Tradition

Do you respect or care for tradition? I used to have a disdain for anything remotely associated with traditional, say, roles, religion, and marriage; culture in general really. In the past months though I've changed quite a bit and now am more conservative, socially and politically. I'd like to start a thread on tradition, this can be in computing, religion, culture, anything that has history. To start with, I want to counter my generation's current view of sex roles being fluid. I seem to have fondness towards the idea of the man being the “breadwinner”, while the woman takes care of the house, cleans, does recreational activities and such. A reason for this could be a sense of pride in taking care of your partner and the responsibility that comes with it. Also, having your partner take care of most house work leaves that worry out of your mind so such isn't a focus at all, leaving work and hopefully intellectual (programming, math, reading, etc) musings abound, and of course a deeper respect towards your loved one. Sex is something I've actually always have been traditional and old fashion with. I have quite a deep gross feeling towards those who've had a multitude of sexual partners, and especially encounters outside of a relationship as this seems to indicate a purely physical relationship to sex, which I oppose. Sex can be purely physical but that is one layer to it, and a trivial one at that. I believe my feelings towards women in a traditional manner comes from the fact that I was raised primarily by women, having a lack of father roles in my life. Which I think was a horrible mistake on my mothers part. There's a huge amount of study showing the lack of one parent, or the separation of parents, severely affects children in a negative way. http://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistics-2016 Here's a great video featuring Camille Paglia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvrxQ4M3EOo One tradition I think that's really missing from the modern family is a sense of deep respect for your family name and lineage. Your name nowadays is random and you have no respectable history. If I was to start a family, something I'd aim to instill in my children would be to give your family honor.

>>889 *tips fedora* *tips whole stack of fedoras* *gets sucked into his fedora which grows into a giant fedora UFO that shoots lighting bolts upon anyone not conceived inside holy matrimony*

>>890 It's always amusing to see the almost instinctive disrespect to anything which is not part of nihilist or postmodern thought.

I'm in a similar place as you, where I start to appreciate some traditions and customs. I still do not see any value in marriage for myself, however. A couple can raise their child without being married, but I see how social pressures and traditions would keep them from splitting up. However, I vehemently disagree with your views on sex. There is an evolutionary instinct for men to favour women without prior sexual partners, which does not make much sense in the age of condoms and birth control.

I don't disrespect, but I just don't give a fuarrrk, since more of the traditions have religious basis and I have no faith. Some of these traditions is about respect, though. I'm especially referring to some japanese traditions, which I find really beautiful, such as the respect for the nature, respect for the older, some festivals that has meaning beyond shintoism (such as the Sakura-matsuri, that is to remember the Mono no Aware - everything is impermanent). The "Mottainai" also. The "Ubi sunt" on europe is also something respectable. >about woman You probably trying to protect your possible future child. It's the protectionism embedded on your heuristics. >on computing I don't really give much about computing traditions, but I think congresses like Chaos Communication Congress really cool. But not because of tradition, because of information. >>891 Please, stop using the word "postmodern" that way. It's not correct. Read about the postmodernism philosophy and you'll understand that it has nothing to do with time period. If you want to refer to our current period of time, them use "contemporary" would be more suitable.

>>891 Even though I agree with you somewhat on most of the points you made, there is no denying you are a fedora edgelord. One clue is your admission of your recent adoption of these values. This implies an exaggerated reactionary shift from your previous maternally influenced liberal values, which often does lead to romanticising "traditional values" and viewing them with undue nostalgia. For example, >muh family history and lineage Imagine if your access to the internet was limited due to you being of poor stock, or your right to a good education and employability dependant on your bloodline or status rather than merit. Despite facing socioeconomic discrimination, elitism and over-zealous monitoring by nation-states, we still have more opportunities for social mobility compared to fifty or a hundred years ago. On sex and women, there are plenty of "traditional" women from patriarchal cultures who would agree with your attitudes. However they also have their own prerequisites; good job, healthy, prestigious family, well educated, willing to put up with simple minded whims and the quirks of their patriarchal upbringing etc. Thus it is not liberal society that is an obstacle to getting these women, but the individual themselves. Conservative values are all well and good, I am conservatively leaning myself, but don't confuse it with blind nostalgia for traditionalism, it is not a mark of being cultured and it is not intrinsically superior to trash SJW ideology which has equally misguided motives.

