A
Why don't we want and why can't we have nice things?
- Thread starter Thyrsis
- Start date
Our forefathers gave us three branches along with checks and balances. To this add the Senate filibuster.
What could run rampant (unchecked) are state legislatures with one party having a super majority. With Congress being stalemated, state government is where the action is.
I gotta run for now have a meeting with my radical leftist Soros club and I don't want cold latte ...... but I'll use sexuality as an quick example.
China has the world's largest LGBTQ population, (not per capita). Japan is far removed from their conservative authoritarian stage. I mean the girls even get to walk along side the men and no longer bind their feet.
Middle Eastern governments, sure, but some are still living in the 5th century. They are also seen as being oppressive.
The people, the culture though ... is far more liberal now than they were 50 years ago. Iran for example has a sizeable gay population even though it's illegal and ruled by a theocracy.....
You're more liberal than conservatives were 100 years ago. Example - your wife can wear a bikini if she chooses and it's socially acceptable. Do it in 1890 and she would get arrested for indecency.
This really shouldn't even be a debate. 400 years ago, the progressive line was that going to the wrong church should only result in you paying a fine instead of being burned at the stake. Obviously, our culture is miles to the left of where it used to be.
"Our" is Western centric again though, and really even that is cyclical. @T.M.P. brought up sexuality for instance. The Greeks and Romans were much more permissive on certain sexual things then the kingdoms and empires that replaced them. We in the west are probably not even where they were at yet. The Persians, other than strict Zoroastrians, were more open to gay sex than what exists now under Islam is another example.
each religion's Joe Schmo has probably always been liberal.
but it's each religion's version of the Taliban that are obsessed with power, thus take it.
liberals are live and let live, and don't obsess about grabbing power over everyone else.
the more conservative one is, the more they want to control everyone else, thus it's usually the most conservative that obtain power, because it's they who are most obsessed with having it.
Sex is tricky, because it hasn't always been defined the same way. For the ancient Greeks and Romans, the idea of "homosexuality" wouldn't have even been meaningful. For them, sex was a penetrative act (literally and figuratively) that was only honorable if the penetrating partner was of a higher social status than the penetrated partner. So a Senator could bang his wife, or he could bang his slave boy, but if he let his slave boy bang him, he was disgraced.
However, if you broaden it out beyond how to define specific sexual inclinations, and instead look at the freedom and ability to explore your sexuality in the way you like, there can be no doubt that we've become far more permissive. If the same Roman Senator wanted to get pegged by his slave boy today, we'd be fine with it.
Other than the whole slavery thing, of course. Which is yet another point of evidence in favor of TMP's argument. The fact that, by and large, our world no longer allows you to own people is a huge shift.
Roman culture died. The west went into a dark age. Once the light was turned back on one of the most progressive liberal periods in human history began. Education and knowledge drive liberalism.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Obama gets it. I miss him.It’s pretty simple, it was originally used under good and virtuous intention. Being alert (woke) to social injustice.
But - as is what happens when you give power - it’s devolved into a performative land grab to declare anything that doesn’t advance extreme progressivist (mostly Marxist) positions to be racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. It’s seeing racism whether or not there is some - it’s seeing sexism whether or not there is some - because society is messy and not binary and it’s trying to cause a fundamental reshaping of our society towards equality of outcome.
Barack Obama recognized it and counseled against it. It exists - no matter how hard you try to deny it.
Barack Obama challenges 'woke' culture
The former US president says being judgemental does nothing to bring about change.www.bbc.com
Dumb
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Disagree.
The U.S. is becoming more and more mixed. My wife is the product of a 100% Sicilian dad and a 100% Irish mom. My kids are now descended from that and me, mixed German-English. It'll keep happening.
Black English has been mixing with upper class English for decades; so too Spanish. Drive through some small town in Indiana--you'll see Mexican restaurants, Chinese, etc. All of those cultures influencing each other is great (and why the notion of cultural appropriation is stupid). Are they homogenous? No, thankfully!
