Author Topic: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?  (Read 7596 times)

Luna

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 104584
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2011, 08:07:44 pm »
Roger, I get what you're saying about there being two sides to the coin... which is why I suggested a joint project.

How about a flip book?  One cover to the midpoint the "brighter" side, flip for the other cover back to the middle with the more cynical side.

Use Khara's excellent idea to collaberate and get the pieces, two editors in general to make the final calls and get it done.
Death-dealing hormone freak of deliciousness
Pagan-Stomping Valkyrie of the Interbutts™
Rampaging Slayer of Shit-Fountain Habitues

"My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know, everybody you see, everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake, and they live in a state of constant, total amazement."

If Luna was a furry, she'd sex humans and scream "BEASTIALITY!" at the top of her lungs at inopportune times.

I like the Luna one. She is a good one.

Quote
"Stop talking to yourself.  You don't like you any better than anyone else who knows you."

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87066
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2011, 08:28:46 pm »
The version 0.0 of the BIP also included "There is No Consipiracy!"

I do indeed remember asking you for permission.  I would have been a real jackass, otherwise.

But yeah.  The BIP started as a PD'06 contest, and when BIP showed up, we leapt on it.  Then Dragged everything into Word, and made a horribly shoddy pamphlet.

Actual layout people grabbed it afterwards, and made it prettier.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 73111
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2011, 08:32:17 pm »
I'm a mushy sentimentalist but I love the original, original.  Still have mine at home somewhere.  You did a smash up job with that thing, I think. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87066
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2011, 08:46:38 pm »
It does look fairly revolutionary manifesto-ish.

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130574
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #49 on: December 21, 2011, 08:52:49 pm »
DID YOU KNOW
that Syn made a paperback version for sale on lulu?

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-black-iron-prison-discordia-revisited/1460759?productTrackingContext=product_view/more_by_author/right/1


I didn't know that until last weekend. Judging from the cost, it's definitely a 0-profit edition. Cool of Syn to put it out there.

Kai

  • A flea circus and
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87029
  • Richard Feynman fangirl.
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #50 on: December 21, 2011, 08:54:02 pm »
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...

Here!

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.

But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.

I don't think he made the case for the necessity of oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.

I don't think he made the case that liberalism is any less rule based. It's true that conservatism is less permissive, but only for those without power. Since authority is part of the moral compass, those with authority (i.e. power) are permitted to act as they desire, as long as they aren't too open about it. For example, while poor and middle class conservatives may value sexual purity, we repeatedly hear stories of conservative businessmen and politicians having affairs and homosexual liaisons. Or, for example, the way authority and ingroup based morality allowed a Penn State coach to molest young boys for years.

I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

The Half-Eaten Waffle

  • A Fairy-Tale Princess Trapped in a Viking Manbear's Body
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 52973
  • Nordic Freakshow Armada of Sexhurt™
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2011, 09:17:44 pm »
Roger, I get what you're saying about there being two sides to the coin... which is why I suggested a joint project.

How about a flip book?  One cover to the midpoint the "brighter" side, flip for the other cover back to the middle with the more cynical side.

Use Khara's excellent idea to collaberate and get the pieces, two editors in general to make the final calls and get it done.

I like this idea. And, as Khara  clarified, with consensus voting, there shouldn't be much grumbling.
"At first I lifted weights.  But then I asked myself, 'why not people?'  Now everyone runs for the fjord when they see me."


Horribly Oscillating Assbasket of Deliciousness
[/b]

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #52 on: December 21, 2011, 09:53:44 pm »
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...

Here!

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.

But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.

I don't think he made the case for the necessity of oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.

I don't think he made the case that liberalism is any less rule based. It's true that conservatism is less permissive, but only for those without power. Since authority is part of the moral compass, those with authority (i.e. power) are permitted to act as they desire, as long as they aren't too open about it. For example, while poor and middle class conservatives may value sexual purity, we repeatedly hear stories of conservative businessmen and politicians having affairs and homosexual liaisons. Or, for example, the way authority and ingroup based morality allowed a Penn State coach to molest young boys for years.

I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.

I am not sure what I'm supposed to be arguing, because you and I don't seem to be having the same discussion. I don't disagree with anything you said, and at the same time it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he has a valid point about a social structure needing both progressive and conservative aspects in order to maintain a balance.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 09:55:26 pm by Nigel »
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Kai

  • A flea circus and
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87029
  • Richard Feynman fangirl.
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #53 on: December 21, 2011, 10:36:27 pm »
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...

Here!

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.

But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.

I don't think he made the case for the necessity of oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.