>>896 Was also intended to reply to >>889

>>893 Marriage can be a useful legal structure, can benefit you with ownership and taxes. I myself don't really see anything in the social side either though.

>>895 >I just don't give a fuarrrk Right, which is what I was criticizing when I said nihilism and postmodern thought, not that postmodernism is a time but a philosophy, obviously. I know how to reference my time period correctly. >>896 It's not nostalgia in regards to family history and patriarchal women but more of a grounding in structure and something to take pride in, which I find attractive. You seem to imply that women who'd align themselves with conservative thought are stupid; Heh. These newly founded thoughts are certainly a reaction, and rightly so. May I be edgelord supreme. >>893 I look at marriage in a symbolic way, that's all. If it is/was legally complicated, I wouldn't feel compelled to take part in it in that way but nonetheless I'd propose and such.

I have respect for tradition to some extent, but we shouldn't keep living in the past. The whole sex roles thing is just silly. We're all individuals, and everyone should be who they want to be, instead of being forced into a role depending on whether they have a dick or a vagina. Respect for family name and lineage also seems silly. Families cross all the time; that's how we don't go extinct as a species. Also, last names can be a real burden: a friend of mine is 7/8 parts Dutch, and 1/8th Indian. Too bad for him though, he has the Indian family name just because the male line up to him carried it, which always gets him comments and has actively hindered him getting a job. There are no merits to it, because don't think Indians will see him as Indian. I think you've read a little too much nationalist propaganda recently, and you'd do well waking up from these delusions.

While I certainly won't stop someone for following tradition, I don't follow too many myself, nor do I plan on following many. The one thing I'm not a fan of is the often used expression, "X is how we've always done it." Any mutation of that really. It isn't really a reason to keep doing something, is it? That seems to be most people's defense for a lot of tradition, which I suppose is why it's tradition.

"fuarrrk where you're from, fuarrrk where you're going, it's all about where you're at" I think the ultimate issue with people today isn't that sex is freely available, drug legalization, or even internet addiction. The root of human problems, at least in the west today, is that people can't deny pleasure. They can't struggle to get more rewarding pleasures, these seek empty pleasure. Look at the person flipping through IFunny or watching Youtube for hours. These people have always existed, weak humans who can't overcome their problems. Nietzsche asked us to ask "Today - Is greatness possible?" It seems the time of the last man is here, where nihilism is our religion, tradition won't fix soykaf because tradition is just as bad. I can't provide you with a solution because it's far out of the scope of just my intelligence, but I think as a society we need to start fixing our institutions, education needs to head in a different direction to appeal to students who want fulfillment. We live in a society that acts like we're fine with empty pleasure, because our institutions, jobs, etc don't fulfill us. It's why people become NEETs, it's easier and more pleasurable to just leave society than it is to learn how to play the game. I'm hoping I'm making some sense, I've been thinking about it lately, but this is my first time articulating these thoughts.

>>889 >"comes from the fact that I was raised primarily by women" >i had a lotta moms >"having your partner take care of most house work" >therefore i want my girlfriend to be my mom >"was a horrible mistake on my mothers part" >my mom fuarrrked me up instilling weird ideas in me >"something I'd aim to instill in my children" >so i want to have kids and mess with them too

>>889 >Also, having your partner take care of most house work leaves that worry out of your mind so such isn't a focus at all, leaving work and hopefully intellectual (programming, math, reading, etc) musings abound Go hire a maid if you just want a housekeeper so that you have more free time. >One tradition I think that's really missing from the modern family is a sense of deep respect for your family name and lineage. Your name nowadays is random and you have no respectable history Why should someone be given respect for things that they didn't accomplish themselves and had no part in?

>>901 >accepts that his views are reactionary and have not had time to mature >still carries an air of pomposity in his words It seems like you are experiencing a sense of contrarian superiority because of your liberal surroundings/upbringing. I look forward to your conservative ideas developing beyond tired cliches designed to trigger liberals and advertise your new found identity. Learn to read dummy, no implication was made on the intelligence of conservative women. A conservative girl has different requirements and expectations of a partner in comparison to a liberal girl, requirements that are inherently tied in to to their cultural upbringing. On a more constructive note, tradition for the sake of tradition is assured loss of the values that are sought to be preserved and the sense of grounding that goes along with them. The answer lies not in juvenile chauvinism, but in establishing normative precepts that inform your moral choices and what you pass on to your children. Establishing values beyond traditionalist cliches is the real challenge for a young conservative and a lifelong pursuit at that. If you haven't already started, read as many works on philosophy and ethics as possible to inform the underlying values that form the real foundation and grounding in a personal belief system. Discussing which works to read is beyond the scope of this reply, but there should be infographics/starting guides floating around should you wish to search for them. If conservativism is simply wanting to live a circa-1950's Mad Men lifestyle without any honest introspection then disregard the above.

