Thanks for sharing that. I will be listening.Brownstein predicts civil war in the United States within the next 10-15 years and lays out some compelling reasons for such a disturbing possibility. I'm inclined to agree with him, unfortunately. — Erik
The technological, social progressive, Democrat, global elite along with most who work for them (corporatists) have a vision of society that is totally antithetical to more "rooted" values. On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk have a completely different worldview which values local community, family ties, social conservatism, etc. significantly more. — Agustino
I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already. They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life. It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.I agree with your strategy for possible reconciliation, but I doubt enough progressives would be receptive to the form of social conservatism we have in mind, even if it's rounded out with the sort of forward-thinking economic policies they may find amenable. — Erik
Was it this guy? His book was somewhat interesting:Incidentally, I remember seeing a short video a few years ago where a guy (I think he was Russian!) was ridiculed for predicting the future fragmentation of the United States into a few separate countries. — Erik
Yes, I agree with that.Brownstein makes a good point about Trump: He's a "wartime" president but the enemy is "Blue America." I hadn't thought about it like that before but I think he's right. — Erik
Ah, the lust for killing each other. As if that would make your country better.There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. — Agustino
I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already. They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life. It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.
So that is the difficulty. It's not a matter of reason. It's simply a matter of will. — Agustino
The age people get married at in Western societies is increasing. Why is that? Because more and more people are opposed to "getting tied to someone", since they perceive it as impinging over their individual liberty. — Agustino
How about some evidence? — Benkei
Not worth the price.This doesn't have anything to do with increased labour participation of women, higher levels of education, higher levels of welfare, better birth control and longer lifespans at all? — Benkei
And that's why nowadays it takes 2 people working to sustain a family, whereas in the recent past 1 was enough (100 years ago). Labour participation of women though is a very anachronistic concept - it makes it sound like women never did any labour at all in the past, and simply stayed at home. But that's simply not true, at least it's not true for most of human history. Before the Industrial Revolution women worked alongside men. Women were also farmers, women were also involved in the trades, and so on so forth. This didn't prevent them from getting married though. So labour participation of women isn't sufficient to account for this. Maybe the fact that some women have become more individualistic and value their career more than getting married, now that's a different story and has nothing to do with labour participation of women. The is true for men.increased labour participation of women — Benkei
If you call the joke University education has become today as "higher levels of education", oh well... Maybe on paper they are higher, but nowhere else.higher levels of education — Benkei
And higher levels of people who live on benefits.higher levels of welfare — Benkei
Has positive and negative consequences, but it has tended towards the negative. All our use of technology tends towards the negative, that is why even most new technologies are developed for military uses first, before they are introduced for civil use.better birth control — Benkei
Don't see a correlation...longer lifespans — Benkei
Why don't you start a thread about this instead of in the Donald Trump thread. I think it's quite apparent social conservatist are a vocal minority. — Benkei
Not worth the price. — Agustino
increased labour participation of women
And that's why nowadays it takes 2 people working to sustain a family, whereas in the recent past 1 was enough (100 years ago). Labour participation of women though is a very anachronistic concept - it makes it sound like women never did any labour at all in the past, and simply stayed at home. But that's simply not true, at least it's not true for most of human history. Before the Industrial Revolution women worked alongside men. Women were also farmers, women were also involved in the trades, and so on so forth. This didn't prevent them from getting married though. So labour participation of women isn't sufficient to account for this. Maybe the fact that some women have become more individualistic and value their career more than getting married, now that's a different story and has nothing to do with labour participation of women. The is true for men.
In fact, in the Eastern European countries it is women who want to get married early, and men who put it off. Why do men put it off?
If you call the joke University education has become today as "higher levels of education", oh well... Maybe on paper they are higher, but nowhere else.
And higher levels of people who live on benefits.
Has positive and negative consequences, but it has tended towards the negative. All our use of technology tends towards the negative, that is why even most new technologies are developed for military uses first, before they are introduced for civil use.
Don't see a correlation...
