William is my friend on Facebook. He is now regretting that friend invite.
"Do people just love being edgy or something? Is fighting against traditional values the new fad or something?" ~ William
"The one standard is what kept us going for thousands of years. You notice that the entire world just recently started going completely to shit socially? There's turmoil in homes and in the streets. People believe blindly everything they hear and refuse to think for themselves. People are allowed to avoid responsibility and the government will pay for it. Absolutely haram." ~ William,
Me: ">Implying there hasn't been social chaos on immeasurably massive scales since the beginning of animal interactions.
>Implying that all of those things haven't been going on since the beginning of human existence
What standard are you talking about? I've noticed a steady trend of shitty behavior by every living being that has ever existed throughout history on this planet. What the fuck kind of one-sided history book did you read? You bitch about how bad shit is now, and you say it's because of the traditional values being lost. I don't see a traditional value standard at any point in history, in any group or civilization. I see a bunch of egocentric primates comparing themselves to previous generations of egocentric primates. And when they find they haven't quite changed that much, themselves, the only way they can cope is to convince themselves that their "improvements," or changes, on the world around them, no matter how small or large, are the determining factor of their self-worth. And then they passed on their legacy to egocentric primates that will follow in their footsteps. And then some of those egocentric primates liked sports. Others liked tentacle porn. Personally, I find it sad that you base your life off of a set of principles (Traditional values) that are less tangible than tentacle porn. Tentacle porn beat your values by existing in the physical world. The only difference between your principles and traditional values and tentacle porn is that tentacle porn is not imaginary.
[Insert picture that reads: Remember: KING KONG DIED FOR YOUR SINS]"
I mainly wanted to share the rant at the bottom. But I also wanted there to be context. I kind of feel like I'm just bragging to you about something I thought was funny, when adding the context, though. :kingmeh:
Your friend will be a tea party member by this time next month, if he isn't already.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 17, 2014, 01:03:50 PM
Your friend will be a tea party member by this time next month, if he isn't already.
Already there :lulz:
Your rant was at times incoherent (or i just lost track) and mostly accurate.
Well done.
(bragging is ok)
:mittens:
I'm you realize that on some level you were shouting at the ocean.
I approve.
Does he seriously think that "we", by which I mean any subset of humanity, have had a set of "traditional values" for thousands of years?
:lol:
I believe in traditional values, like not using the internet.
Thanks guys.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 19, 2014, 04:25:39 PM
Does he seriously think that "we", by which I mean any subset of humanity, have had a set of "traditional values" for thousands of years?
:lol:
Yes. He's one of
those. :lol:
Quote from: Cain on November 19, 2014, 06:02:30 PM
I believe in traditional values, like not using the internet.
:mittens:
Quote from: Cain on November 19, 2014, 06:02:30 PM
I believe in traditional values, like not using the internet.
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on November 19, 2014, 06:02:30 PM
I believe in traditional values, like not using the internet.
:lulz: Win.
I would go farther than merely dismissing the notion of "traditional values". I would also furthermore add that, the the extent that they are a valid concept, they are not "the standard that kept us going" so much as "the weight that held us back" (or possibly more of an "albatross hanging around our neck")
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 20, 2014, 06:49:08 AM
I would go farther than merely dismissing the notion of "traditional values". I would also furthermore add that, the the extent that they are a valid concept, they are not "the standard that kept us going" so much as "the weight that held us back" (or possibly more of an "albatross hanging around our neck")
Good point. I agree. Most of the greatest leaps forward for human-kind involved actions against any general consensus or widely-held belief.
C'mon, man. Colonialism. Total LOLs, amirite?
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 20, 2014, 06:49:08 AM
I would go farther than merely dismissing the notion of "traditional values". I would also furthermore add that, the the extent that they are a valid concept, they are not "the standard that kept us going" so much as "the weight that held us back" (or possibly more of an "albatross hanging around our neck")
Held us back from what exactly?
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on November 20, 2014, 04:08:24 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 20, 2014, 06:49:08 AM
I would go farther than merely dismissing the notion of "traditional values". I would also furthermore add that, the the extent that they are a valid concept, they are not "the standard that kept us going" so much as "the weight that held us back" (or possibly more of an "albatross hanging around our neck")
Held us back from what exactly?