I don't believe in blindly adhering to tradition, but I also don't believe in disregarding it. There is a solid middle ground to be found in modernizing tradition. >gender roles Well, yeah, there's a reason for these. It's somehow controversial to say so, but the minds of men and women are optimized for different tasks. This was necessary throughout time in order to ensure that a) there was always someone providing, and b) there was always someone nurturing. In modern times this is no longer strictly necessary, but there are still consequences for disregarding it. Masculinity and femininity are polar opposites. They compliment each other and provide structure within relationships and families. When you have spouses butting heads (trying to share the masculine role), you end up splitting off into two directions, which does not make for a cohesive family. When you have spouses waiting for the other to lead (trying to share the feminine role), you end up going absolutely nowhere. Women like leaders, and men like to be supported in their leading. Many people will deny this, but it's hard to deny the evolutionary cause. >sex/promiscuity This also has its basis in fact. Studies[1] have demonstrated that a greater number of sexual partners is associated with lower marital satisfaction. Sex establishes a bond, and there's no way to continually form and break bonds without losing a bit of the magic along the way. There's also the obvious: someone who enjoys having many sexual partners will be "giving something up" upon marrying, leading to worries of infidelity and dissatisfaction. And, of course, when a man knows his partner has had others before him, he may worry about performance, size, etc. >lineage It's not so easy to back this one up with anything concrete. I guess this is more of an aesthetic thing than a rational one: it feels good to be proud of one's family, or to be proud of one's country/heritage. There's a sense of pride involved, and a person who is receptive to this feeling will likely feel some pressure to contribute to this "legacy." This is a very good thing, when you consider the number of people who are content to drift along, as >>927 said. >religion This is a trickier one. Abrahamic religions come with a host of difficulties (although I do feel very positively about the effect of Christianity on the west, especially protestant belief). These scriptures are in many ways outdated, and it can be difficult to apply their rulings to modern life, especially when interpretation is so divided (particularly among protestant/liberal sects of Christianity--and liberal Judaism is probably worse). This is where modernization comes into play. For me, the answer has been Christian Deism. Many others have found comfort in "modern spirituality," which is not my cup of tea, but involvement in spirituality is really all that matters; the particulars are not so important. Tradition on its own carries a great deal of value. Gender roles, patriarchy, religion, marriage etc. are all just expressions of how humans have been able to operate best over the years. And yes, "this is how it's always been done" does not make for a very compelling argument by itself. But take some time to think about why these things have been done this way for so long and you may just find yourself falling into agreement. [1] It seems the source for this is down. There are lots of secondary sources around, though.

>>889 >>891 You've got it all wrong. It's just a knee-jerk reaction to edgelords.

>>935 I'm not OP but I think you've given him some very good advice on how to become a better conservative. In particular you've highlighted the main difference between the ideological left and the ideological right conservatism is about a set of deeply held absolute values expressed through traditions, this is a contrast to the modern political left which believes that morals are relative. >>889 It sounds lame but I rediscovered the value of tradition when I started going to church again, I'm not a religious person by any means but I understand the value of religion in a society. After reading your last post it sounds like you've discovered the same thing. A few months ago I also started volunteering a few times a week, there's a real joy in civic duty and in helping those less fortunate than yourself, and I think it'll help your values mature if you spend a little bit of time volunteering. Personally I don't share your views on sex, because I enjoy fuarrrking bitches and I've got a big ol' dick, there's a point where I wouldn't want to screw with a girl because she's been around too much though, this probably makes me a hypocrite but women are my favorite vice. But if that's what you believe there's plenty of women out there who would be happy to oblige you; growing up I got to spend some time with some adorable Christian girls who would only give it up if you put a ring on their finger.