I don't think he made the case that liberalism is any less rule based. It's true that conservatism is less permissive, but only for those without power. Since authority is part of the moral compass, those with authority (i.e. power) are permitted to act as they desire, as long as they aren't too open about it. For example, while poor and middle class conservatives may value sexual purity, we repeatedly hear stories of conservative businessmen and politicians having affairs and homosexual liaisons. Or, for example, the way authority and ingroup based morality allowed a Penn State coach to molest young boys for years.

I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.

I am not sure what I'm supposed to be arguing, because you and I don't seem to be having the same discussion. I don't disagree with anything you said, and at the same time it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he has a valid point about a social structure needing both progressive and conservative aspects in order to maintain a balance.

I don't see how conservatism is required as a so-called balancing agent, and I don't think he supported that claim.

ETA: I went back and watched it again, and found that the point at which I lost him was between where he introduced the 5 point morality of conservatives and his talk about change versus stability.

 The talk suddenly jumped between meta-morality, and the differences between liberal and conservative morality, to conservative morality being rule based and liberal morality being permissive base, or stability versus change (the other two polars he talked about). At no point between these two did he give sufficient evidence for these equations.

His use of Bosch's painting as a morality tale was illustrative of conservatism, but the scientific evidence after that did not follow from it. One was, well, a religious morality tale of a reality that never happened, and the other was showing cooperation versus reward and punishment. He was equating an allegorical fall from grace (or more specifically, the permissiveness of sexual independence, diversity, and questioning authority) with socially uncooperative behavior. And while this short section might seem like a minor part of the talk, this is where he was moving from his evidence to his thesis, that these conservative ideas that he equates with stability, rules, and order, are somehow necessary for society to operate.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 11:11:33 pm by 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. »
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2011, 11:22:57 pm »
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...

Here!

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.

But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.

I don't think he made the case for the necessity of oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.

I don't think he made the case that liberalism is any less rule based. It's true that conservatism is less permissive, but only for those without power. Since authority is part of the moral compass, those with authority (i.e. power) are permitted to act as they desire, as long as they aren't too open about it. For example, while poor and middle class conservatives may value sexual purity, we repeatedly hear stories of conservative businessmen and politicians having affairs and homosexual liaisons. Or, for example, the way authority and ingroup based morality allowed a Penn State coach to molest young boys for years.

I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.

I am not sure what I'm supposed to be arguing, because you and I don't seem to be having the same discussion. I don't disagree with anything you said, and at the same time it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he has a valid point about a social structure needing both progressive and conservative aspects in order to maintain a balance.

I don't see how conservatism is required as a so-called balancing agent, and I don't think he supported that claim.

ETA: I went back and watched it again, and found that the point at which I lost him was between where he introduced the 5 point morality of conservatives and his talk about change versus stability.

 The talk suddenly jumped between meta-morality, and the differences between liberal and conservative morality, to conservative morality being rule based and liberal morality being permissive base, or stability versus change (the other two polars he talked about). At no point between these two did he give sufficient evidence for these equations.

His use of Bosch's painting as a morality tale was illustrative of conservatism, but the scientific evidence after that did not follow from it. One was, well, a religious morality tale of a reality that never happened, and the other was showing cooperation versus reward and punishment. He was equating an allegorical fall from grace (or more specifically, the permissiveness of sexual independence, diversity, and questioning authority) with socially uncooperative behavior. And while this short section might seem like a minor part of the talk, this is where he was moving from his evidence to his thesis, that these conservative ideas that he equates with stability, rules, and order, are somehow necessary for society to operate.

It's hard to present much supporting evidence in a 16-minute talk on social theory.

I think I got something completely different out of the talk, because what I saw was the tautness that keeps the balance between, say, the traditionalists who want things to stay as they are ("Our ancestors have always lived this way, and it would dishonor them to take up new ways!") and the adventurers who want to change things ("But the world is interesting and exciting and there are new ways of doing things; we shouldn't be limited to the old ways!").

When you depoliticize the traditionalists and the adventurers, both roles make perfect sense in a society; too much unrestrained change can lead to bad bad things, and no change can lead to bad bad things, so both types exist in order to hold each other in balance.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #55 on: December 21, 2011, 11:37:45 pm »
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.

It's always oppressive, by definition.

It is also usually the best strategy for group survival in dangerous or isolated situations, or when the population is low.  Because of this, and because of the culture of fear that has been ingrained in Americans since WWII (since forever, actually, but it's been particularly bad since then), it is also the default position of the ~ 50% of the population that has responded to the conditioning to the point of always being afraid.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Placid Dingo

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 27327
    • View Profile
    • Me!
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #56 on: December 21, 2011, 11:58:23 pm »
Is it possible to say let's have a bunch of essays on Discordia, and basically accept all submissions? This is more like the progress report than pd'12 I guess but others past some of the issues.
If sheep entrails could in any way be related to the weather, i.e. sheep trails only originate where it rains, then you could use it as an accurate model for discerning what the weathers going to be like. Either, sheep shit makes it rain, or raining makes sheep shit. Sheep don't shit "randomly" sheep shit after they eat, it doesn't rain "randomly" it rains after water collects in the atmosphere.