I would say: Even faster scientific advancement.
We could have flying cars now if traditional values didn't force people to put such a high value on life.
It's hard to quantify what is lost when half your population is barred from the sciences.
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on November 20, 2014, 04:08:24 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 20, 2014, 06:49:08 AM
I would go farther than merely dismissing the notion of "traditional values". I would also furthermore add that, the the extent that they are a valid concept, they are not "the standard that kept us going" so much as "the weight that held us back" (or possibly more of an "albatross hanging around our neck")
Held us back from what exactly?
Social justice mostly. Also scientific advancement, especially in the field of biology (although modern values are an impediment to biological research as well, albeit in different and generally more justified ways; less worry about "playing god" more corcern about lab animals suffering and the trumped up possibility of gm crops somehow screwing up ecosystems)
The Roman Empire was ethnically and religiously pluralistic to a point that it seems cosmopolitan even by modern standards, And it was hardly unique in this respect, historically.
There's a lot of historical strawmanning and curiously linear conceptions of progress ITT.
Damn, Cain made me realize something I had forgotten: I don't believe in progress (most of the time).
Allow me to explain my position:
People are idiots.
Making more idiots is not progress.
Making idiots live longer is not progress.
Giving idiots bigger bombs is not progress.
The only thing that comes close is sending idiots into space, but even then we manage to fuck it up: The international space station? What the fuck is the concept of nationalism doing in space? you drew your lines on the ground map so you get to stay on the ground you smarmy little small-minded fucks!
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 20, 2014, 05:00:14 PM
Damn, Cain made me realize something I had forgotten: I don't believe in progress (most of the time).
Allow me to explain my position:
People are idiots.
Making more idiots is not progress.
Making idiots live longer is not progress.
Giving idiots bigger bombs is not progress.
The only thing that comes close is sending idiots into space, but even then we manage to fuck it up: The international space station? What the fuck is the concept of nationalism doing in space? you drew your lines on the ground map so you get to stay on the ground you smarmy little small-minded fucks!
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
I'd just point out, like I did, that some ideas concerning equality and the universality of humanity pre-date the 20th century by quite a bit, and the idea that history = bad and modernity = good is as childlike as the belief that "traditional values" = good and modernity = bad.
Which brings me onto another point. The whole idea of traditional values is laughable. It's either a bastardised, misremembered, idealised and watered down version of percieved 1950s social mores, or "Victorian" values minus all the bits that people don't like talking about (like the very bawdy jokes, the nude photographs, the "penny dreadfuls", rampant drug use etc). It's make believe, a story for children. It's also incredibly ethnocentric, as it ignores the social and scientific progress that occured under Islam or in the Russian republics, to focus on an exclusively Western "rise from barbarity narrative" (which also conveniently sidesteps the Greco-Roman heritage of Western civilization...probably due to all the paganism, buggery, wine and debauchery).
People in the past were just as honourable, depraved, corrupt, loveable and terrible as modern people - because, y'know, there was the common denominator in that they were people.
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 20, 2014, 05:00:14 PM
Allow me to explain my position:
People are idiots.
Why would I believe any argument made by a self-professed idiot?
So, indefinite detention, blatant public disdain for "due process", an economy built on the mindless consumption of gadgets, made from minerals mined by slaves and built by not-technically-slaves for 2 cents an hour, the open use of torture, pre-emptive war, and the absolute desolation of the earth for material gain. But now black people can go to college (just in time for college to become irrelevant) so it balances out.
I realize that everyone born before this generation was an unenlightened shitlord and all thought pre-Bell Hooks was just a stepping stone to the glorious post-racial/patriarchial future that is soon to come, but maybe we threw out the baby with the bathwater. The founding fathers were racists and hypocrites, but I still think the 4th amendment was a swell idea and maybe some nostalgia for it is justified. Not just for it, but for any ideal higher than the sociopathic pursuit of personal wealth. Granted, Id take an equal opportunity kleptocracy over a discriminatory one, but Id take ripping out the hearts of virgins to appease Quetzalcoatl over either. Quetzolcoatl only wanted the Aztecs to conquer and murder most of South America. Our Gods want to pave over the whole planet and turn it into a hybrid labor camp/shopping mall.
