That's right, if you enforce universalism, diversity of opinion is the first casualty. The idea pushed by the mainstream that it is for "everybody" is a lie.
Unfortunately a certain percentage of any given population are attracted to dogma, be it political, religious or a combination. In fact when you see the fanaticism of some on the "progressive left" you realise that had they been born in a different era they may well have turned out bible bashing religious fundamentalists. Ironic ain't it?

Maybe I'm a bit tired but I'm not quite following you on that one. Perhaps we need to define our terms.

I would attribute that mostly to socialization and deficiencies re upbringing, so it's correctable if those who prey upon the weak-minded are discouraged -- vigorously. Critical thinking is imperative if we are to survive.

The problem with ideology is that it's absolutist and can only function in a controlled environment, which invariably results in a static society. What I am suggesting is something open-ended that isn't rigid and inflexible. A rough framework, if you will, that leaves the details pertaining to application to be worked out by locals.

And that is respectable.

See, on one hand i think you're right, on the other on the other side (the right) these people actually are bible bashers, but fundementally these groups are opposed. There's far more going on here.

This has always been the issue, though. I don't think we'll simply die off, but unless we learn how to think critically, in contrast to blind acceptance of "critical theory" (this thing that is passed to people posing as critical thought) or complete rejection of it into stagnation, we'll just see the temporary fall of yet another great civilization (honestly, i think critical theory is the bigger threat, at the moment). Dr. Jordan Peterson's assessment of the left as the creators of new hierachies (when hierarchies become corrupt), and the right as protectors of the old hierarchies (to preserve uncorrupted hierarchies), seems to be accurate, except we've gotten to the point where the roles are reversing, because some of the new hierachies are corrupt at conception.

With respect to America, I don't that's more than marginally accurate, because corruption has never been brought under control except for a few fleeting moments here and there. People who have fought for control of power under noble pretenses have never managed to do more than make a few modest reforms, which are quickly overshadowed by excesses related to ensuring that the new tyrant remains in power -- for those same noble pretenses, of course. lol

Indeed, politics alone has always been corrupt, as it has been everywhere. That's the one thing that the left rarely tries to reform. America itself is an experiment of a time it was tried, but the left has a hard time letting go of that one really corrupt hierarchy, so now the conservatives are the ones demanding reformation (because, even though we're in power, we're not in overall control, because we're still drifting leftward). However, have you seen the hierarchies on the ground? My word, the oppression hierarchy is horribly backwards and corrupt. "Progressive credentialism" seems to be maintained by the left as well (because the left controls academic credentials), which is what's ruining the job market (which then feeds their own thirst for reformation of everything but the acadimentia issue).

This is just to comment on how very intuitive you seem to be. None of this is new, I have watched it most of my adult life. I had a mathematic collegege proffesor take the last ten minutes of each class to tell us how great Communism is.
This was in1955. It has only got worse as time goes on. I wonder if those who wish for Socialism have read the works of Karl Marx.
There are alway those who wish for Utopia.

If you mean a sort of "open-ended" and flexible universalism, then it ceases to be universalism. If the details are left to locals, why not simply have locals govern themselves as city states in a manner they see fit, as I outlined above. Except for a group of people wanting to dominate and rule the world, the rest of us have no use for either universalism or globalism. In a world free of these two ideologies you could choose a city state that suited your way of life and live there. But we are being corralled like human cattle in the opposite direction where we will all be forced together and live under the same rules no matter where you are. Combine this with emergent technologies and you soon understand universalism and globalism make a very unpleasant world for most people almost everywhere. Until people unite and do something to stop that from happening, none of that which we discuss here is possible. Of course, I am leaving something out of all this because I don't wish to have these posts removed. I will just say if you want to know who your oppressor is, just find who it is forbidden to mention or criticise.

Well, yes, universalism without the -ism does cease to be universalism, which is precisely what I was attempting to convey to you. So we agree. ;p

Again, I'm not talking about ideology, because I am fundamentally opposed to social engineering. But there are ideas and concepts that do have universal value, a good example of which would be ethics, and for the sake of specificity, let's say Aristotelian ethics: morality, without the religious hooey that leaves many of us thinking God is a huge, gaping arsehole that finds joy in tormenting us. Why is ethics universally invaluable? Because it's the only thing that effectively combats corruption, and as I'm sure you know, that which becomes corrupted, fails. Fail is the predominant feature of this world of ours, and corruption is it's cause.

It's amazing how effective IQ is at predicting where people are likely to end up with respect to the division of labor. Extremely effective; but, it is completely ineffective at predicting virtue. Which is a real shame.

To some degree, but also in-group preference has a lot to do with it and those that fail to practice this get gradually pushed out of power, hence the weakness of universalism for those that practice it and favour those outside their own group.

Not surprising, as we're socialized to be hyper-conscious of the shallow "identities" that are assigned to us for the purpose of keeping us apart.

Does "multiculturalism" = segregation? Yes, that's exactly what the end result is.

I'll let you have the last word since we seem to be talking at cross purposes. As I mentioned further back in this conversation, sometimes one needs to define one's terms before proceeding with a discussion.

I see groupism as being akin to tribalism, so perhaps you should reconsider your perception that we are at cross-purposes.

The only way I know to rise above this sort of debilitating mentality is by identifying as human, rather than by ethnicity, nationality, religion, or class.

The point I've been making all along is that it's OK for people to identify as whatever they want and to create communities and to self-segregate if they wish - people tend to do this naturally, just look at any nation with diverse populations. And those who don't want to self segregate and want to live in a diverse, integrated community should be able to. The point is at the moment almost everyone, especially in western nations has no say in the matter and are being forced down one path. That is the problem with large nations - which unfortunately are being turned into regions such as the EU - NAFTA is a step towards this in North America. You end up with hundreds of millions of very very different and incompatible people living under one set of enforced rules - this is a recipe for disaster as is evidenced by the increasing levels of tension and chaos in the world right now.

This is all fine an dandy if you get everyone to agree, but the same is to be said about mutually assured destruction theory. What would happen if the US got a 100% effective missile defense system, but only the US had it? Would not the US then basically nuke everyone it didn't like, since there's nothing to deter them? I can see why Russia was against Starwars. So, what's going on now is, if you got people like Stefan Molyneux or Dr. Jordan Peterson calling for us to do the very thing you say, the end result is "Alt-right," "facist," etc. At the end of the day, you can pretend that the labels mean nothing, but they do mean something in reality if people make it so. IDPol is too easy for people, and it's allows for a great amount of predictive ability of what someone's political views are, which also make money (facebook echo chambers, as I heard a good TEDx talk on). As a result, it's easier to just fall into the trap of IDPol, because everyone else does it, too, and you'll be a victim to it whether you like it or not. And that's just politics itself, let alone the natural human nature to segregate by these groups. It's not an easy issue, however it is definitely the issue of yesteryear that we have today because we didn't solve it back when we should have (we have issues for today, but we can't solve them because we're playing catchup with yesteryear).