>>889 I have a deep and abiding respect for tradition, always since I was a wee lad, but I recognize it's only useful if you were brought up a certain way and not damaged like you are with an absent father role. It's normal for people to become more conservative as they grow older. There is such a thing as a traditional conservative instinct as opposed to a liberal progressive instinct, and I believe maybe nature chose you to be part of the old guard. Somebody has to be the anchor that others rebel against. If you really aspire to establish yourself as an elitist, tradition may be for you. I wouldn't get married if I were you though unless you were really able to overcompensate because you probably will not be a great father. If you do marry, make sure you're actually best friends with your wife and not just lusty lovers. Pragmatically speaking traditional marriage is a container of value and the family is a vital social unit. Be careful though OP or you might just start praying soon and attending church. These are not popular ideas, but I like to say it how I see it even as a relativist.

>>893 >There is an evolutionary instinct for men to favour women without prior sexual partners Why would there be? That sounds something you made up without actually thinking it through.

>>952 Not him, but birth control is a recent invention. The non-virgin woman of yore could be in the early stages of pregnancy, and a man would not want to risk expending his energy on the seed of others. This is part of why sexual purity came to be valued.

I appreciate tradition as a way of bringing people together, but not when it is used to unjustly restrict people. An example of the positive: the UK is a monarchy. It has been for some time. We have a lot of quirky traditions relating to that. These traditions, shared across an entire country, unify people in a sense of "britishness". It helps create a sense of national identity and pride, whilst not being restrictive or discriminatory. An example of the negative: the rampant sexism in STEM fields. Traditionally, intellectual pursuits have been a man's job. Today this results in a cultural bias meaning many girls are simply raised to not think of going into those fields (boys are given lego, girls are given dolls, etc). It also results in men demeaning women in those fields not because of anything they have said or done, but because they are a woman. Furthermore, it leads to discrimination against men to try to fix this problem at too high a level: there are grants and funding exclusively for women in STEM, but none exclusively for men; whereas the real way to solve the problem is to prevent the bias parents and peers instil in children in the first place! >>889 >One tradition I think that's really missing from the modern family is a sense of deep respect for your family name and lineage. Your name nowadays is random and you have no respectable history. Peasant have never had respect for family history. That is something for the nobles and aristocrats. I feel like this modern trend of respecting family history (and yes, it is definitely a modern trend in my opinion) is a knee-jerk reaction against increasingly rapid social change. Things are changing technologically and socially very rapidly, so we cling on to the old, and become more conservative, in order to feel more grounded. >>896 has a good point. Unnecessary respect for lineage has only one logical conclusion, which has been repeated many times through history: "Oh, you're from XXX family? Sorry, we don't want your kind here." Judging people based on their ancestors has both good and bad points. More bad than good, I feel; as the expectation becomes that people do have a respectable family history, and those who don't must be hiding something. >>927 I recently came across the idea of a "tech sabbath": setting aside one time a week to be free of technology from one sunset to another, in order to help break this so-common internet and entertainment addiction. I'm thinking of giving it a try soon.

>I seem to have fondness towards the idea of the man being the “breadwinner”, while the woman takes care of the house You're allowed to have a fondness of it. Personally, I have a fondness of it too. I don't plan on starting a family with a woman who also has a career. Events from my childhood have fostered this desire to start a family with a stay at home mom in me; however, I think it would be wrong to try to force a woman not to have a career, or tell a young girl she can't have a career or go to college, because she is to become a stay at home mom. I believe her future is hers to decide, and whether or not she'd like to perpetuate the traditional role of housewife is solely her decision. >I have quite a deep gross feeling towards those who've had a multitude of sexual partners, and especially encounters outside of a relationship as this seems to indicate a purely physical relationship to sex, which I oppose. For me, it's a lot less of a 'gross' feeling, and more of me just not respecting them as mature. I don't know, maybe that makes me a dick, but how I feel on this stems from my belief that sex is fairly important and spiritual, and I feel an act *I* respect is disrespected when peers just fuarrrk willy nilly. >a sense of deep respect for your family name and lineage. My family lineage is a boat and chains and my family name is the name of the man who decided to purchase my great grandmother's father. Any history or lineage we had beyond that is lost to the annals of time. Funny enough though, my father since I was young used our family name as a thing to inspire me and my brothers and sisters; it's become something we all strongly identify with. And in light of this I challenge if where the name came from is anywhere near as important as what it means to us now. >"You are a <name>, that means you compete in everything you do. That means you compete in academics, atheletics, and life, until you achieve. Because that's what <names> do, they compete, and they achieve." I to this day try my best to live up to these silly propaganda-ish things because it feels like it gives me strength. I plan to repeat the same sentiment to any kids I might have of my own one day.

