Someone has to define it

It's a subjective term

Oh right

I mean it as in that, we need to know the society we live in is one where racism and sexism and, in general, discrimination, is "passable", "accepted", "fought", etc. And to assess that, you need to look at different levels: popular activism, the way of the market, the government, etc.

Looking at it this way, I'd say knowing whether or not the president believes in racial discrimination plays a huge role in knowing our own social climate.

are you in high school? just wondering

Not for much longer.

ok

@Guy I discriminate against people all the time.

Also, the definition of racism keeps changing, and 'sexism' today is 'chivalry' 40 years ago

Right, language is fluid, everything is transitory. I'll just establish as part of the terms of whichever debate I'm a part of, that racism is discrimination based upon race, ethnicity or skin color and sexism is discrimination based upon sex.

Is that alright to do?

Fair enough, but that's not what I'm getting at

Do you consider 2019 to be more 'socially progressive' than 1957? I would assume you do.

Why? It is *different*, but is it *better?*

And you're right in discriminating against people (I do watch Sargon and that revelation did hit me!)... It's just discrimination because uncontrollable assets of a person at birth such as race, etc. that is often immoral (depending how you define discrimination at this point)

To you

Don't assume that

I haven't made that claim

Also, what is the list of 'uncontrollable' assets now?

Is that gender? Sexuality? Ideology?

that social climate thing is pretty tricky for a few reason, the number one reason probably being the fake outrage and twisting of definitions doesn't give you a clear image of reality when it comes to actual racism and sexism, nor does what the president believes.

We're kind of getting to the big problem when it comes to talking about... humans, in general. Things can be made very subjective, very easily

Also... why would ideology be uncrontrollable

youd need to have mental problems

And my point is that 'progress' is a subjective term that should not be made a goal

I'm going to have to disagree

Look, 20 years ago, we would have said 73 genders was 'mental'. Now, to discriminate against that is a crime

one mans progress is another mans hell

We should always shoot for progress as long as, firstly, there is progress to be had (for this first part, I have reasons to say there is progress to be made, will share if necessary), and secondly, it actually is progress. It's that second part that's the big, bad issue, and that's why we need to always entertain a discussion about it. But looking at it this way, it's unwise to say that progress shouldn't be made a goal.

Progress is not a very easy thing to accomplish, is often divisive, but is a lot better than its opposite.

I can agree that 'extending equal societal acceptance to as many people as possible' is a good thing, but to broadly say 'progress' leads you down a dangerous hole of shifting terminology.

The road to hell is paved in good intentions

That's very true

However, it doesn't mean we shouldn't have a road at all

We should just watch where we're going

I would disagree actually

We can look back at our path, and see that up until now, we've been expanding liberty and freedom to more and more people as time has gone on.

It's only until the era of Utilitarianism and the concept of 'progress as a goal' that we've seen an opposite trend appear

It also opens up a door for 'the ends justify the means' style thinking, and we ALL know where that leads

Also, quick response to @AlanPowell's message: we all agree on that, which is why I'm trying (as any self-respecting person should) to find the truth lying beneath all that steaming garbage pile of representations

@Fitzydog But there is no *actual* necessity to think within the bounds of those ideas.
I like to see this problem like we see juvanoia (fear of the next generation's development). We "just now notice" our youth is going bad, while really, every single generation since the dawn of time has made that same claim.
I think the problem we're having is that we see a need to root our own thinking and our own opinions in what we suppose are the ideas of today. Ergo, progressivism, liberalism, resist, and on the other side, blind conservatism and the *spooky* alt-right

I think it's possible to forget all of those modern ways of thinking and to just set goals and debate upon them

Let us think about abortion. Let us think about employment. etc.

Sorry, I'm still trying to translate your paragraph