4 ms·

What cultural foundation?

by theplague42 7y ago

dasil003 7y ago
Yeah, without specifics it reads like the mostly thinly veiled of conservative dog whistles.
Toine 7y ago
Prohibitions, moral values, virtues, religion, heritage, community, etc.
- Buldak 7y ago
  Stricter norms and racial homogeneity don't seem to have prevented high suicide rates in countries like Korea or Japan. At any rate, it's awfully easy to diagnose broad cultural problems as the result of one's personal bugbears.
- ionised 7y ago
  All the things that would make my life worse if served in the flavour that traditionalist conservatives would prefer.
whatshisface 7y ago
There's a theory that circulates on 4chan and on the edges of "rationalist" blogs that having a conservative society that puts everyone in their place improves mental health by making most people feel like they have a place. Probably the least radical place this has been expressed is on Scott Aaronson's quantum computing blog, where he argues that some of the troubles he had in his youth would have been averted by the strict social traditions of the jewish shtetl. (That's why he named his blog "Shtetl Optimized.")
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- moftz 7y ago
  There's literally hippy communes that operate this way. You don't need to be conservative to see the benefit of everyone having a place in society. This sounds a lot like public work programs like the Green New Deal is proposing, lots of high-paying opportunities for skilled labor and training to become a skilled laborer. There's lot of able people wasting their potential in call centers and retail jobs. Everyone wants manufacturing back in America but no one wants to pay for the costs of educating a new generation of tradesmen.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    >There's literally hippy communes that operate this way. You don't need to be conservative to see the benefit of everyone having a place in society. Although I recognize that most political words are used as euphemisms for Republicans and Democrat, by the dictionary definition of the word conservative, those hippy communes are pretty conservative. Imagine trying to get them to watch reality TV and eat Big Macs!
- ionised 7y ago
  Conservatism has consistently been on the wrong side of every social issue in history, so I feel safe calling this 'theory' out as nothing more than teenage angst at a world they feel has left them behind.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    > Conservatism has consistently been on the wrong side of every social issue in history Given that Progressivism was very much on the side of things like Soviet Russia, Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia, as well as all sorts of "fun" stuff like racist eugenics in the U.S., I'll gladly take the "consistent" losses of conservatism over the know-it-all attitude of progressives, thanks you very much.
    - ionised 7y ago
      What's the 'pinko-commie' version of Godwin's law? 'Cos you just triggered it. Time for a new list of soundbites to regurgitate I think. There was nothing socially progressive about those communist dictatorships. They banned free religion and free expression. That's literally the opposite of progressive. And eugenics? Mate, that's a libertarian adolescent power fantasy haha. Nothing progressive about it. All you've done here is show me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. > I'll gladly take the "consistent" losses of conservatism over the know-it-all attitude of progressives, thanks you very much. So you're opposed to the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage and equal treatment for women, minorities and non-heterosexuals and the legalisation of drugs proven less harmful than alcohol. To name a few. Conservatives and traditionalists like yourself fought against all those issues and had to suck it up eventually. They are just a few examples of the entire list of shit throughout history you and your ilk got wrong. It's nice that you can freely and publicly celebrate your ignorance and hatred of these vulnerable groups and their interests publicly though. It's almost...progressive that you can do that, no? Either way fighting against social change is pissing against the wind. You can't win.
      - 0815test 7y ago
        > All you've done here is show me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Well, apparently you aren't familiar with the fact that progressives used to be very much in favor of eugenics (in the early 20th-c.), that progressive/leftist intellectuals and academics did support the Soviet system, that Maoist China was a huge influence on radical youth movements of the 1970s and 1980s that largely define what we think of as "progressive" today, that Pol Pot literally was introduced to extreme leftist politics by those same radical movements in the Paris of his day, etc. etc. "Conservatives and traditionalists fight against social change and have to suck it up eventually" - is that supposed to be a problem? It's literally the definition of what conservatism is all about! Sure, some of them might have opposed abolitionism and universal suffrage, for a time (Though many didn't, least of all in a practical sense. Even Carlyle, as rabid as he was from a "modern" POV, understood that slavery was very much on its way out). But so what - conservatives also fought Mao and Pol Pot, and in this latter sense they were far more important!