>>955 This theory completely ignores that most pre-civilization societies practised some form of group marriage...

>>961 Yes, and there was also a time when men would rape women and move onto the next without worrying about where their seed ended up. These instincts develop over time. We ended up embracing monogamy, and that should say enough.

>>962 I doubt that time ever existed. Preferring purity is not an instinct, it's purely cultural. Culture changes much more rapidly than instincts. In our current age there's simply no reason to prefer """pure""" women to others.

>>967 >I doubt that time ever existed. Ancient Greek and Roman military would rape women as a spoil of war, sometimes taking the women with them, but often leaving them. And it certainly wouldn't surprise me if indiscriminate rape occurred pre-civilization, given the lack of social penalty. Where there are urges, there are people acting on them. >In our current age there's simply no reason to prefer """pure""" women to others. Check the sex/promiscuity portion of >>939 . Maybe these aren't good enough reasons for you personally, but to say that there is "simply no reason" is a bit dishonest.

Edgelord Pompous Supreme OP here. >>917 Blindly following anything, except perhaps in a first leap of faith, is never good. Tradition isn't exempt from that. Tradition is adhering to past principles and such based partly on the fact that they've been around for so long and have worked well. I think that's a pretty good basis to start our/my discovery of tradition. >>927 >The root of human problems, at least in the west today, is that people can't deny pleasure. Well, perhaps it's something even deeper than that. I haven't read Nietzsche but I remember Jordan Peterson describing his idea that the Christianity dogma was oppressive and because it held such a high ideal to truth, it eventually collapsed under itself, "God is dead". Nietzsche feared that either Nihilism or Authoritarian ideals would take place in compensation. I hypothesize, because I certainly don't understand this in depth, that the fundamental human problem we face is the battle between nihilism and having a higher meaning which makes suffering bearable. >>930 My mother and especially my grandmother certainly inspire my desire to have a loved one be in a traditional role, but I'd like to believe this out of respect. >my mom fuarrrked me up instilling weird ideas in me No, my mother made a mistake being a single mother, and that is all. >>934 >Why should someone be given respect for things that they didn't accomplish themselves and had no part in? I don't believe that someone should respect another simply for their name, that's not what I meant. I meant that a family member should have respect and be proud of their family history if their lineage has been meaningful and should aspire to continue the line of inspiring individuals and acts. It's simply another grounding which I think gives more meaning to your life. >>935 > contrarian superiority Another word to add to my title, much appreciated. >read as many works on philosophy and ethics I am starting on this front by reading Dostoevsky's works, right now with Crime and Punishment. >If conservativism is simply wanting to live a circa-1950's Mad Men lifestyle without any honest introspection then disregard the above. That's not the point. I'm not here to trigger god damn liberals either. >>956 >Today this results in a cultural bias meaning many girls are simply raised to not think of going into those fields (boys are given lego, girls are given dolls, etc). Why is this a problem? Men are masculine and rather play with legos, girls are feminine and act this out in playing with dolls. I remember there being a study showing women on average do better in school than man and have a higher aptitude for math but still end up choosing non-STEM related fields.

>>972 We were talking about evolutionary instincts, not your insecurities.

>>978 >starting with dostoevsky Kids these days lol

>>979 Those insecurities are fairly universal, and I wrote more than just that. If you'd rather cherry-pick than discuss, just say so and I'll stop listening.