Kai

  • A flea circus and
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87029
  • Richard Feynman fangirl.
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #57 on: December 22, 2011, 12:02:34 am »
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...

Here!

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.

But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.

I don't think he made the case for the necessity of oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.

I don't think he made the case that liberalism is any less rule based. It's true that conservatism is less permissive, but only for those without power. Since authority is part of the moral compass, those with authority (i.e. power) are permitted to act as they desire, as long as they aren't too open about it. For example, while poor and middle class conservatives may value sexual purity, we repeatedly hear stories of conservative businessmen and politicians having affairs and homosexual liaisons. Or, for example, the way authority and ingroup based morality allowed a Penn State coach to molest young boys for years.

I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.

I am not sure what I'm supposed to be arguing, because you and I don't seem to be having the same discussion. I don't disagree with anything you said, and at the same time it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he has a valid point about a social structure needing both progressive and conservative aspects in order to maintain a balance.

I don't see how conservatism is required as a so-called balancing agent, and I don't think he supported that claim.

ETA: I went back and watched it again, and found that the point at which I lost him was between where he introduced the 5 point morality of conservatives and his talk about change versus stability.

 The talk suddenly jumped between meta-morality, and the differences between liberal and conservative morality, to conservative morality being rule based and liberal morality being permissive base, or stability versus change (the other two polars he talked about). At no point between these two did he give sufficient evidence for these equations.

His use of Bosch's painting as a morality tale was illustrative of conservatism, but the scientific evidence after that did not follow from it. One was, well, a religious morality tale of a reality that never happened, and the other was showing cooperation versus reward and punishment. He was equating an allegorical fall from grace (or more specifically, the permissiveness of sexual independence, diversity, and questioning authority) with socially uncooperative behavior. And while this short section might seem like a minor part of the talk, this is where he was moving from his evidence to his thesis, that these conservative ideas that he equates with stability, rules, and order, are somehow necessary for society to operate.

It's hard to present much supporting evidence in a 16-minute talk on social theory.

I think I got something completely different out of the talk, because what I saw was the tautness that keeps the balance between, say, the traditionalists who want things to stay as they are ("Our ancestors have always lived this way, and it would dishonor them to take up new ways!") and the adventurers who want to change things ("But the world is interesting and exciting and there are new ways of doing things; we shouldn't be limited to the old ways!").

When you depoliticize the traditionalists and the adventurers, both roles make perfect sense in a society; too much unrestrained change can lead to bad bad things, and no change can lead to bad bad things, so both types exist in order to hold each other in balance.

When you posited it as traditionalists versus adventurers, rather than 5 point conservative morality versus two point liberal morality, it makes far more sense. I think I may be getting caught up in my discontent with conservative values and failing to see anything positive in them. When you replaced "authority" with "love of tradition", it seemed far less negative. I'm especially caught up in the negativity of moral purity, which to me sounds like a buzz word for sexual obedience. There are positives in tradition, especially in the sense of community. Maybe this is the "ingroup" he was talking about. But at the same time, ingroup speaks of xenophobia. Well, maybe it's good that I'm uncomfortable with these things. Or rather, as one of the adventurers it's part of my role to be uncomfortable with it.

That may be the other problem. The traditionalist values of today are not the traditionalist values of tomorrow. Purity may be a non-issue for future conservatives. Even if that's not true, the content of the values will change. Ingroups change, the perception of purity changes, authorities change. Or maybe that's the role of the adventurers, to push that changing.

Thanks Nigel.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Kai

  • A flea circus and
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87029
  • Richard Feynman fangirl.
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2011, 12:03:27 am »
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.

It's always oppressive, by definition.

It is also usually the best strategy for group survival in dangerous or isolated situations, or when the population is low.  Because of this, and because of the culture of fear that has been ingrained in Americans since WWII (since forever, actually, but it's been particularly bad since then), it is also the default position of the ~ 50% of the population that has responded to the conditioning to the point of always being afraid.

It doesn't seem to be the best strategy now.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
« Reply #59 on: December 22, 2011, 12:05:05 am »
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.

It's always oppressive, by definition.

It is also usually the best strategy for group survival in dangerous or isolated situations, or when the population is low.  Because of this, and because of the culture of fear that has been ingrained in Americans since WWII (since forever, actually, but it's been particularly bad since then), it is also the default position of the ~ 50% of the population that has responded to the conditioning to the point of always being afraid.

It doesn't seem to be the best strategy now.

No, it's a terrible strategy now.  We do not live in tiny medieval villages, or in miniscule desert tribes.

But primate wiring is primate wiring.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.