I think this is a good idea. You should start a topic on social conservatism, Agustino, and we could discuss it from various angles. Our versions (mine and Agustino's) overlap in some places - e.g. need to challenge values of consumerism and commercialism - but also diverge pretty significantly in others. — Erik
I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority.First off, I didn't need evidence of later ages of marriages but evidence that it's because people "are opposed to "getting tied to someone"". — Benkei
That's not what I was referring to. I wasn't referring to women who laboured at home. I was referring to women labouring away from home.First off, I never said staying at home doesn't entail labour but since it isn't recognised as such and unpaid, it doesn't allow for independence for women. — Benkei
Simple. Double the labour force, half the salaries.The causal link between the increased paid labour participation for women and this resulting that two people are necessary to sustain a family is lost on me. Care to explain? — Benkei
Personally, I don't think women should stay at home, women should work, since work is an important aspect of life. But working does not imply lack of family values or getting married late. As I have explained, prior to the Industrial Revolution, women also worked in trades - away from home - or even farming (which didn't always occur on their own farm, many people didn't have this privilege).Second, as a social conservatist you refer to a time when women worked along side of men. So which past are you gunning for now? Are women supposed to stay at home or not? — Benkei
Sure, and many have, unfortunately, taken it. Why have they taken it? Because of increased individualism, consumerism, and selfishness. So the causality goes the other way around.allowing them a third choice next to marriage or celibacy and living with their parents. — Benkei
They teach that in schools?Such as: don't get fucking pregnant at 16 and get forced in a marriage you don't want! — Benkei
The point is that as technology has developed, our moral capacity hasn't developed proportionally. So we're still the same brutes we were in the past, we now have better technology, and are thus capable of greater evil. That was a general point.This is empty of content. What negative consequences? — Benkei
It is more difficult to have kids with age. In addition, the body's maximum reproductive capacity occurs much earlier, which means that the best time to have children is missed. So I disagree that longer lifespan means you don't have to hurry.Longer lifespans means you don't have to hurry to get married and get kids. — Benkei
I see smaller families as the effect of less kids, not the other way around.Smaller families also means less kids, which also means you can start later. — Benkei
Sure, I don't have any stats, but I have some doubts :)Finally, many people choose to live together instead of getting married and it's not a given those relationships are any less stable than marriages. — Benkei
First off, I didn't need evidence of later ages of marriages but evidence that it's because people "are opposed to "getting tied to someone"" — Benkei
I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority. — Agustino
If we want to challenge the values of consumerism and commercialism (a challenge I heartily endorse) we have to ask, "Where did these values come from?" They came from the bourgeoisie, that class which is both conservative and revolutionary. Revolutionary, here, in that the bourgeoisie -- the captains of industry, embraced mass media to supplant the former function of mass education. — Bitter Crank
1. What is the relationship between public opinions and laws?I think one of our key areas of disagreement would be my, I guess you could call it bottom-op approach, which wold seek to change opinions rather than laws. — Erik
Me too - at least to a certain extent. At the very least you don't want the government dictating who you marry, when you can have children, if you can have children, when you can have sex etc.I'm skeptical of government dictating things like sexual behavior - I think that's a horrible idea in fact - — Erik
I agree that it doesn't necessarily lead to hedonism, but, given the condition of your average human being, I think the tendency is certainly towards hedonism. It requires external restrictions (ie, peer pressure) in order to curb it.I don't think individual freedom necessarily leads to hedonism or precludes a sense of communal responsibility. — Erik
I agree with your vision, however, I think it is almost impossible to achieve on a large scale. People are problematic. The whip has always been needed throughout history to govern most men. It is true that there are some enlightened people out there, who will freely choose the good. But they are not the majority. What makes you think that the MAJORITY of men can be so educated that they will freely choose the good, instead of engage in self-destructive behaviour, much like the type of behaviour described by Dostoyevsky in the Underground Man?In my ideal world, mom and dad (or mom and mom, or dad and dad, I honestly don't care as long as it's a loving and committed relationship) would both work less and spend more time with their children, or doing other things that evince some freedom from strictly economic considerations. A society where values shift so radically that (e.g.) employers would choose to make a bit less for the sake of paying their employees a living wage. — Erik
I agree. I think most of those guys are selfish, they are scared to commit to their girlfriend through marriage, and they also want to keep other possibilities open. I disagree with all those actions, and I have spoken to some friends and acquaintances too against it.yet say that they don't want to get married because of "independence". That suggests to me that something else is at play. — Maw
I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already. — Agustino
They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life.
It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.
I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority. — Agustino
Simple. Double the labour force, half the salaries.
Personally, I don't think women should stay at home, women should work, since work is an important aspect of life. But working does not imply lack of family values or getting married late. As I have explained, prior to the Industrial Revolution, women also worked in trades - away from home - or even farming (which didn't always occur on their own farm, many people didn't have this privilege). — Agustino
Sure, and many have, unfortunately, taken it. Why have they taken it? Because of increased individualism, consumerism, and selfishness. So the causality goes the other way around. — Agustino
Now with regards to birth control, some people use birth control to avoid having children in order to foster intimacy with their partner in marriage or in a committed relationship. BUT most uses of birth control aren't for this - they are to promote fornication and sexual promiscuity. — Agustino
I see smaller families as the effect of less kids, not the other way around. — Agustino
It is more difficult to have kids with age. In addition, the body's maximum reproductive capacity occurs much earlier, which means that the best time to have children is missed. So I disagree that longer lifespan means you don't have to hurry. — Agustino
I agree with your observation. But what do you reckon is the cause? Less opportunities? Too much bureaucracy? Lower salaries?but the strongest factor is that Millennials are, due to economic uncertainty and financial difficulties, establishing their careers first. — Maw
Yes, I agree with this. Personally, I think such apps, and much of social media too should be heavily restricted. Not just with regards to dating and relationships, but with regards to quality of life and everything else, I think all the social media is having a very negative effect on society. That's why I've stopped using Facebook.including dating apps which effectively transforms dating into a Pokemon like game — Maw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.