejorative sense? “Traditional” sustainable way of making products and goods versus “modern” evil ways of making garbage products? I was trying to get some answers and ideas through this thread on the aspect of what is bad “traditional” versus good “traditional” thing, but some are mistaking me for entirely wrong reasons.

      • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Let’s put the question back to you since you claim everyone else is misunderstanding: what do you consider to be good and bad “traditional” things? And how is progressivism, in your opinion, impacting both?

        • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I… made this post exactly for asking that. How can we define traditionalism? What is it exactly? After all, it is not limited to just horrible societal feudalistic practices we demonise so much. There are traditional gender norms preferred openly by all, as well as “traditional” methods of creating sustainable and longlasting products, something rare and unseen today.

          • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            There are traditional gender norms preferred openly by all…

            Hard disagree.

            Also, who in your opinion is demonizing all traditional practices? Seems like you’re starting with a conclusion (progressive movements are trying to throw all traditionalism out of the window) which 1. is tautological, and 2. is reductive and makes a lot of unfounded (imo) leaps in logic

            • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Atleast I see things happen that way in social discourse, on social media, and on people trying to fake personalities based on social agendas to gain brownie points. And I do not like it, which is why I am careful in refusing to follow whatever seems trendy to the left. People happen to follow trends and think in a binary manner, and discarding nuance is heavily encouraged via constant information overflow on internet and media.

              • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Everything you’ve said could apply to the opposite side (i.e., non-left). The argument you’ve posited betrays bias toward more conservative ideology and politics which I’d argue is in contrast to some of your other comments in the thread where you’ve claimed to have no agenda necessarily one way or another.

                Also, I’d argue that certain things do not need discussion or nuanced review as they are prima facie absurd/anti-social/harmful…etc., so while i do agree that all peolple engage in bandwaggoning and reactivity in social discourse (including myself above), I don’t necessarily agree that this is a bad thing when it comes to ideologies that aim to oppress, suppress, and otherwise disenfranchise individuals or groups of individuals based on immutable characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin…etc

                • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Does it not apply already? I assumed the left is capable of civil discourse and self critique. If what I proposed is in conservative bias (which it is not but assuming), my years of history, not including Lemmygrad, tells otherwise.

                  Discussion is the fabric of social discourse and progressivism. You are saying the opposite, so does that make you a conservative? I can play this nasty game too, but I hate it and am not immoral enough to do this. If you do not want to discuss, just sit on the sidelines. But do not play games. There are enough walls in this thread to talk to.

                  • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    I think the reason there are a lot of walls in the thread is because you keep saying you’re not bringing bias to the table, then proceed to run the classic western conservative playbook of biased talking points. It comes off as disingenuous.

                    I do agree that discussion is important, but as stated in my previous response, certain things I personally have zero desire to entertain as valid discussion points, among them topics that impact basic human rights of others. Going back to my original example of non-cis-hetero-normative individuals, I don’t care to have a discussion with anyone who would propose anything other than full acknowledgment of their rights to live, love, exist, and pursue personal goals without need for justification. There is no “middle ground” or “compromise” on the topic. Either you believe them to be humans like yourself and deserving of all rights you would reserve to yourself, or you don’t and frankly your opinion on the matter no longer has any value for me. It’s ok to snuff out oppressive bullshit in the cradle without needing to justify it.