Quote from: Cain on November 20, 2014, 05:27:01 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 20, 2014, 05:00:14 PM
Damn, Cain made me realize something I had forgotten: I don't believe in progress (most of the time).
Allow me to explain my position:
People are idiots.
Making more idiots is not progress.
Making idiots live longer is not progress.
Giving idiots bigger bombs is not progress.
The only thing that comes close is sending idiots into space, but even then we manage to fuck it up: The international space station? What the fuck is the concept of nationalism doing in space? you drew your lines on the ground map so you get to stay on the ground you smarmy little small-minded fucks!
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
I'd just point out, like I did, that some ideas concerning equality and the universality of humanity pre-date the 20th century by quite a bit, and the idea that history = bad and modernity = good is as childlike as the belief that "traditional values" = good and modernity = bad.
Which brings me onto another point. The whole idea of traditional values is laughable. It's either a bastardised, misremembered, idealised and watered down version of percieved 1950s social mores, or "Victorian" values minus all the bits that people don't like talking about (like the very bawdy jokes, the nude photographs, the "penny dreadfuls", rampant drug use etc). It's make believe, a story for children. It's also incredibly ethnocentric, as it ignores the social and scientific progress that occured under Islam or in the Russian republics, to focus on an exclusively Western "rise from barbarity narrative" (which also conveniently sidesteps the Greco-Roman heritage of Western civilization...probably due to all the paganism, buggery, wine and debauchery).
People in the past were just as honourable, depraved, corrupt, loveable and terrible as modern people - because, y'know, there was the common denominator in that they were people.
Quite well said. (all of it, not just the bolded.)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 20, 2014, 05:32:44 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 20, 2014, 05:00:14 PM
Allow me to explain my position:
People are idiots.
Why would I believe any argument made by a self-professed idiot?
:lulz: Because at least those people are being honest about themselves. Be wary of those who call themselves wise.
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on November 20, 2014, 05:40:06 PM
So, indefinite detention, blatant public disdain for "due process", an economy built on the mindless consumption of gadgets, made from minerals mined by slaves and built by not-technically-slaves for 2 cents an hour, the open use of torture, pre-emptive war, and the absolute desolation of the earth for material gain. But now black people can go to college (just in time for college to become irrelevant) so it balances out.
I realize that everyone born before this generation was an unenlightened shitlord and all thought pre-Bell Hooks was just a stepping stone to the glorious post-racial/patriarchial future that is soon to come, but maybe we threw out the baby with the bathwater. The founding fathers were racists and hypocrites, but I still think the 4th amendment was a swell idea and maybe some nostalgia for it is justified. Not just for it, but for any ideal higher than the sociopathic pursuit of personal wealth. Granted, Id take an equal opportunity kleptocracy over a discriminatory one, but Id take ripping out the hearts of virgins to appease Quetzalcoatl over either. Quetzolcoatl only wanted the Aztecs to conquer and murder most of South America. Our Gods want to pave over the whole planet and turn it into a hybrid labor camp/shopping mall.
Quetzacotl wanted neither, he just liked watching football. It is not his fault that his chosen people were too dumb to seen the difference between a ball and an enemy's head.
Also, I find your implication that people born this generation
aren't unenlightened shitlords hilarious.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 20, 2014, 03:20:33 PM
C'mon, man. Colonialism. Total LOLs, amirite?
I would say "yeah." But part of me suspects sarcasm, which I'm known to be bad at. :lol:
Quote from: Cain on November 20, 2014, 05:27:01 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 20, 2014, 05:00:14 PM
Damn, Cain made me realize something I had forgotten: I don't believe in progress (most of the time).
Allow me to explain my position:
People are idiots.
Making more idiots is not progress.
Making idiots live longer is not progress.
Giving idiots bigger bombs is not progress.
The only thing that comes close is sending idiots into space, but even then we manage to fuck it up: The international space station? What the fuck is the concept of nationalism doing in space? you drew your lines on the ground map so you get to stay on the ground you smarmy little small-minded fucks!
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
I'd just point out, like I did, that some ideas concerning equality and the universality of humanity pre-date the 20th century by quite a bit, and the idea that history = bad and modernity = good is as childlike as the belief that "traditional values" = good and modernity = bad.
