Asklemmy

43780 readers

868 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-29

Often we say infinite growth (capitalism) is not sustainable and reasonable. Can we also say infinite progressivism is also not sustainable and reasonable? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (5 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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.

load more comments (1 replies)