The very facade of some traditions is important. There has never been a time without weak men and unfaithful women, but believing in better than what we have makes us strive for better in many instances. An advantage of traditions is the heuristic that they tend to be deserved; dietary traditions are a good example of this. I will not spend years of my life listening to new diet science and drinking soylent or avoiding eggs or other nonsense; I will eat what my ancestors ate. The saying is that some are inclined towards tradition and others are inclined towards disregard tradition. Both groups have obvious uses: a traditionalist will provide a bedrock society that can probably survive ill effects of disregarding tradition; those disregarding tradition can advance society and create new traditions. Both groups can also be harmful, by restricting innovation or damning many to die preventable deaths. I by no means mean to imply that traditionalists are incapable of improving and innovating nor that those disregarding tradition are necessarily malicious or misled. What many don't seem to realize is that, rather than a church or religion, many cling to whatever groups of scientists say as fact. It's very useful for those in power to have an organization that generates truths that one can be ridiculed or beaten for not believing. We see this most strongly with climate change propaganda. I believe I may in between the traditionalists and not. I'm not religious, but I strive to see the value in history and see many of these people disregarding tradition as misled people purposefully attempting to destroy society. I only mean that latter bit in the extreme cases, such as convincing people that sex (gender doesn't exist) can be changed and so butchering otherwise good people in their early age, leading to suicides and unhappiness. As for the roles of men and women, I merely point to history and what others have written here of it. I don't currently have much to add. It's been pointed out that peasants tended to not fawn over lineage; this may very well be true in a general case; I've not researched this. What I'll write is that the habits of nobles tend to become the habits of normal individuals over time, due to technological advancements. Many of us are able to live in luxury compared to just one hundred years ago. As for sexual relations, the disease and bonding arguments are both very good and I don't currently have much to add with this, either. In closing, I find tradition to be important. I believe technologies such as computers offer a good way to innovate society without necessarily treading on traditions. People should attempt to leave the world in a state they want, but it's obvious that very few can ever achieve this. An important means to arrive at proper goals is rational thinking, something sorely lacking in politics today. So, simply consider what you're doing before you beat your wife, have irreversible surgery to look like the opposite sex, or upload your mind to the Googlebookrosoft botnet. If you're not old enough to consider these things before doing them, you just might be. In short, avoid irreversible actions until you know you truly desire them enough.

>>890 Traditionalism is very different from fedora tipping white knights, those usually are the ones that will say things like "I'll be the one on the kitchen" >>891 Such is the new generation of cool sadboys that are so modern they even see humanism as fluid.

Tradition is a spook IMO.

Traditions are nothing but a weak substitute for time perception and actual critical thinking. A functioning person does not need any of these. Religious people and conservatives are degenerate scum that hold absolutely no merit, even living un-civilzed in the woods is a preferable alternative than among a society that favors those over critical thinking. All progress was achived by questioning and rejecting the status quo, non of the actual positive aspects were done by any traditions. I have seen too often how traditions and religion and nationality have brought up the worst, all their positive examples are nothing but farces they use to justify their narrow minded ignorance and their useless existence with which they drag down others too because they cannot bare the thought that someone else can not be degenerate scum.

>>1391 >Traditionalism is very different from fedora tipping white knights True, but it's still a term they toss about while having little concept of what it means. They feel small and insignificant and assume it must be because society turned against men like them during the 20th century, and long for some good ol' days that never existed. Those whiners would be even worse off in the 1950s or the middle ages or whatever era they personally idealize on an individual basis. >those usually are the ones that will say things like "I'll be the one on the kitchen" Totally opposite of what people mean by "fedoras". The term refers generally to MRAs and young men inspired by certain politicians who promise to give the world back to them (though they would have been losers no matter what decade they were born in).

>>1433 That, it is. People should be the best they can be, regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees with what sandpeople wrote down two thousand years ago.

>>1433 Spook? >>1437 >Traditions are nothing but a weak substitute for time perception and actual critical thinking. A functioning person does not need any of these. Isn't this on the basis that a person knows the truth and what they need? I'm often stunned by my lack of knowledge and wisdom, and how much of history provides insight as others have gone through similar things as I, us. A tradition that has held in the United States for example is the freedom of speech, and anything that threatens it is usually met with a volatile reaction. Is this tradition weak and made up of a lack of critical thinking? Or is this tradition actually based upon the idea of expressing critical thinking, which I posit it is. >Religious people and conservatives are degenerate scum that hold absolutely no merit One could inverse this and say something equally nasty about liberal atheists but in reality both of us know they each have something of value. Lets argue in good faith. >All progress was achieved by questioning and rejecting the status quo, non of the actual positive aspects were done by any traditions. Did we progress with Mao's China and the USSR? These certainly popped up by challenging the status quo and were not based on tradition or religion. The U.S during during world war II progressed not by challenging the status quo but by rejecting the questioning of freedom which was presented by the nazis and communists. The U.S too rejected communism, which also went against the status quo of freedom. Can we argue that the men who defended these traditions did achieve progress? I think this is an interesting point.

ITT: People with no religion and a naive moral code tell OP he's an edge lord for respecting the dead and valuing family life. Progressives do not push towards an increasingly moral society. The circle is not narrowing; it is shifting. https://www.gwern.net/The%20Narrowing%20Circle Atheism doesn't make you a more rational person. Atheism is not the most productive mind set. http://shii.bibanon.org/shii.org/knows/Freedom_From_Atheism.html When people recede into escapism sometimes they start to think the world is like the books, journalism, video games, movies, or shows they enjoy. It is not. It is especially not like it is in books or journalism. Not every attractive person is promiscuous. Not every couple wants to be equal; sometimes they just want to compliment each other.

