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.
A lot better than some of the weird defensive replies. Thanks.
My only proposition with this topic is to make people think if every “old” thing needs to be uprooted, or if selective things are changed to bring a better balance to society. Everything is clearly not a problem, and problems are more specific than that. An example would be “traditional” way of making products that last long and are sustainable, as opposed to “modern” capitalist way of making products.
You’re conflating two separate things: capitalism as a system and progressivism/traditionalism/conservativism as an ideology. The “traditional” way of making products was capitalism as well, just a less efficient form. And progressivism can be applied to capitalism as an economic system as well (i.e., globalization or automation).
Often some of these labels are stuck to capitalism, which I am trying to also think of as absurd. Defining traditional aspects can help see what is beneficial for us, as we forge society into something anti-capitalistic.
Why do you consider it absurd?
Because label associations are often not based on objective thinking, but rather for reductive uncritical thinking purposes, to discard nuance, to put people in boxes.
But are you not doing that very thing with your comments in this thread re: left leading ideology and progressives? I don’t mean that as an attack, just pointing out that it’s extremely hard to break out of that habit/mode of discourse even for the most well-meaning
Traditional capitalism back in the day was sweatshops and traveling snake oil salesmen.
In modern times, that’s sweatshops in India and drug ads on TV with 'tiny text of ‘This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.’
For sustainability - we clearcut forests and filled coastlines without restraint - that’s not sustainable and we had to stop because there aren’t as much left.
I don’t think the last is necessarily the source of goodness that you seem to think it is.
Would sustainable long lasting products be considered “capitalism” or “traditional”? Isn’t sustainability not a capitalist thing? Would it not be a good “traditional” thing, since we have decades old products we are able to reuse without buying new stuff? How or what would exactly be bad in this?
I think you’re placing too much value on the label in this discussion.
E.g., you could make houses out of redwood beams back in the day. It was great - insect resistant, fire resistant. Lasts a long time. Problem is that these trees take much too long to grow, and there’s no way they’re coming back any time soon. You’re mining a nonrenewable resource and you’re going to run out (and also kill an ecosystem). That’s an unsustainable business practice.
Also, people are much more disposable oriented than you seem to be considering. Japanese houses last for like 20 years before they’re considered in need of replacement. I’ve seen a brand new house in the US, 3 years old, be razed and rebuilt because the rich owner wanted the building made his way, and not the way the former owner built it.