Support NeoGAF

[#Phonepunk#]

I would also point to the decline of religion in the west as a major factor. This changes (IMO, damages) morality.

indeed. i would argue religion has not declined, it was replaced, replaced by pop culture, or by other media.

the amount of time people spent reading the Bible in the past couldn't have been more than the amount of time and energy they spend arguing about Star Wars or comic book movies nowadays. then again they don't learn much from modern movies. they are very poor substitutes for actual Legendary Texts.

the problem is, the old religious stories had moral dimensions to them. modern culture does not. people have read Joseph Campbell and that's about it, they have little interest in the traditions he was studying, they think they are all a joke. Campbell is a Cliff Notes way to summarize all of storytelling and too many writers rely on it these days. he explored the world, saw many types of stories, many unique cosmologies. it is funny that his one circle Hero's Journey diagram he drew is basically used to rubber stamp all Hollywood blockbusters.

postmodernism is a poison. it brings this idea that "everything has already been done" and the only thing left is to juxtapose things, or deconstruct them, usually in a showy way. this drives the popular reliance of "meta" in storytelling, which i find a cheap, shallow gimmick, used by people with little imagination. Donald Glover said "There are no more stories to tell" in this regard, it is this defeatism which when combined with franchisism is strangling culture. this is that postmodern elitism creeping in, thinking you live "at the end of history" and are some special snowflake. it is a crutch the people of the past, the ones who actually created all those legends that we still celebrate (in poorly xeroxed copies) never felt the need to lean on.

 

[oagboghi2]

I don't think women should not vote because they are stupid. Many millions of women are smarter than many men. It is a matter of men and women having different spheres. We are different, but complimentary. This has been the basis for every human family, nation, and culture for thousands of generations until the last hundred years.

You find my positions so distasteful...but you are the one who has the burden of defending the awful status quo, not I. What great things have we gained from women having political power? What have women gained? A society that grows worse and worse, where the feminine is degraded and commercialized for perpetually juvenile basement dwellers to coom to...?

It is amazing the arrogance with which moderns view the world. Watching civilization crumble around our heads, all while pointing and laughing at our retrograde ancestors....while we drowsily continue drifting on the fumes of the world they built for us.

I like how you're pretending as if we don't have real life examples of your bullshit being practiced. Countries that deny women agency in their own lives are not great.

The status quo is not awful. We live in an amazing time in human history. We live so well that you morons are actually crying that people have so much money they can live their lifes on their own terms. You're pining for the days when we were poorer and living cramped with our parents

indeed presentism is rife these days. people had freedom in the past. they had choice. many people are locked into systems they did not ask to be born into. it still happens. families all worked together, and nowadays, the family-owned business is a much rarer thing, we prefer to let corporations run everything. is that really better? things were vastly different but in many ways the same. we have not evolved past them in many, many, many ways. the most important ways tbh.

Define freedom. Because I struggle to understand your definition.

 

[nikolino840]

I wouldn't say it's consumerism. Maybe it's more individualism? Western society tends to value the individual more than the collective unlike here in Asia. Not to say people here can't be individuals, but we tend to value the group dynamic more than anything, especially families.

As an example, I read somewhere that some American children only know of their first cousins. But in a Filipino family like mine, I know my second to fourth degree cousins.

Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Chairman Tickles]

My best guess we can blame the massive rise in single parent households, coupled with the propaganda kids are fed at school, with 80% of the faculty being women. Guess what this does to boys in particular?

 

[Kenpachii]

Wealth and money and rights and culture. that's what changed.

People lived together back in the day because they needed too. There was no other way. Do you think everybody wanted to deal with each other forever? not really.

Now everybody has there own pool of income there own money and there own house as result, because the culture allowed this.

The reason in india why everybody still sits together is simple, u need each other because of money reasons. Make everybody millionaire and see how long they still all live together. not long.

Also its more profitable to live alone, more benefits here then living together as everybody gets extra taxed or extra benefits are simple gone.

U see people here not even marrying anymore and living separate in two houses because it makes them more bank even while one house is empty as result.

The only reason u see a lot of family's coming together and living together is if they don't have there financial level in order. Like kid has issue's getting a job or unstable financially, or your mother needs to look after your kid because u have to work with the two of you to pay the bills.

Then u got the woke crowd that is anti family because lots of females feel like they are trapped with kids. U can't do what u want anymore or what males do. Social media pressuring kids into living luxurious lifes over traditional ones kinda goes against having kids because they will burn you down money wise etc and hold you back.

With costs going up and both parents working kid also gets more disconnected with traditional family value's because he grows up mostly distanced from there family until he goes off to start his own life where its pretty much normal.

Then u also got the "losers" who simple hate family values because that goes against there values for the simple reason they got to man up and get your shit in order instead of being this eternal kid that only cares about themselves ( counts for men and woman ) and think about somebody else then just you.

Then also financial insecurity and higher costs and seeing living together with your parents as failure makes relationships specially with both having equal rights now far more harder to maintain.

 

[appaws]

I like how you're pretending as if we don't have real life examples of your bullshit being practiced. Countries that deny women agency in their own lives are not great.

The status quo is not awful. We live in an amazing time in human history. We live so well that you morons are actually crying that people have so much money they can live their lifes on their own terms. You're pining for the days when we were poorer and living cramped with our parents

"Your bullshit"
"you morons"

Just have to point out that you cannot even construct an argument without insults. It hurts your own argument actually because it tends to reinforce our belief about the vapidity of modernist thinking.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Define freedom. Because I struggle to understand your definition.

fwiw i never said they had "more freedom" or anything like that. i said they had freedom.

you need an example? how about this. if you don't send your children to a public school, you can get arrested and put in jail. your children can be forcibly removed from your house and placed under state care. this is what happens in modern times. they did not do these things back in the old days. school laws are compulsory in every state in the US.

compulsory education laws were largely put in place in order to better assimilate immigrants. in the case of this topic, it means turning the children of new immigrants against the culture of their parents and towards the culture of the state.

Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to enact a compulsory education law in 1852, having already passed a similar law in 1647 when it was still a British colony. The 1852 law required every city and town to offer primary school, focusing on grammar and basic arithmetic. Parents who refused to send their children to school were fined and (in some cases) stripped of their parental rights, and their children apprenticed to others.

Prior to the Massachusetts law and in other states without such laws, education typically was provided by private schools run by churches. Since they also charged tuition, poorer children were excluded or received informal schooling at home. That would change during the immigration boom between the 19th and 20th centuries, as education was seen as the best way to assimilate immigrant children.

During that time, numerous states enacted compulsory education laws designed to take education out of the hands of parochial schools and primarily into the purview of state-run, public schools. These actions were taken in a growing response to fear of "immigrant" values and the Catholic Church itself. The Supreme Court later overturned these so-called "compulsory education" laws that required students to attend public schools only.

Compulsory Education Laws: Background - FindLaw

What are Compulsory Attendance Laws?Compulsory attendance laws are statutes put into force by state governments that require parents to have their children go to a

education.findlaw.com

 

[HarryKS]

People have it too easy. They think they're invulnerable and mistake themselves for the tree rather than a branch.
It's not all bad, it's cycles. It's the way of the world.