>>1504 tell me how these articles connect rationally to your last claim.

>>1504 >Atheism doesn't make you a more rational person. Atheism is not the most productive mind set. Irrelevant. It's a simple question of whether god exists or not. It doesn't matter what you think is "productive".

>>1506 >tell me how these articles connect rationally to your last claim. I guess that was a little vague of me. My point was that not only is tradition worth valuing, but also that people do value it despite the impressions media may give people. People who value tradition are not anomalies to be destroyed. They are quite common and can make good arguments for their beliefs. Is that clearer?

>>1507 You can't prove whether or not God exists. You have to resort to a problem solving strategy where you assume the simplest thing is probably true. Since you can't know, you have to decide. This is not like Russel's teapot where you could maybe check one day; you could never prove or disprove the existence of God. You made the decision to believe that things that can't be proven or disproven should be assumed to have a simple explanation, because you believe that's the best stance. This is not necessarily true.

>>1507 >It doesn't matter what you think is "productive". Why doesn't that matter? Being an atheist, a Christian, a Buddhist, all have huge implications and do affect your thinking. >It's a simple question of whether god exists or not. It's only a simple question if you think of god, say in Christianity, in a literal way.

>>1510 >You made the decision to believe that I didn't say what I believed or didn't, you just assumed I was claiming atheism because I was explaining the rationale behind it. >>1511 > Why doesn't that matter Because what you personally think is productive has no bearing whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of anything. If you think christianity or hinduism or whatever make you a better person, that doesn't mean that god or gods actually exist, it's just that there's usually a moral code that comes with a given religion.

>>1514 >Because what you personally think is productive has no bearing whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of anything. Does this hold in non-literal religious thinking though? Also, what is existence? If you say it's "being in reality", then what is reality? I hold the value of truth, though I don't know what truth is really, in high regard but I think there's value in questioning what certain beliefs do to people and what the lack of do as well.

>>980 Perhaps suggest an alternative instead of spilling the soykaf?

>>1501 Not the guy you're replying to. Tradition is not synonymous with historical insight, nor is it instrinsically tied to freedom of speech, which is better described as a constitutional right or a moral/ethical precept. I don't mean to be rude, since you admit wisdom is a journey not a destination, but to use "traditional values" as a general catch all phrase implies overlooking historical variations and evolution of these values even within communities/culture/religion. The above is why the poster earlier had a very good point. Many of the great thinkers, both classical and modern, did much to upset the traditionlist status quo of their time, not necessarily through "progressive liberal ideas" either. Often their aim was no to identify with a set of traditional or liberal values, but to come to truthful conclusions based on their own reasoning. Anything which hinders that, whether it's modern liberalism, traditionalism or any other -ism, should be viewed with tenfold suspicious and critical thought. However I don't agree with his diatribe on religion, it can be manipulated as a tool much like any other ideaology. The examples of the USSR and China are terrible, please educate yourself on their idealogical foundations as well as the various economic and political circumstances that have shaped their history. It will soon become apparent that their failure wasn't due to disrupting the status quo or progressive agendas, but due to a complicated tapestry of events. Similarly, to imply that the US entered WW2 for the sake of traditional values (whatever they may be) or to defend freedom is laughable as it also ignores the various economic, diplomatic and geo-political incentives the US had to intervene. I'm sure it wasn't your intention to take a simplified view of this to suit your argument, but I would highly recommend reading a few books on the topic just to understand the amount of variables in play and how little ideaology (in the form of moral/ethical values) plays a part in any of the above examples. Ideaology is something that nations have seldom gone to war over throughout the course of history. The reasons are often both practical and pragmatic. It is only when rallying the common man that the ideaological justifications are brought forth; deus vult, jihad, evil communism, evil fascism, evil capitalism etc. Some of these are worthy causes to fight against (communism for example) however the cause is only fought for if there is a tangible payoff. Morality is often a afterthought. Come to think of it, amoral pragmatism is perhaps one of the oldest traditions there is, certainly far more concrete than appeals to ephemeral concepts of traditional values.

>>1518 You make many good points. If some custom or value from previous generations is still useful, then it should be kept. If it has outlived its usefulness or something better has come along, it should be discarded. Actually that's pretty much the way our civilization has evolved anyway. People brandishing the concept of "tradition" as a reason to retain archaic practices or concepts generally have some ulterior motive.

