In the west, democracy is seen as the best form of government. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't really know about that... maybe a good decision strategy, but as we've seen lately, our democrats apparently don't understand the meaning of "demos-kratia," or they simply choose to ignore it altogether, in favor of politically correct, passive-aggressive facism in the guise of "social progress." I've long held that the government should be subservient to its people, rather than a selectively hive-minded regime that shits on common people for perceived "hate crimes," like some Orwellian dictatorship, as though being a government official makes them any better than us.

injustices — Bitter Crank

In English: Minor Annoyances that wash down well with expensive lattes and a bagel, or a craft beer and a vegan kosher ham sandwich.

From my perspective, the gay rights movement has been over for quite some time. — Bitter Crank

I'd say the same, were I gay, but I believe we've lost the one thing that made it all special when the movement came to a conclusion: The Live and Let Live attitude that your generation, and part of mine (I'm in between X and Y), may have had more of. At 31, and being an intergenerational Millennial, I worry that my youngers will, from this point in history, go on to lead dismal, poverty-stricken lives, belligerently pounding and scraping for handouts, while screeching incoherently when things aren't just so, according to some weird pseudo-intellectual ego-trip they've got going on, and even when faced with the reality that they've been living a convenient, comfortable lie, they'll deny the reality of it all.

Whether it's the garden club or the Democratic Party precinct caucus, the township board or the U.S congress, democracy is an essential culture in a democratic country. — Bitter Crank

When it's being used, this is true, but I'll put the party with whom I would likely side, were they not so corrupt, under the bus for this. The Democratic Party betrays its name heavily. Its members call themselves liberal at times, but one striking oddity bewilders me--the influx of illiberalism in the last seven years. There's a culture of shaming and name calling not seen in ages in this party, which infuriates me greatly. The odd part of it, to me, is the use of the term "progressive," which implies a positive social change for the benefit of the whole, yet most I've met who identify themselves as such make me really uncomfortable--not because I think they might be right, but because they do not seem to understand the meaning of "benefit of the doubt," much less the idea of polite discourse.
One of my fellow liberal minded friends, as an example, prefers to air her grievances quite often, and almost never passes up the opportunity to be abrasive, simple-minded and oblivious to the fact that she'll say the most racist sentences in the name of promoting "defense of people of color," as though they can't speak for themselves. I hate that string of words, more than any other in the politically correct lexicon. In my view, simply "our fellow Americans" would do.

I've digressed a bit, but I felt it necessary.

Not sure which part of the country you live in — Bitter Crank

Kentucky, for your reference. Mind you, I'm also talking about small-time farmers.

Let's call it what it is, "democracy". — Metaphysician Undercover

Democracy is a form of government, not an overall mindset of the populace, which is what we're talking about--culture.

In Plato's Republic you'll find it as the basis for his concept of justice, each person doing one's own thing, which is different from every other person's thing, without interfering with the other. In this way, each person is allowed to make a valuable contribution to society by doing what one is good at. I would prefer to be a farmer working the fields than to be an executive working the company, and I don't think it's correct to portray one as "harder" than the other. One is not necessarily harder work than the other, they are just different. But why should the executive get paid hundreds of times more than the labourer? — Metaphysician Undercover

Answering this backwards, but here we go:

If they own the company. it's understood that the exec should obviously make higher pay, expecially if they're taking extra responsibilities into their own hands (like my own soon-to-be boss, who is CEO of our company). Simply put, they have more at stake. Now, on the other hand, I really have disdain for those who screw their workers out of decent pay. No job worth the money is easy, and should be compensated. However, I argue again for the farmer. Here in the states, there's an abundance of food. It's difficult for farmers to make a living because the overall cost of food has sunk in recent years, and as a result, they can't afford to hire the hands they'd need to get everything efficiently planted. A lot of farms go under, too. Not to mention, if you live in an area where flooding and erosion is very common, the challenge is greater.

This is known as the division of labour, and there is nothing shameful about the division of labour. — Metaphysician Undercover

Didn't say there was anything shameful about it. I simply pointed to the fact that we misattribute our success with buying from the people who produced them and claim that we provided for our family. I know it's nitpicky, but I sometimes just say what's on my mind.

The unfortunate descendants of slaves need to get their collective acts together, and this is a project which the black community has to be in charge of and carry out. They have done it before. Where the cash comes in is paying for actually equally good schools, actually effective job-training programs, tuition free access to higher education where appropriate, job creation in black communities, and so on and so forth. — Bitter Crank

Basically, Detroit getting its head out of its proverbial ass.

Of course, it isn't only blacks who have suffered. Many working class whites have also gotten fucked over by capitalism. Whites, blacks, asians, and hispanics all need to join together for living wages, strong unions, better housing, fair tax law, high quality health care at affordable cost, excellent public transit, strenuous efforts to reduce CO2, end pollution of the land and water, and so on. — Bitter Crank

I wish we'd inspire people to create a movement called "One America," which would have the mission of encouraging everyone to leave a past they couldn't change in the dust, and focus on fixing those actual issues that we can change.

Being slightly drunk may be one of the reasons you're fitting in so well. There used to be more beer drinkers than there are now -- or the beer drinkers have just stopped admitting it. I would drink more but I fall off my chair too soon. — Bitter Crank

I'm more of a Red Wine guy, myself.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. Your maiden trip out is doing well. — Bitter Crank

Also, thank you. Glad I'm fitting in this well.

