no offense man but you genuinely did not understand much if anything of my post and it's absolutely senseless to reply. I was giving a short overview of how the word (or the idea) tradition is used in todays discourse. you actually agree with what I am saying in that leftists co-opt tradition to champion uniqueness in culture and diversity and rightists use the concept to convey something else entirely. when we talk about tradition we mean different things entirely, however when I talk about tradition I think it's not an act, or a value, or a norm, or anything of that matter, but the mechanism to pass there things on. a recipe written by your grandma is a cultural artifact, her passing it on to you is tradition. I hope it's easier to understand now.
what I am saying with "tradition has no inherent value" is that surviving for generations long does not make something either good or bad, useful or destructive, it simply means that it is long lasting.
That's how tradition works: the good ones survive.
yeah, like how in europe we had porgroms where jews were openly murdered for at least 2000 years. most traditions fulfill a societal, personal, psychological etc. mechanism, they play an important role in human be-together, as you said earlier. that does not at all make them good or give them value. it's not at all about being good, but rather about being effective in what they do.
confession in christianity, for example, has a psychohygienical effect, which is a positive, but also a stigmatising one, a repressive one. less so today, perhaps, though I still recall even my mom being deathly afraid of confessing she stole 5 bucks out of her ma's purse. (to me confession is not a tradition, it is part of (a) culture. it is more a rite, if you want to be exact.)
