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.

  • TheEntity@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 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.

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

      any policy purely based on tradition is worthless. Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.

      The first part is correct. But the second part often is about creating sustainable or longlasting quality products, thinking for the long term and so on. So its not just useless peer pressure for redundant things. Partly it is though.

      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.

      Someone finally gets it. Thanks!

      • TheEntity@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think there is some confusion between tradition and well-tested processes. I’d hardly consider creating quality products a tradition.

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

          A lot of hardware tools makers, Japanese and German stationery item makers, or brands like Victorinox are considered a “tradition”. There is definitely not a mislabelling of tradition, but rather the definition in social discourse could be amended, or the understanding of tradition versus progressiveness understood better by people. I made this post for this reason.

          • moody@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Putting tradition opposite progress is a bad look. It’s choosing to do things the way you’ve always done them because that’s how you’ve always done them, as opposed to working towards a better way of doing things.

            “Infinite progressivism” sounds like a conservative pejorative buzzword aimed at making progressive policies that benefit people look bad.

          • TheEntity@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Making quality tools due to long-standing processes is definitely a different breed of tradition than oppressing minorities because they don’t fit someone’s “traditional” worldview.

            To better illustrate my first post: The Victorinox craft isn’t high quality because it’s a tradition. It became a tradition because it’s high quality. If we subtract it being a tradition, we still have a reason to keep making it this way. The same cannot be said about oppressing people, unless one literally views human suffering as value added.

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

              Their traditional part arises from them making tools in a factory in Switzerland to this day. Them sticking to that instead of outsourcing to anywhere else, roughly sticking to a composition for steel mixing, and very few amendments to tool designs is tradition.

              It is no different for Sheaffer, Lamy, Staedtler, Pentel, Uni, Tombow and numerous writing instruments makers. There is definitely a rigid “tradition” in their process of doing things. You can likewise find this in many categories of items being made, guns (S&W), furniture, locks, keyboards, hell even ThinkPads. It is not some “formula”.

              Of course, I did not come to discuss favourite brands, but that the meaning differs, and while this may simply be unspoken today, it is better to try and define these things to quantify and understand it as part of social sciences.