The topic of conversation was social conservatism. The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism. I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism). Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably. My apologies.
No need to apologize! I'm still a bit confused though. Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always. So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.
I was thinking about this today.... what are your thoughts on deplatforming? Conservative/liberal/progressive? Definitely not libertarian, anyway.
How about the integration of Islam into secular western society? That one's really interesting, because #coexist is usually promoted by progressives, yet the embodiment of Islam can be very...traditional and conservative, what with the covered women and the segregated mosques and women only recently being able to drive in Saudi Arabia. (Kind of ironic that some hardline Christians don't like Muslims)
Here are some socially conservative ideas that seem to stand the test of time:
Having a military
Having federal borders
Having pride in your country
Improving your lot in life through work and sacrifice
...Those were just off the top of my head.
Also it's very likely I'm misinterpreting you. But I do find this subject fascinating.
I'm liberal by Canadian standards and all of those are also liberal values.
Yeah, I was going to say . . . I know that in America conservatives have tried hard to co-opt those issues but having a military, federal borders, pride in country, improving your life through work . . . none of those are socially conservative in nature.
My thoughts on 'deplatforming'? My thoughts are that speech should generally be free - but not free from consequences. If you hold an incredibly unpopular position (this issue only seems to come up with positions associated with hate and intolerance), nobody should silence you. At the same time, nobody should be forced to provide a platform for your comments - the host or owner of the platform you're expressing your message on has every right to decide that your message is unsuitable and kick you off.
Re: integration of Islam into western society
There are millions of Muslims in Canada who are well integrated into our society. I believe that the same is true of the United States. Islam is
already integrated into western society. What people tend to mean when they talk about 'integration of Islam' is that they don't like extreme conservative interpretations of the religion. And that's perfectly fair. I'm not a fan of extreme conservative interpretation of any religion. It tends to make people do foolish and antisocial things. This is true of muslims, christians, jews, whatever. (I've yet to run across any extreme conservative buddhists, but I'm sure they're out there too.) To argue that islam is somehow different than any other religion comes off as a little absurd though.
Personally, I think that most religious doctrine is stupid. (Note, this isn't to say that religion itself is without value . . . discussing philosophy and grappling with issues of morality is perfectly fine. The doctrine though . . .) I don't really draw any significant difference between wearing a yarmulke, a turban, a cross, or a burka. Is a Sihk man who chooses to wear his five articles of faith (turban, knife, bracelet, comb, and special underwear) being oppressed by his religion? Why would you believe that a woman who voluntarily chooses to wear a niqab is oppressed then? Even though I think they're a little goofy, I'd fight for people's rights to wear whatever symbols they please. They are symbols of faith - faith I don't share. Who am I to judge a practice that I don't believe in from a community that I don't belong to?
Where I draw the line is when faith starts to cause an impact on human rights. If a Christian believes that it's OK to attack a homosexual man for his sexual orientation, that's over the line. If a Muslim believes that he should be able to attack a man for drawing a picture of the prophet Muhammed, that is over the line. Most religions rely on scripts and texts from thousands of years ago, which are products of the time they were written. They need to be read and interpreted with that understanding. If they're not, then the people who are following the religion invariably come off as idiots. They should be free to be as idiotic as they want though, until they start to encroach on other's rights though.