4 ms·

When was this golden era that you romanticise? I don’t recall a time in history when some group of people somewhere weren’t deprive some other group of people

When was this golden era that you romanticise? I don’t recall a time in history when some group of people somewhere weren’t deprive some other group of people life, liberty, property etc. Perhaps the rate of occurance has changed over time, or reporting has changed over time. There’s a strong case to be made that the recent past was less pleasant for, for example, women, blacks, same-sex attracted people, religious people from any number of denominations.

coldtea 8y ago
>There’s a strong case to be made that the recent past was less pleasant for, for example, women, blacks, same-sex attracted people, religious people from any number of denominations. The recent past can still be "less pleasant" in some aspects and for some groups, and still be "more pleasant" in other aspects. It's not like to bring X element of, say, 1950s, you need to bring with it ALL elements. If someone e.g. wants a more loyal company/employee culture, and pines for the 50s and 60s in that respect, that doesn't mean they also want all other characteristics of 50s and 60s. Or that they're in any way necessarily tied and somehow are an "all or nothing" proposition. Even for "women, blacks, same-sex attracted people, religious people from any number of denominations", life was better in some previous era in some aspects and worse today in those same aspects, even if had it bad in many other ways then that they don't now. We should be able to want to cherry pick stuff that was better before, and re-install it or have it inspire us today, without automatic accusations of "romanticizing".
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  I don’t understand why you are raising this here, but also arguing my same point in your other comment? Edit: in your other comment it could be argued that all those things (robber barrons, snake oil, Nazi Germany) were good for some of the people some of the time.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >I don’t understand why you are raising this here, but also arguing my same point in your other comment? It's not the same point. In the first comment I was responding to a direct and specific thing being an aspect of the culture before and not now (namely, corporate ethics). I don't believe that specific thing was a part of the culture in the past any more than it is now. (Other things, though, I do believe have been better back then and worse now, or present back then, and lacking now). In my response to you, on the other hand, I responded to a more general thing. My objection was with the part of your comment that I quoted in my response ("There’s a strong case to be made that the recent past was less pleasant for, for example, women, blacks, same-sex attracted people, religious people from any number of denominations.") That I see as orthogonal to the point the grandparent made, and wanted to address it as I think is a common fallacy people make when responding to comment's like the grandparent's. The past could have (or not have) corporate ethics, regardless of the fact that women, blacks, etc had it worse in society. So, to the grandparent I respond: "I don't think corporate ethics have ever been a strong part of US culture". To you I respond: "I don't think whether some groups had it bad means that a previous era didn't also have aspects good for the whole of society that we might want to bring back. Pining for one such aspect (as the grandparent does, even if he is mistaken) is not the same as pining for every aspect of an era -- so whether some groups had it bad in other aspects then is not relevant to the specific aspect the grandparent pines for". Still a little convoluted, but it makes better sense now, right?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
      Thanks for the swift and comprehensive response.

coldtea 8y ago

>There’s a strong case to be made that the recent past was less pleasant for, for example, women, blacks, same-sex attracted people, religious people from any number of denominations. The recent past can still be "less pleasant" in some aspects and for some groups, and still be "more pleasant" in other aspects. It's not like to bring X element of, say, 1950s, you need to bring with it ALL elements. If someone e.g. wants a more loyal company/employee culture, and pines for the 50s and 60s in that respect, that doesn't mean they also want all other characteristics of 50s and 60s. Or that they're in any way necessarily tied and somehow are an "all or nothing" proposition. Even for "women, blacks, same-sex attracted people, religious people from any number of denominations", life was better in some previous era in some aspects and worse today in those same aspects, even if had it bad in many other ways then that they don't now. We should be able to want to cherry pick stuff that was better before, and re-install it or have it inspire us today, without automatic accusations of "romanticizing".

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
I don’t understand why you are raising this here, but also arguing my same point in your other comment? Edit: in your other comment it could be argued that all those things (robber barrons, snake oil, Nazi Germany) were good for some of the people some of the time.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >I don’t understand why you are raising this here, but also arguing my same point in your other comment? It's not the same point. In the first comment I was responding to a direct and specific thing being an aspect of the culture before and not now (namely, corporate ethics). I don't believe that specific thing was a part of the culture in the past any more than it is now. (Other things, though, I do believe have been better back then and worse now, or present back then, and lacking now). In my response to you, on the other hand, I responded to a more general thing. My objection was with the part of your comment that I quoted in my response ("There’s a strong case to be made that the recent past was less pleasant for, for example, women, blacks, same-sex attracted people, religious people from any number of denominations.") That I see as orthogonal to the point the grandparent made, and wanted to address it as I think is a common fallacy people make when responding to comment's like the grandparent's. The past could have (or not have) corporate ethics, regardless of the fact that women, blacks, etc had it worse in society. So, to the grandparent I respond: "I don't think corporate ethics have ever been a strong part of US culture". To you I respond: "I don't think whether some groups had it bad means that a previous era didn't also have aspects good for the whole of society that we might want to bring back. Pining for one such aspect (as the grandparent does, even if he is mistaken) is not the same as pining for every aspect of an era -- so whether some groups had it bad in other aspects then is not relevant to the specific aspect the grandparent pines for". Still a little convoluted, but it makes better sense now, right?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    Thanks for the swift and comprehensive response.