Defining "culture" is a bit nebulous anyway. Like, for every rant about "millenials" (a useless term invented by marketers), there's another study showing they're no less hard-working or respectful in the workplace. Different than previous generations (move jobs more, more tech-savvy, etc.) but not better or worse. Social media amplifies some of this stuff, but even a lot of the public outcries over stuff (both the constructive type and the idiotic type) mirror a lot of what has happened in any generation.
So if we're not talking about things we can measure, I have a hard time believing we're discussing anything more than one person's perspective.
So what does complaining about microaggressions or requiring a safe space from the likes of Christina Hoff Sommers mirror from the past? Genuinely curious. I'm curious about the scale as well. I'm sure in past generations we've had people triggered over some innocuous speaker merely because the speaker had views that opposed their own, but did we see it on the same scale as we are now?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
You're right about everything. But my experience with college was not like that. High School was much harder. College was...write this paper, research this, write this paper, read this book and write this paper, etc. Even the technology courses where it got very intense...still wasn't that much more difficult than the high school stuff.
The biggest decay, IMHO, is the evidence that the genetic component of IQ has decreased over the past century for a variety of reasons, particularly deleterious mutation load.
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
Where was this measured? Genuinely curious as I can see it being true.
eg I used to have a much better memory when in 20's, used to have close to thirty phone and pager(yeah, dated myself) numbers memorized in my head and could recall anyone of them flawlessly. Now I'm lucky if I can remember two as the need to remember is no longer there or more to the point, replaced by a machine (my phone) that does it for me.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Okay so a lot of the standards by which we also measure societal prosperity such as the ones just mentioned by you and the ones mentioned by Ellimist would be seriously positively impacted by economic growth, advancement of technology, and advancement of scientific knowledge, which are all things I don't dispute we've made advances in, and I wasn't disputing the overall advancement of society, merely it's advancement along the dimension of culture. Saying that society overall is better than it was last decade doesn't discredit the point I'm making since all of that is linked to areas nobody would dispute we've made progress in such as scientific knowledge, technology, and economic growth.
I'll touch upon the destruction of the family unit since you mentioned that one. The single motherhood rate has been rising in every community for a while now, and single motherhood is the largest predictor of inter-generational poverty, as well as being linked with a whole host of other things, such as violent crime, teenage pregnancy, homelessness, dropping out of school, etc. as well as having a higher likelihood of dealing with psychological problems. http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._children_.html
I used this article specifically because as the opening sentence in the quote says the author and person who did the study are both in support of the shift in family structure, so what they are saying isn't exaggerated out of a bias against the changing family structure.
So it's not only harmful for the children born out of wedlock, but bears consequences for those in their adult lives as well.
Also a lot of the things I mentioned are pretty self-evidently bad, such as:
Propagandizing children with political ideology, often with taxpayer money, which I've pointed out happens both in public elementary schools, and on children's shows on Public networks... so... propagandizing children and using taxpayer money to to it.
Practices such as diversity quotas which are inherently discriminatory on the basis of identity and operate not only in the private sector but in the public sector as well (ie. public universities), as well as the ideology that argues in favor of this being pushed on elementary school students and being entrenched in the corporate training of places such as Google. Not only does this unfairly discriminate against specific individuals on the basis of their identity, but the contempt for meritocracy as a "white male" ideology suggests that it is not good to solely focus on selecting the best candidate for a position (which any reasonable person would do).
The expanding repression of people's right to free speech in the rest of the west to which I've mentioned numerous examples that aren't even hate speech, such as Count Dankula, the girl who posted rap lyrics with the n-word, Canadian senators openly and virtually unanimously arguing in favor of compelled speech, Jordan Peterson being smeared as having an unacceptable opinion when he says the government shouldn't be able to compel citizens' speech, people getting arrested for protesting a mosque that was calling for the death of jews.. although even criminalizing hate speech is a grave moral injustice. I'd say the repression of human rights and support for such things among the populace is a pretty tangible negative thing.
Likewise the push for "multiculturalism" and the contempt with which people argue against national or cultural identity and this cultural force's impact are pretty self-evident in Europe with the migrant crisis, with the sexual assault spree in Germany on one new years day, the child grooming gangs in the UK (which authorities are more hesitant to act on for fear of being labeled racist), the rise of violent crime and antisemitism in certain areas, and the fact that if you criticize taking in this many migrants from such a culture at once and them not assimilating, you get smeared as a racist, and if you criticize Islam you get smeared as a racist and get death threats from a certain portion of the population.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
As for the decay of the dialogue... well... the government repression of free speech is already a pretty handy example of that, as well as views of free speech on college campuses, such as an alarming proportion of college students thinking use of disruption to prevent someone from speaking on college campuses, or even the use of violence, is acceptable (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...m-a-new-survey/) and we have seen numerous examples of this over the past few years with speakers that aren't even racists, I mean shit when half a million dollars is needed for security for Ben Shapiro to speak on a college campus clearly things have gone too far. It's pretty obvious that discourse in the west has decayed just from an observance of modern political polarization, once again free speech issues, the emergence of extremist movements such as antifa and the alt-right, the use of disruptive tactics by protesters against speakers they disagree with, several media outlets blatantly lying about people whose views are the antithesis of racism, that there has been a noticeable decay in our ability to have a dialogue or a common social fabric, and through conversation and discourse that we are able to reason as a society about profound issues, so this is not a very good thing at all.
Also just another thing I forgot to mention, the pushing of this gender constructivist ideology has lead to laws in some other countries (and IIRC even in some parts of the US though I could be mistaken) that require parents to allow and pay for the medical transitioning of their children if their children have gender dysphoria and want it, and this is a huge problem because it is the government imposing on parents that they must allow children to make decisions that could potentially permanently alter their body and that if they don't the government could remove their children from them, which is a little more disturbing considering like 80% of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it.
