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.
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