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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
The walling off began way before I even started replying. The bias was manufactured by those people, not me. And some even find it ridiculous.
Wait, where have I ever questioned this? Can you link it?
Never said you specifically did. I was using it as an example of why I don’t believe that all conversations and discourse have inherent value and validity. I can see where my use of the generic “you” would be confusing though. Apologies for the misleading language