The decay of marriage thing is something that I didn't really explain in my original post, but it seems like virtually everything else I mentioned is pretty self-evidently negative. Plus like I said I never said society as a whole were better and a lot of the metrics you mentioned or ellimist mentioned owe their advancements to scientific or economic progress rather than cultural progress.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
You typed a lot and I disagree with just about everything.
If all markers of success, some of which are directly relevant to your point, have improved then you're point is simply wrong and you must learn to let go of factually incorrect ideas.
But this point in particular of yours is a very good one. It touches upon why I picked 1920 - SEM (socioeconomic mobility). Black people in 1920 had better SEM than they do now. Let me explain:
Consider x to be the MVS (minimum viable standard). MVS = high school education and middle class income job (similar to the link and article you pointed out). When black people were born in 1920, obtaining x was significantly more likely than now, even if they were born in x-1 or x-2 situations. They simply had a better chance to improve their situation. I am not saying that they do not now but it just does not happen as often as it did, then. Things like "Black Wall Street" were a thing. It existed. Black people were improving their SES at a remarkable rate. Let me tell you about Black Wall Street: better homes, education for the children, and luxuries than their white neighbors. Things like indoor plumbing were standard in their homes.
This lady, while very clearly writing from a bias, wrote a nice article on it:
Pretty strange, right? Something like Black Wall Street EXISTED in 1920. That's what I mean by SEM. It's important. Much more often than now, they could be born into poverty and end up in a better place, socioeconomically.
WHY? Why is this? This is the important question. Part of it is as you have mentioned: the destruction of the family unit. This is also why conservatives talk about removing welfare: it forces people to start families and stay families (so their narrative goes). What happens if you can have your cake and eat it too? What happens if you implement a UBI system that allows single mothers to stay as single mothers if they want but also get a college education and a damn good job? Now you bring in SEM goodness AND you don't have to force couples to stay together by removing welfare. This isn't a pipe-dream or fanciful thinking: this is actually what happened in one such UBI program (already talked about it).
Anyway, yes, you're on to something. Black and Hispanic families are suffering from the destruction of the standard family unit. That much is true. It's affecting SEM and many other outcomes.
Let's get back onto your main point, however: those items I mentioned, cite your points. Prove your points based on that list I made (and those are not the only outcomes to consider). Your point CAN be proven. You can prove your point. It is not an opinion. These "degradation of culture" points you're making can have data to back up or prove you wrong. It would be quite easy to find data on mental health over time.
Why don't you do this? Why don't you make the effort to prove your point? You type a lot of words. You clearly put in a lot of time. Why didn't you prove your point with actual tangible data, though? This is what is bothering me about your point. Do you already know the answers and you know you're just plain wrong? I am not being combative. Tell me why you didn't make the effort and, instead, spent a long ass time typing out a huge double post? If I were you, I would have laid down the smack with some citations and ended my post with a smug "suck it" or something.
Just saw this. You tried to sneak this through so no one would see it, eh?
What you're trying to do here is honest. What I said came from the article. They directly stated racist things about Trump. And you did not ask for a headline.
Damn, dude...you can't even make it a couple of posts with lying again. You suck.
I think you answered your own question. "...did we see it...?" you wrote.
We didn't see it as much because their weren't people selling it to us. The answer is social media, clickbait, and 24-hour news, not anything markedly different in human behavior.
Take a look at this forum. "Stories to make you triggered." "In this thread is a photo that will make {X} angry." It's clickbait to raise your blood pressure, and you let it happen.
Meanwhile, there are literally millions of people ignoring those headlines and going about their lives, interacting with hundreds if not thousands of people who aren't SJWing their victim culture all over their Snapchats. Life is pretty f---ing normal when you aren't looking for reasons to be angry on the internet. And the social media obsessed teens and early 20-somethings perpetuating a lot of what you're talking about will grow up, some will remain ridiculous, but most will mature and tackle issues with more perspective, or learn to ignore it and will go about their lives.
There's a trend here, sure. The clever marketers selling this drivel to us have convinced enough people that it's important and widespread. But acting like it's a societal cancer is an eminent overreaction.
Sorry about that, yes, that thread was intended as click bait but they both know me and my positions quite well and it was more for us all 3 to have a laugh (somewhat at each other's expense) about it.
They know that I have quite a strong position (pro-transgenderism and in general, very pro-LGBT...really, it's just "let consenting adults do what they want with each other and to themselves") about this topic and we all 3 have argued about it. It was not intended to make blood boil or make people legit mad-bro. I would fully expect one of them to make a thread mocking delicious looking pizza or donuts because, clearly, I love those things.
So essentially your argument is it happened, we just didn't see it cuz there was no social media, etc.
Which doesn't that work out to you not really having to provide any proof beyond just what you mentioned? It's neat, but it's not what I was looking for. If this stuff mirrors stuff in the past I'd be curious for some actual examples. Thanks in advance.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
It probably happened some, but I doubt it was anywhere near as common as it is now.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
IMO, as of the present day, racism against whites in America is more socially acceptable than racism against any other race.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
If I'm straw manning you, it's because you never bothered to cite which part of the article pertained to the point you were making.
And with that in mind, you still aren't telling me which parts of the article you're interpreting to say "Trump got elected because he was white".
Furthemore, you're citing the atlantic which isn't anywhere near as mainstream as fox news. All I've so far from the Atlantic are allegations Trump is racist. Allegations it supports with
I can't comment on the cnn article because when i clicked it it said
Quote on me on which part of the article was racist. And then show me this happening on a source comparably mainstream as fox news. If you can't do either, then this example you're citing is not equivalent to fox news' treatment of Obama.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 25th, 2018 05:47 PM
