this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
-1 points (40.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43340 readers
2067 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
-1
Often we say infinite growth (capitalism) is not sustainable and reasonable. Can we also say infinite progressivism is also not sustainable and reasonable? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is equal portion of the pie not an economic prospect, rather than a societal one? Is progressivism not about social change using rational consensus?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The pie is everything. Economic equality, social equality, it's all in scope

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Alternative perspective: many "traditional" things are in fact bad. Not everything, but many things, and we should dump those things.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

If you're asking about a personal opinion: any policy purely based on tradition is worthless. Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people. Just like any peer pressure, it's highly unlikely to produce anything but grief. If something is based purely on tradition without any other reason to exist, it's unlikely to be an optimal policy.

Back to the initial question. I don't think we can get infinitely progressive but we can keep subtracting the cruft of tradition until there is no necromantic peer pressure left at all. Mind that if something happens to be a tradition but still has a good reason to exist, it should be evaluated like any other idea in terms of being good or bad. I mean removing just one of the reasons to keep this idea. If it is left with zero reasons, it's out. Otherwise it's fair game.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I am humbled by the impact of your intelligent response. /s

May we never meet again.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure, once you reach utopia, you can stop progressing. Same as how you stop looking for a lost item after you find it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What are we trying to find should then be a good question. What is it that we are still finding, that is still lost?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Equality and right to exist for everyone who does not ascribe to "traditional" cis-hetero-normative values for one.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

As a cis man from Asia, I see we are definitely getting closer to accepting people with non-hetero preferences. There is progress, but I doubt some societies with extreme religious fundamentalism will change soon. It does not help that NATO loves weaponising trans people for neoliberal white power agenda.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It does not help that NATO loves weaponising trans people for neoliberal white power agenda.

Expand and explain further please.

...we are getting closer...

And therein lies the problem with your post imo. You decry the supplantation of "traditional" values but fail to acknowledge the reason for it is because the systems they're built on are inherently oppressive, unjust, and built for the benefit of the few. "Getting closer" to accepting someone for the characteristics they exhibit that in no way impact others is not good enough. The systems that insist on slow rolling out human rights in order to preserve the comfort and avoid cognitive dissonance of "traditionalists" deserve to be torn down to the root

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It does not help that NATO loves weaponising trans people for neoliberal white power agenda.

Expand and explain further please.

My description of the current "order" is cis normative western superimperialist surveillance capitalist media-military complex. If you looked at the history of, or how there is overwhelming presence of white people in police, military and capitalist positions in western countries, or how there is a "blue eyes blonde hair" preference among Europeans openly called for by the big Western media outlets during Ukrainian refugee escape (non-whites were stopped and beaten on Poland border), you can see it far more openly than your assumption of me not seeing things that seem obvious to you.

The goal of western superimperialist capitalist order has always been to consider whites at the top. The funding and encouragement for Muslim genocide in Palestine is a clear example. Muslim journalists were quickly ousted since October, and Arab resolution for ceasefire was vetoed by USA. You have African-Americans who got assimilated into western capitalism and today cheer for it and shit on Africans and Muslims as per convenience and for appeasing their white "masters". English fascism never died with Hitler's regime, it existed before and after it and still does. Uyghur genocide propaganda was fake western concern for Muslims, when China was protecting them from radicalisation.

The systems that insist on slow rolling out human rights in order to preserve

I think the "system" is already tearing apart, both itself and via social opposition. Capitalism is unsustainable, and that is the backbone of western imperialism with social discriminatory values embedded within it. USA's skin colour based social order was inspiration for Hitler to enact racial segregation policies in Germany.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not hearing how trans people fit into this. You know the Nazis killed a lot of trans people and the book burnings included the research of the time, right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

A lot of trans people and feminists are utilised to push Washington Consensus neoliberal agenda. It is not exclusively trans people. There are videos by CIA themselves on YouTube showing how they "celebrate" (assimilate) POCs and women.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Unpack this, please? What is that agenda? How are trans people and feminists being used to push it? What does skin deep "support" in the form of lip service have to do with it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I guessed TikTok, but of course, it’s good ol’ YouTube. I hate to break it to you, but I think those videos were Kentucky Fried Bullshit.

But of course, what do I know? I’m sure there are loads of CIA agents on YouTube revealing the master trans plan to a select few who happen to like and subscribe. 🙄

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

True true, have zero critical thinking. I guess you really are Mr. glass, as you say I am. I would never in a million years seek qualities you have.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

In your last sentence, we finally agree.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It does not help that NATO loves weaponising trans people for neoliberal white power agenda.

Yeah like the other respondent I am absolutely going to request that you unpack this.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

Responded to them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

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