What cultural foundation?

dasil003 7y ago

Yeah, without specifics it reads like the mostly thinly veiled of conservative dog whistles.

Toine 7y ago

Prohibitions, moral values, virtues, religion, heritage, community, etc.

Buldak 7y ago
Stricter norms and racial homogeneity don't seem to have prevented high suicide rates in countries like Korea or Japan. At any rate, it's awfully easy to diagnose broad cultural problems as the result of one's personal bugbears.
ionised 7y ago
All the things that would make my life worse if served in the flavour that traditionalist conservatives would prefer.

whatshisface 7y ago

There's a theory that circulates on 4chan and on the edges of "rationalist" blogs that having a conservative society that puts everyone in their place improves mental health by making most people feel like they have a place. Probably the least radical place this has been expressed is on Scott Aaronson's quantum computing blog, where he argues that some of the troubles he had in his youth would have been averted by the strict social traditions of the jewish shtetl. (That's why he named his blog "Shtetl Optimized.")

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
moftz 7y ago
There's literally hippy communes that operate this way. You don't need to be conservative to see the benefit of everyone having a place in society. This sounds a lot like public work programs like the Green New Deal is proposing, lots of high-paying opportunities for skilled labor and training to become a skilled laborer. There's lot of able people wasting their potential in call centers and retail jobs. Everyone wants manufacturing back in America but no one wants to pay for the costs of educating a new generation of tradesmen.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >There's literally hippy communes that operate this way. You don't need to be conservative to see the benefit of everyone having a place in society. Although I recognize that most political words are used as euphemisms for Republicans and Democrat, by the dictionary definition of the word conservative, those hippy communes are pretty conservative. Imagine trying to get them to watch reality TV and eat Big Macs!
ionised 7y ago
Conservatism has consistently been on the wrong side of every social issue in history, so I feel safe calling this 'theory' out as nothing more than teenage angst at a world they feel has left them behind.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > Conservatism has consistently been on the wrong side of every social issue in history Given that Progressivism was very much on the side of things like Soviet Russia, Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia, as well as all sorts of "fun" stuff like racist eugenics in the U.S., I'll gladly take the "consistent" losses of conservatism over the know-it-all attitude of progressives, thanks you very much.
  - ionised 7y ago
    What's the 'pinko-commie' version of Godwin's law? 'Cos you just triggered it. Time for a new list of soundbites to regurgitate I think. There was nothing socially progressive about those communist dictatorships. They banned free religion and free expression. That's literally the opposite of progressive. And eugenics? Mate, that's a libertarian adolescent power fantasy haha. Nothing progressive about it. All you've done here is show me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. > I'll gladly take the "consistent" losses of conservatism over the know-it-all attitude of progressives, thanks you very much. So you're opposed to the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage and equal treatment for women, minorities and non-heterosexuals and the legalisation of drugs proven less harmful than alcohol. To name a few. Conservatives and traditionalists like yourself fought against all those issues and had to suck it up eventually. They are just a few examples of the entire list of shit throughout history you and your ilk got wrong. It's nice that you can freely and publicly celebrate your ignorance and hatred of these vulnerable groups and their interests publicly though. It's almost...progressive that you can do that, no? Either way fighting against social change is pissing against the wind. You can't win.
    - 0815test 7y ago
      > All you've done here is show me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Well, apparently you aren't familiar with the fact that progressives used to be very much in favor of eugenics (in the early 20th-c.), that progressive/leftist intellectuals and academics did support the Soviet system, that Maoist China was a huge influence on radical youth movements of the 1970s and 1980s that largely define what we think of as "progressive" today, that Pol Pot literally was introduced to extreme leftist politics by those same radical movements in the Paris of his day, etc. etc. "Conservatives and traditionalists fight against social change and have to suck it up eventually" - is that supposed to be a problem? It's literally the definition of what conservatism is all about! Sure, some of them might have opposed abolitionism and universal suffrage, for a time (Though many didn't, least of all in a practical sense. Even Carlyle, as rabid as he was from a "modern" POV, understood that slavery was very much on its way out). But so what - conservatives also fought Mao and Pol Pot, and in this latter sense they were far more important!