The whole "property is theft" thing (Proudhon, French anarchist. 1840) is probably not coming back all that much. — Bitter Crank

Mostly, I'm referring to "property" in reference to social capital, rather than actual riches, although there are microcosms wherein modern marxists and BLM activists actually demand property be relinquished from white ownership and given to black people, based on a feeling of entitlement and "300+ years" of oppression (in quotations due to fuzzy number).

The real problem is that socialism's ideas only work to a degree. Full Marxist Socialism would wreck the spine of the camel beyond repair, and not enough of it would be a step in reverse, temporally speaking. In order for the people and the government to give resources away like ecstasy at a rave, there has to be a limitless supply of resources. People who actually study the variables know that we're going to fold one day without capitalistic control of resources, so in truth, it only makes sense to do things this way until we no longer need either system. One day, maybe we'll move into the Universe and populate a new planet in a new galaxy, then fight over resources all over again. I'm cynical, but in a way, it really is a vicious cycle.
We only pretend to have answers on this planet. The real struggle is trying to figure that out.

Americans aspire to wealth earned the old fashioned way, through yankee ingenuity and ruthless exploitation. That most Americans aren't going to get anywhere close to wealth hasn't discouraged the aspiration. — Bitter Crank

Now, to this point. The old fashioned way meaning by any means necessary, which is true, but has happened for ages. We're just willing to ignore that if it makes us feel smarter or better than someone who makes money. When it comes down to it, we're in a weird, parasitic symbiosis with each other. We need food, and instead of growing or hunting it, we have someone else manufacture our desires, which are also their desires, and give them slips of paper or a transfer of magnetic energy to obtain our 1 to 2 hours worth of family time with good food. The arrogant nature of any sort of modern economic system is that it instills a false sense of accomplishment in the head of house's brain when they receive praise for bringing home dinner. The head of house only purchased the meat or vegetables. In truth, the one who labored hardest was the farmers who farmed the meat and veg, and too often, they're the underpaid and talked down to. No matter what label is applied, there's always that arrogance.

Side Note: I must be slightly drunk. That made sense to me, but I'm only this cynical when I drink alone.

I don't think Western is necessarily intended as pejorative. In the minds of some shallow thinkers it is, but not generally. Consider for instance Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' which is still, despite its flaws, regarded as one of the best, most approachable descriptions of the Western philosophical tradition. Russell certainly did not mean Western in a pejorative way. He was very respectful of the achievements of Western culture. 'Western' is just an easy way to distinguish it from the other two large, influential cultures and philosophical streams the Earth has seen, which are Chinese and Indian. — andrewk

I get what Bertrand Russell was on about, and I suppose that I should have clarified, but I was referring to the Millennial Progressive's use of the word "Western", as it's often deployed erroneously when protesting, especially in reference to "The Man", as the Boomers will recall it being called, or "Big Brother" and "The Racist, Sexist, Homophobic...etc. Patriarchy" as Gen X and Y (respectively) might often refer to the establishment (or Trump directly). Shit's gotten outta hand, and until recently (here and outside the net) I was starting to believe I was one of the few in the university sphere with half a brain left to use. When discussions like this come up, there's invariably that one person who will make you want to erase your head from your body.

I think "Liberal Capitalist Culture" is actually a fair descriptor. Or as the Soviets used to call us: "Decadent." That sort of thinking is actually QUITE present in the progressive circles, and it occasionally scares me. The whole "Property is Theft" and redistribution of wealth thing is coming back in thought, disguising its true nature.

I think it merits consideration, being absent of "muh feels."
Honestly, I'm only halfway through these responses, but all of them are very well-thought out. I'm new here, and thus intentionally put myself within figurative stabbing distance, since I had no idea how sharp the intellectual knife's edge of these forums was. I have to admit I'm relieved at the rigor I've experienced thus far.

Thanks for this warm welcome, everyone.

I'm not going into Transgenderism, as someone else has already touched on it (and I know only what I know about Trans people), but I'll cover the binary system of understanding, which I have first-hand experience with, and from a combat-sports angle.

Considering the massive biological differences between men and women, my first response to the idea of removing the barrier between men and women would simply be "No." or "Have you considered the problems that could arise?" My reasoning for this position are not complex, but I'll try to explain deeper, with as few words as is feasible.

I'm biased, but I will admit that on the surface, removing separation of the sexes sounds like a great idea, and a progressive one at that, as it would allow for equity among the sexes, but I do not believe it would create equality. Rather, it may cause more problems, such as actual sexism within the sport (on and off the field). If men and women could be trained to be absolutely devoid of our natural instincts, I might be inclined to say different, but short of a miracle in our evolutionary history-to-be, I don't think it could be so.

I, for one, could emotionally separate myself from my actions in a single-gender combat sport situation, but I feel like I would end up going easier on a female opponent, or she may do likewise--which is an insult in any combat sport, especially when it's against guys. While I cannot claim to know what might happen, and it would certainly be interesting to have an equitable faceoff with a woman in combat, I don't think I could get into the octagon or in the ring without viewing her as someone I should be ashamed of myself for hurting, or someone I'm failing to protect by engaging in boxing, BJJ or kickboxing. It's my opinion that Men and Women need separation in the combat sports area, at the very least. If we don't do that, women like Holly Holm, Michelle Waterson ("The Karate Hottie") or the absolutely amazing Rhonda Rousey would literally be pushed aside, out of any potential spotlight--and that wouldn't be fair, even in a sport like MMA, which doesn't typically deal in special treatment to begin with, short of regimens. That would be the downside of gender integration in this sport, in my admittedly limited scope of understanding.

I hope that was as precisely worded and coherent as I intended it to sound, and answered your question satisfactorily.

(Equity and Equality are two separate words, meaning two separate things, and I don't mind going into that upon request)