And even though we have a mix, and regional differences, we still have a common culture that binds us--mostly through TV and movies and music but also through our shared stories about our nation's history.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we mix more today than ever. Interstate highways, tv, chain restaurants, all contribute. Stigma for marrying outside of race/ethnicity/religion has dropped.
But my point stands, that is all very new. Very, very new. For the vast majority of our history areas were very distinct.
Even today, if you are in the city center in a Detroit or Philly, you will find a much higher percentage of Blacks than in Phoenix or Albuquerque where you will find more Hispanics than in Eastern Kentucky.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Sure you do. But my wife is old enough that you wouldn't call this very, very new (thank god this is an anonymous posting).
Back to the original point you were discussing, I think it's important for any nation-state to have a shared culture and narrative (even if not completely true) that helps bind the people together. Regarding the narrative, it has to include, at least in part, an ideal that the nation represents so that people will want to fight for it or serve in the nation's interests. Even if the nation hasn't exactly lived up to it or achieved it yet.
Well, I did say the "west" for a reason, to separate it from Byzantine, the Caliphates, India and the Far East. There was certainly a drop off in the things we call civilization ..
Ha, no I didn't .. I meant to, I may have edited it out, I posted that from my car.. fwiw - I was late to my meeting because of Crazy .. my latte was cold and they ate all the avocado toast...
Last edited:
Flattery through imitation will get you nowhere random boring butthurt internet person with giant stick up arse..
So, ugh, please get off muh nutz.
TIA
The problem 8s our shared narrative intentionally excluded people until the VRA and CRA. So yes, your family, my family, Co's family could pretend to have a shared narrative. That wasn't true at all for other families.
I get the point. I don't really know how shared narrative thing works in the UK, the Irish, Welsh, Scots have their individual narratives that are not necessarily the same as the English.
Over the weekend I was thinking of this in a different light. Many places have deals where those willing to pay can jump to the head of a line (amusement parks, airlines, Gencon has it for housing). There is something to the shared experience of rich, poor, Black, White, all waiting together. We have really done away with that.
There is a Frank Burns quote from MASH I love, "Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free". In this debate, it is the conform part. Do we have a national culture when some of us like soccer (for unexplainable reasons)? Is it a national culture if I eat burritos, you eat lobster, and another eats vegetarian? Is it a national culture if I watch Ted Lasso, someone else Yellowstone, someone else The Bachelor?
Culture tends to be about shared foods and shared activities, shared religions. Which of our sports are we going to eliminate, which foods must we eat to be American (I assume the hamburger), which religion will be the accepted religion.
It seems we love choices, until people make choices we would not.
It's still wrong. The "West" lost some level of governmental control, but society continued apace. The elites suffered a setback, but the common people - and culture - kept growing.
Good enough I won't argue it and agree somewhat.. .
I used the traditional maybe obsolete definition of dark age. Literacy. Which along with art and invention, is a good barometer of education level.
Yes, the elites were affected more than the poor ass dirt farmer. Writing stopped/slowed mostly because the new elites that took over in Western Europe were generally still illiterate, while literacy was ever growing during Roman times and the aristocratic class were literate.
Though the common populace wasn't able to read or write, the established government and better off could. Even Centurions in later times were expected to be literate or became literate as it was required by their duties. They were not generally aristocrats.
That changed as Germanic tribes took over leadership of Roman territories. The poor didn't write anything in either era, so again, I think you're correct about there not being a dark age for them but the rich also stopped except for the priesthood.
Even Charlemagne didn't learn to read/write until he was an adult. I doubt Genseric or many of the other early tribal leaders could. Education and knowledge took a step backwards for a bit.
As education increased, as science was reestablished, as people as a whole became smarter and more worldly again, liberalism progressed, again. As it always does ..