Which brings me onto another point. The whole idea of traditional values is laughable. It's either a bastardised, misremembered, idealised and watered down version of percieved 1950s social mores, or "Victorian" values minus all the bits that people don't like talking about (like the very bawdy jokes, the nude photographs, the "penny dreadfuls", rampant drug use etc). It's make believe, a story for children. It's also incredibly ethnocentric, as it ignores the social and scientific progress that occured under Islam or in the Russian republics, to focus on an exclusively Western "rise from barbarity narrative" (which also conveniently sidesteps the Greco-Roman heritage of Western civilization...probably due to all the paganism, buggery, wine and debauchery).
People in the past were just as honourable, depraved, corrupt, loveable and terrible as modern people - because, y'know, there was the common denominator in that they were people.
Preach it!
"Traditional values" usually means conservatism, ie. maintaining the status quo, whatever that happens to be.
There can be value in resisting change, because change can have negative consequences. There can be value in conservatism, because it helps prevent the progressives in society from enacting change too rapidly and destabilizing core systems.
Now where is that image thread about Remember the Good Old Days When [insert horrible shit here]?
I could see it coming in very handy for Fernando.
Quote from: Cain on November 20, 2014, 05:27:01 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 20, 2014, 05:00:14 PM
Damn, Cain made me realize something I had forgotten: I don't believe in progress (most of the time).
Allow me to explain my position:
People are idiots.
Making more idiots is not progress.
Making idiots live longer is not progress.
Giving idiots bigger bombs is not progress.
The only thing that comes close is sending idiots into space, but even then we manage to fuck it up: The international space station? What the fuck is the concept of nationalism doing in space? you drew your lines on the ground map so you get to stay on the ground you smarmy little small-minded fucks!
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
I'd just point out, like I did, that some ideas concerning equality and the universality of humanity pre-date the 20th century by quite a bit, and the idea that history = bad and modernity = good is as childlike as the belief that "traditional values" = good and modernity = bad.
Which brings me onto another point. The whole idea of traditional values is laughable. It's either a bastardised, misremembered, idealised and watered down version of percieved 1950s social mores, or "Victorian" values minus all the bits that people don't like talking about (like the very bawdy jokes, the nude photographs, the "penny dreadfuls", rampant drug use etc). It's make believe, a story for children. It's also incredibly ethnocentric, as it ignores the social and scientific progress that occured under Islam or in the Russian republics, to focus on an exclusively Western "rise from barbarity narrative" (which also conveniently sidesteps the Greco-Roman heritage of Western civilization...probably due to all the paganism, buggery, wine and debauchery).
People in the past were just as honourable, depraved, corrupt, loveable and terrible as modern people - because, y'know, there was the common denominator in that they were people.
This is brilliant. People are people, regardless of their era and the culture they find themselves in.
It's incredibly freeing, and incredibly condemning all at the same time.
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on November 21, 2014, 04:18:18 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 20, 2014, 05:27:01 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret (07/05/1983 - 06/11/2014) on November 20, 2014, 05:00:14 PM
Damn, Cain made me realize something I had forgotten: I don't believe in progress (most of the time).
Allow me to explain my position:
People are idiots.
Making more idiots is not progress.
Making idiots live longer is not progress.
Giving idiots bigger bombs is not progress.
The only thing that comes close is sending idiots into space, but even then we manage to fuck it up: The international space station? What the fuck is the concept of nationalism doing in space? you drew your lines on the ground map so you get to stay on the ground you smarmy little small-minded fucks!
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
I'd just point out, like I did, that some ideas concerning equality and the universality of humanity pre-date the 20th century by quite a bit, and the idea that history = bad and modernity = good is as childlike as the belief that "traditional values" = good and modernity = bad.
Which brings me onto another point. The whole idea of traditional values is laughable. It's either a bastardised, misremembered, idealised and watered down version of percieved 1950s social mores, or "Victorian" values minus all the bits that people don't like talking about (like the very bawdy jokes, the nude photographs, the "penny dreadfuls", rampant drug use etc). It's make believe, a story for children. It's also incredibly ethnocentric, as it ignores the social and scientific progress that occured under Islam or in the Russian republics, to focus on an exclusively Western "rise from barbarity narrative" (which also conveniently sidesteps the Greco-Roman heritage of Western civilization...probably due to all the paganism, buggery, wine and debauchery).
