I mean, you obviously have racism and sexism. The revelation that we had to improve our practices relative to that happened *quite* a while ago, and so far I think we can both say there has been undeniable progress since that point onward. Now, imagine if, somehow, we had never been made aware we were doing something wrong (as in simply unfair and unfit to our (yes, subjective) very basic moral principles)

(Let's not take into account the changes made to those basic moral principles over time. I know they exist but if we're going to discuss modern time, let's just agree they are unchanging)

Right. And likewise for the environment. That would've caused a slew of different problems and to a lead poisoning crisis, but I do see your point

Defining "wrong" is hard

There's nothing but our morality and our common sense to assess whether something is wrong, and that's a very bad thing

Wait a minute

Nevermind I thought I had a revelation but I didn't

All I'm saying is, it would be a very good thing if there was an objective way to define a practice as "wrong"

But sadly it's a human thing, so there isn't

I see Wrong as a label, to be honest. Like "Expired". If something is wrong, we should avoid doing it.

We give meaning to that label by how we choose where to apply it

yeah, that honestly gets to a point of being *literal wrong uses of that word*

as in, "what you're saying just isn't equal to progress"

which is why I think it's a fine thing to define progress as a discussion with three steps to find a worthy goal and a worthy solution

argh

yes you are correct sorry

I retract that

first we have to agree on what progress means. then that progress implies that we have to agree that there is a goal. then that we agree that that goal can be solved in the best way possible. then finally that we agree that we're capable of coordinating and enacting it.

that's a lot of agreeing to do

and believe it or not people aren't great at agreeing with each other 😆

i would agree that's true, it seems we were better at agreeing before (perhaps because there were less opportunities to be divided, with or without justification)

but just to make sure, what do you mean by "all of that"

Well you can easily understand the underlying logic of that trend

Yes, we can make our own impact by solving issues at the individual level, but 1. we are all as individuals short-sighted and, obviously, individualistic and 2. hey, we do have the ability to form *a society*, why not make use of that to solve bigger issues?

Oh, if that's how you meant it, yes, that is modern and dare I say bad

I'll be honest with you, if we first agree progress in the way I define it is preferable, the way we organize our societies now might not be the best for that. And I'm not saying I have any better way of organizing it. But in the end, whether or not a proper discussion between all 300 million citizen was conducted (spoiler alert, it never is), we'll have to elect someone to represent what we think is right, even if they don't represent *everything we think is right*, and that every 4 year, which is a long period of time for things to change at that "top level".

The best system for progress as I entertain it would logically be Switzerland's, a direct democracy, but 1. that system simply **cannot work** on a large scale and 2. it isn't working out that extraordinarily well for them anyhow

Gun control was the big discussion that made me get this specific idea and mechanism of progress

Firstly, what do we agree is the goal? For me, I come from France and I just simply believe citizen should not have access to guns -- but here apparently that's not an idea you guys like to entertain, and I get why. Symbolic reasons, for one, and rhetoric that is perfectly understandable and should be debated upon. Step 2, suppose we do agree citizen shouldn't have gun: how to you work out a way to get to that goal without being EXTREMELY destructive for America? Can we even agree that there exists a "best possible solution", and if so, what is it? Does it involve chaos, unrest and generally hard-to-accept change? And finally, would it even be possible to enact that solution?

Of course that's assuming we agree on this, but we don't, and that's fine

(n.b.: on this particular issue I'm prone to just call gradualism and call it quits, because it's a hard one)

But it's not so much "viewing something as a goal"

I think there needs to be some form of agreement before we talk about a goal, if someone views the goal to be different, then the conversation surrounding that goal cannot properly happen

Another useful way to look at it is

Start by asking: What do both sides want in the end that corresponds most directly with our moral compasses

And here the answer is simple: reduce **death and violent injury** as much as possible

That's true @Fitzydog, that's also something that happens and it's despicable

I'd like to go to sleep soon so I'm not getting into the arms debate too much but

Well you do understand I'm not tribal, right? I only argue my side because I believe it to be the best for everyone, not because it fits with a political agenda

To me, the fact the US is the only country of the developed world where all citizen have access to guns AND the significant difference when it comes to the numbers of violent crime-related deaths relative to other countries of the developed world corrolate

At this point people often bring up knife crime, but that's what I mean by violent crime-related deaths and not just violent crime: less people die in a one-man knife attack

May very well be. I'm open to the idea that I might be looking at this whole problem wrong, being still technically a child

I know, but it is refreshing to see an actual practical debate just to close this off

To me, it is that correlation that I'm making that is just very, VERY difficult to shake off

And maybe, possibly, it's just a gut feeling

I'll have to do more research

I mean sure. I don't think I'll have be fully *convinced* one side or another when it comes to those types of issues, but it would be interesting, fire away

I'll give you a hot take to ponder; maybe all the "bad" leftists who also advocate for gun control do so because of this same correlation I'm making. I was doing it before the 2016 election burst my political bubble and I'm still doing it now.

oh and also yellow vests

im not in mainland france but uh, my main guess is communists

we are pretty fucking bad but shit like this is highly abnormal

@galesteppes I know I should close this off but I can't resist: that statement makes a lot more sense in the context of the US than outside of it!

oh and I misread what you meant for yellow vests, uhm sure I could translate their idiotic screeches for ya

yes. @Fitzydog, you see it this way because you were born in the US, but try to be mindful of the presuppositions you're making. we don't see it this same way

I'm sorry to have to close it off now but I better get going

👋🏿