Literacy was always low even into the middle and high middle ages, but in the so called ark ages, literacy did increase, as the "barbarian" kings spent money on building monasteries and the forerunners of universities.
Look, I'm not coming at this from a Dues Vult point of view - I think you know me better than that. A lot of Western European knowledge in the time period came from the Islamic and Asian worlds. But they weren't just backwards farmers wallowing in mud. Society continued. They adopted the heavy plow. They built mills. They transitioned from the two to three-field system. And they built monasteries and schools and copied ancient books and learned to read and write. And they developed modern medicine. Poorly, of course, but it was a start.
And in some parts - like, famously, Ireland - they kept the traditions of complex art and music and helped create the basis for the rebirth of culture in multiple renaissances, first under Charlemagne, then in the 13th century, then again in the big one.
Societies are driven forward by free markets, innovation, and sound money. Everything else follows from it.
Charlemagne. He was big on education.
Yeah, I'm good. fwiw - we're not arguing, we're having a discussion and trading ideas.
The rest I agree with ..
You're just being pedantic on what a dark age is.. vbg .. nothing wrong with that. We all have our things ..
But we've gotten away from the gist .. as a society becomes more educated, more knowledgeable, more worldly, it also becomes more liberal.
What's an "ultra" liberal? Which aggressions are "macro"?
Why not stop labeling multiple highly complex societal issues with one word catch phrases and instead highlight and attack each singular idea or principle, you're against.
Describing people as woke is as bad, lazy and ill conceived as thinking the letters BLM cover every AA issue and thought. Or that every Trumper is a hillbilly .. sure most of them are, but not all .. lol .
Or at the very least add a funny picture to it and make it a "dank ass meme".
I'm okay with the Dark Age as the translation of saeculum obscurum as applied to a period when written records didn't survive to the extent that records before or after did. I'm not okay with the assumption that it's because European civilization was in such a decline that people couldn't be bothered to write anything down.
Correct ... my mistake and I know better, it originated in China but I'm not that into the history of feet, you weirdo.
Still. Not. The. Point.
I
Sexuality always has seemed to swing back to a more traditional role throughout history. The reality is humans need a stable environment to thrive and marriage has provided that for them. The downplaying of sexuality has been detrimental to our culture and a lot of poor people. I can’t remember the exact figures, but the percentage of people who remain married in the upper classes has remained fairly consistent since 1960s. The poor and working classes, has changed drastically.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
liberal yes. But are you sure you’re not co-opting that term to mean what we fear of extreme progressivism, eg Marxism?
Ultra meaning far left. Macro meaning the sum total of all the tiny so-interpreted micro-aggressions liberals are foisting on our society as outlawed behavior.
Back at you: Why not stop telling people how to live their lives especially young children? Why not stop straightjacketing free people in a free society with your gazillion contrived mores?
Why not teach people to have a thick skin about words, to love thy brother and sister, and to tolerate, horrors, yes tolerate the language choices of others in our free society?
Resistance to change, maybe.
Fear, no, it's not a vagina.. (lol just kidding)
I don't really see extreme Marxism anywhere, except for fringe wackos, or more likely those who want you to fear them. You probably hear that word used daily if not weekly. We get shown all the various Nazi BS the GOP has been "adjacent" to. Like applauding Orban .. though that was a bit more than adjacent.
I'll do that once you quit making shit up and typecasting me into an argument I never made.
The argument you are having is you vs a version of me you imagined in your head or was create for you by entertainment propaganda. So basically, you're arguing with yourself and a imaginary caricature of your own fear.
Hope you win ... it would be pretty damn lame to lose when you control and dictate both sides of the narrative..
You can go away, now. You're dismissed.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
BLM is Marxist. Many academics in the DEI field are Marxists. Marxists are infiltrating Fortune 200 companies in HR departments. Distracted CEOs could say “yes” to these nitwits with disastrous consequences.
Similar threads
