5 ms·
> one of my rules about conservative panic... Rule implies that it applies to past conservative moral panics. Is there a past moral panic in which lots of form
by rendall 4y ago
> one of my rules about conservative panic...
Rule implies that it applies to past conservative moral panics. Is there a past moral panic in which lots of formerly suppressed identities suddenly expressed themselves once the moral panic was over?
- pjc50 4y agoA lot of people came out after homosexuality was decriminalised. Freedom of religion allowed a lot of people to express their religious identity which was formerly suppressed?
- amarant 4y agoA bit of an obscure example, but: Capoeira was forbidden in Brazil for a very long time, mostly because of a moral panic(for brevity I'll leave the complexities of this situation out of this comment), then when it was legalised, and the stigma around it began to disappear, it quickly became very popular, both in Brazil and internationally!
- cshimmin 4y agoThis seems to be to opposite of the example GP was seeking. Unless you mean to say that a great many people (both in Brazil and internationally) were already practicing Capoeira before it was legalized...
- bigbillheck 4y agoLeft-handed people.
- api 4y agoI bring this one up every time someone brings up Chesterton's Fence arguments about stuff like this. Why was left handedness considered taboo and evil? Do we need to figure out a legitimate reason for this before we can remove the fence? Could there possibly be a legitimate reason for something that clearly absurd?
- tpmoney 4y agoI mean the point of the argument is to try to find out if there is possibly a legitimate reason, not to assume there was and not explore removing the fence. Sometimes no there was no good reason. Sometimes there was but it’s no longer applicable.For example lots of religious dietary restrictions have reasonable health benefits, especially in a society before modern refrigeration and food safety standards. So while there was a legitimate reason, it’s not nearly as applicable anymore. Discouraging sexual freedom and promiscuity makes a lot more sense in a society without birth control and where every additional mouth to feed means someone isn’t making it through the winter. Less so in a modern society. And sometimes there are absolutely legitimate reasons that have just been lost to time (most commonly captured in the idea that most safety rules and regulations are written in blood)
- brookst 4y agoThere could be, but I think the presumption should be that it is normal social evolution to stigmatize minorities. Red-headed people, Jewish/Semitic people, people with cleft palates, on and on. There seems to be a representation threshold below which any observable minority is considered undesirable. To the extent there is a “legitimate reason” it is probably rooted in evolutionary psychology for avoiding too much genetic variation in small tribes. I submit those fences are the opposite of Chesterton’s fence and can happily be ignored in today’s society.
- rendall 4y ago> evolutionary psychology for avoiding too much genetic variation in small tribes Hmm. I suspect it's just "other tribes". We humans will make tribes out of literally any distinction, even athletic team preferences. It's kind of our thing.
- naasking 4y ago> Could there possibly be a legitimate reason for something that clearly absurd? Yes: https://www.straightdope.com/21343459/in-the-third-world-do-people-wipe-with-their-left-hands-plus-g-spot-update https://www.straightdope.com/21343459/in-the-third-world-do-...
- 4y ago
- trelane 4y agoMost sinister[1] example [1] See notes on etymology etc. at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sinister https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sinister