"I don't like the anything-goes liberalism implied in Tylenol's "whatever your normal is." No—get back to a very specific standard of normal!"Invariably, this means 'impose my standard of normal.'
In rejecting the wrong and bad, it does no good to leap into the arms of a different wrong and bad. Why your normal? Why not impose my normal? If you can prescribe a better culture like a culture doctor, I can too.
There's a specific thing wrong with the proggy anything-goes normal. They don't acknowledge (out loud) that some normals are better than others. What Charles Murray just said, basically.
The people who proggies have in their sway are no more idiotic than the people previously under the sway of monarchy etc. Proggressivism works for them about as well or better than the previous option, or they wouldn't have taken it. (Either that or 'sheeple' is an exact and correct term, meaning the peasants have no will of their own to override. Let me know if you prefer this option.)
What makes a normal better is that it achieves goals better. While most share the same goals, not all do. Using the standard of some normals being better, it depends to some extent on who is using the normal. As with economies, normals are a tool, they should serve the user, not the reverse.
In particular, imposing a specific normal rejects eccentric goals - it alienates elites, the exact fatal mistake the monarchies made.
Guys! Even disregarding that it's mean and selfish, it's not a good idea to work towards an order where the optimal strategy for the very smart is to destroy you!