Message from @Arch-Fiend
Discord ID: 400730228558659612
So where is the common ground in these two
Assuming horse shoe theory
preserving certain values that help benefit or don't harm while getting rid of values that don't benefit and may harm
Wanting to exist and retain existence
the problem is some values may seem harmful or inane but do more than that is apparent
and some values can be taken too far and become abusive
Well, there's also trying to change stuff without fully understanding what you're even trying to change. A perfect example of this is "the wage gap", wherein women make less money than men. It's easy to look at this and go "oh well that isn't right, we need to fix this."
The problem comes into play when no one bothers asking or looking into *why* this is the case.
Still. Maybe cause it moved ftom change since you hate what it was before to,change cause it benefits me or cause it makes me feel good.
Yeah that's mostly moral arbiting, jaden
not critisizing anyone, trying to follow this conversation, but i really dont know what anyone is talking about. like i know what your saying but im not sure what it relates to, and looking up through the chat didint help me figure out
You can make a group of people feel like they're doing what is morally good by supporting you. That's the democrats platform these days
Probably what its always been for all I know
It's the strong, supportive patriarchal figure and the protective, quixotic matriarchal figure
I think it's just a general conversation about ideas, I'm not sure what the precise topic of discussion is. lol
mostly discussing what consists of progressivism i guess
You need both to be in some sort of balance
mk
yeah it's not "out with the old, in with the new" it's "out with the structurally unsound, in with the structurally sound/beneficial"
a problem the current meme left struggle with
depends on who's using the word progressive
that follows its origenal context, where the term progressive developted during the monopoly and trust busting era of usa politics in the late 1800's
political definitions are such a pain in the ass
If you'd imagine the conservative and progressive as a male and female character trying to sustain their relationship/household but also their own dreams
progressivism is more of a direction than a set idea. In 100 years what will be progressive will be different from now or 100 years before
Same as conservative
It's relevant to the structure of society
Fundamentalists are like what came before that
Going back to the absolute bedrock of the society
i think conservitism can actually replace progressivism with the definition of "out with the less structurally sound/in with the more structurally sound" but from a different perspective "keep the more structurally sound/let go of the less structurally sound"
This is why the exact word used is absolutely integral. People will see the word and have to know what the idea is with it or make assumptions about what it is.
That's why I usually avoid the established terms
Because of their connotations, which aren't always descriptive of the original meaning
Yeah while progressivism is a moving word conservitism can be seen as a standing word if you look at them like that
It also makes for much nicer conversation
Conservatism is a stranding word
Fundamentalist would be the standing word
Also why I don't like the "left/right" divide. Makes it way too easy to discredit someone elses ideas simply because they use a word they identify with.
There's also a different meaning here in Europe
left/right
Yeah, like being on the right or left is supposed to be an inherently bad thing? It makes no sense. lol
From what I've heard other American pallerinos