People in the past were just as honourable, depraved, corrupt, loveable and terrible as modern people - because, y'know, there was the common denominator in that they were people.
This is brilliant. People are people, regardless of their era and the culture they find themselves in.
It's incredibly freeing, and incredibly condemning all at the same time.
Totally.
When I first started looking at history that way everything started to make so much sense. Which, if I remember correctly, was due to one of Cain's comments from a while ago.
Discussions on this board are wayyyy more efficient than on other boards. Sometimes. But this time especially. Not many boards have people who will discuss a seemingly minor topic until it becomes mind-altering. On most boards, if I got a response, it would've likely been "TL;DR" or "OP is f****t."
So, thank you.
Thanks everyone.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 21, 2014, 03:29:39 AM
"Traditional values" usually means conservatism, ie. maintaining the status quo, whatever that happens to be.
There can be value in resisting change, because change can have negative consequences. There can be value in conservatism, because it helps prevent the progressives in society from enacting change too rapidly and destabilizing core systems.
Not that I disagree with what you are saying...I guess I want to refine it?
I hold with Corey Robin's general thesis, that the status quo is inherently reactionary, but Conservatism, as an outgrowth and co-option of liberal political processes in defence of the Ancien Regime, is actually dynamic. One of the greatest conservative political thinkers, Joseph de Maistre, posted a brilliant defence of absolutist monarchy...which is a shame, because France was never an absolutist monarchy (Machiavelli neatly disposes of that lie in The Prince).
Which pretty much sums up Conservatism all over. It creates an imagined better past, to denigrate the present. That past usually never existed, as those who operated as part of the status quo in the past were normally more heterogenerous in their views and attitudes than conservative theorists allow for.
This isn't entirely unsurprising, as the British political philosopher John Gray noted the same problem in how the concept of the "free market" was approached, a good few years before Robin wrote his thesis on conservatism (I'd love to see them sit down and discuss their respective books together). The actual theorists of the free market were far more complicated and nuanced in their thought than their modern disciples...which is no surprise to anyone who has actually read Adam Smith.
And I agree, there is some value in conservatism. Shaking up the core processes of society in a fast and haphazard manner is probably going to have negative consequences, because shit is complicated. The French and the Russians tried that complete overhaul method, and well it didn't turn out too great. Of course, all governments impact on their society, even the ones which claim they don't, but it's a matter of degrees, methods and implementation. Gay marriage isn't going to ruin civilization...but putting farmers in charge of factories and factory workers in charge of farms might create an industrial recession and famine, leading to greater social unrest which spurs on political violence both by the regime and those who oppose it. For example.
Quote from: Cain on November 21, 2014, 11:42:03 AM
Which pretty much sums up Conservatism all over. It creates an imagined better past, to denigrate the present. That past usually never existed, as those who operated as part of the status quo in the past were normally more heterogenerous in their views and attitudes than conservative theorists allow for.
Cain has won today's internet.
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 1974, 02:10:12 PM
The French and the Russians tried that complete overhaul method, and well it didn't turn out too great.
The fall of those regimes was also helped along a great deal by the fact that people everywhere were put off by their insistence on taking bloody revenge on the old regime (in the form of the reign of terror and stalin's purges) rather than simply removing it
Please could you stop talking. I'd specify "on subjects you know nothing about", but based on your past and current output, it amounts to the same thing.
Just looked through the relevant wikipedia articles and my assessment of the Thermadorian Reaction, the Reign of Terror, and the White Terror seems to have been more or less accurate: people got sick of, disgusted by, and most importantly afraid of the Reign of Terror and rebelled agaiiinst the new government in favor of returning to royalism.
The comment about Stalin I can't solidly justify, but I get the distinct impression that even if it wasn't necessarily the reason for the west's hardline opposition to the USSR it certainly gave them a damn good excuse for it; one that still somehow manages to occasionally get bandied about today, despite it being 61 years after Stalin's death and 23 years since the Cold War was over and done with.
Quote from: Cain on November 21, 2014, 05:28:08 PM
Please could you stop talking. I'd specify "on subjects you know nothing about", but based on your past and current output, it amounts to the same thing.
:potd: