Humanism, as an ideology, and as usually defined by the Humanist International Association (which does exist), doesn't deny the existence of separate demographics, but believes the goal of different, arbitrary, counter-productive and counter-intuitive, absolute and non-negotiable, and/or preferential or diminutive treatment of any sort expected, demanded, or mandated toward them, except as is absolutely necessary for physiological reasons, the dealing with disability, and other completely pragmatic issues, should be, as an overarching goal something to be moved beyond and transcended to create, one day, true egalitarianism, not have such differing treatments further entrenched or expanded as a matter of advocacy and policy - a problem both Social Conservatives by nature are built on, but Social Progressives have deeply slid into as a viewed short-term set of solutions that really only worsen the problem. That's the aspect of Humanism, and it's relevance, I refer to.
Do you mean Humanists International?
Regardless, I don't think you appreciate the nuance in social progressivism. The fact that social progressives recognise the divides you rightly recognise as divides do not make them comparble to social conservatives. They simply recognise that these divides exist in modern humanity and that we should do something about them. True egalitarianism is the goal, but you're not going to be able to get there so long as you examine the dichotomy of (progressive) progressivism vs. conservatism as being equally-flawed.
For example, take Cloud's criticism of Zardnaar's comment. Zardnaar doesn't see the contradiction because he's not involved specifically on the ground in Georgia. But he's missing Cloud's point, which is that
in general the principle in Georgia also applies here. I try to be read up on the US' many and varied issues, but I'm a Brit. You're a Canadian. Zardnaar is from New Zealand. Factually, simply by geographical distance alone (nevermind upbringing, etc), we are divorced from the actual situation that's ongoing across the US. People living in the US won't be (wherever they are in the US, Presidential elections are a pretty comprehensively national affair).
For example, let's take the classic: name-calling. You dislike all forms of name-calling. On the surface of it, this is right. Applied to every poster equally, it is a definition of equal. But it is not
fair. People responding to name-calling with names of their own are maybe not being virtuous, but they're not being the same as the original name-caller. They're responding; reacting. But you treat these incidents as equal. You focus on both individuals calling other names. You don't seem to examine cause-and-effect with regards to this kind of thing, and to tie it back to cultural progressivism you do the same there. The excesses of one are as bad as the other. And this cascades throughout discussions, for example, the notorious US political duopoly. You reject choosing the less worse of two evils because you (correctly) point out both are evils. But you don't understand the necessity that people will, unfortunately, still have to choose one over the other. It's not their fault that they're stuck in that position. It's not anyone's fault that they had to choose Biden to get Trump out of office. It still doesn't make them the same as people willfully casting a vote for Trump (or Biden, if you'd like). You do not differentiate between the people forced to vote, vs. the people willingly voting. You do not differentiate from people who already reject the duopoly vs. those that are content with it.
I can assure you that plenty of people here would rather vote for other candidates. Much like most progressives would not like to be defined by whatever you think it is they're doing wrong. But you seem to believe that because of what you see on the
surface, that these situations are not only comparable, but
equal. You object to people celebrating a Biden victory because of the flaws inherent to a Biden-lead administration. Fair enough. But that's because you aren't close enough to see the benefits that Biden's administration will bring vs. another four years of a Republican administration (especially lead by Trump). You aren't close enough to see the irony in a New Zealander offering opinions on US politics while echoing calls for Democrats to not interfere excessively with the situation in Georgia. The
principle is the same (unnecessary intervention from people who are perhaps not as well-read on a situation as they should be). But all you see is someone (Cloud) enforcing a divide between whoever, and Zardnaar. And you object to that divide existing. But you don't see
why Cloud is making that observation. Or if you do, you don't post as if you do.