>>1518 >The examples of the USSR and China are terrible, please educate yourself on their idealogical foundations as well as the various economic and political circumstances that have shaped their history. The examples are not terrible. All you've said is they failed for reasons, something we already knew. We know communism failed because it couldn't hold up with the economic and political circumstances surrounding it. When a society can't hold up, it has failed. >It will soon become apparent that their failure wasn't due to disrupting the status quo or progressive agendas, but due to a complicated tapestry of events. No one is saying they failed because they disrupted the status quo or because they had progressive agendas. It failed because of other reasons, but the people who evangelized it, the progressives, were wrong. They were wrong the same way they were wrong about eugenics. Just because history filters out progressive failures doesn't mean they never harmed anyone.

>>1501 >spook As in it is an abstract non-existant thing that only has power over humans because humans are willing to obey or enforce it. Examples of spooks include but are not limited to society, the government, religion, money, property, tv, videogames, most virtual thingsand other media...

>>1526 It was a serious response to this asinine statement: > Did we progress with Mao's China and the USSR? These certainly popped up by challenging the status quo and were not based on tradition or religion. The examples of commie china and the USSR were put forward trying to prove that "disrupting the status quo can be bad", perhaps in a muddled defence of traditionalism. A response was given to illustrate that the establishment of communism in these regions was a far more complex systematic failure than simply a lack of tradition, religion or due to emphasising progressivism, points within the scope of the original comment.The response to this failed to address or understand this point entirely. Eugenics is another poor example of progressivism gone wrong. The theories it advocated had grounding in the science and medical traditions of the time, it was certainly not pushed by progressives alone, nor was it a simply a progressive failure, but a scientific failure in general. Of course this does not adequately summarise another complex issue with a very interesting history, but that's what a library is for. That is not to say there haven't been progressive failures, but it is clear you (if you are he) have limited knowledge on what you're talking about, deliberately simplifying complex issues so fit into this ridiculous argument of "traditionalism vs progressivism". And it is indeed a ridiculous argument because most traditions were progressive ideas at one point, and many progressive ideas have a grounding in traditional schools of thought. This again is an obvious point that should be covered by reading pre-Socratic and post-Socratic Greeks alone. In fact it is evident simply by reading the New Testament/ Quran/ Vedas with a rudimentary understanding of its context. So if there are any more attempts to poorly justify your -ism, try not to ignore epistemological concerns in favour of making a point.

>>1541 >The examples of commie china and the USSR were put forward trying to prove that "disrupting the status quo can be bad", perhaps in a muddled defence of traditionalism. A response was given to illustrate that the establishment of communism in these regions was a far more complex systematic failure than simply a lack of tradition, religion or due to emphasising progressivism, points within the scope of the original comment.The response to this failed to address or understand this point entirely. Once again, why they failed is irrelevant. These are examples of large progressive movements that failed. >Eugenics is another poor example of progressivism gone wrong. The theories it advocated had grounding in the science and medical traditions of the time, it was certainly not pushed by progressives alone, nor was it a simply a progressive failure, but a scientific failure in general. Of course this does not adequately summarise another complex issue with a very interesting history, but that's what a library is for. Obviously all the people involved were progressive, because they pushed for the social changes. Calling one group scientists or doctors doesn't make them less progressive. Someone can be a scientist and a progressive; I assume this is quite common. A progressive is literally someone who moves towards some change. >That is not to say there haven't been progressive failures, but it is clear you (if you are he) have limited knowledge on what you're talking about, deliberately simplifying complex issues so fit into this ridiculous argument of "traditionalism vs progressivism". >And it is indeed a ridiculous argument because most traditions were progressive ideas at one point, and many progressive ideas have a grounding in traditional schools of thought. This again is an obvious point that should be covered by reading pre-Socratic and post-Socratic Greeks alone. In fact it is evident simply by reading the New Testament/ Quran/ Vedas with a rudimentary understanding of its context. You're in a hurry to dump what's in your head, but you can't spell and you can't think. Everyone knows that the history of even mundane things is very detailed and complicated, but this is irrelevant. Everyone knows that future traditions are based off of older traditions and everyone knows that traditions had to be formed at some point, but this is irrelevant. Who are you arguing with? What are you arguing about? Large changes do not always succeed. Communism and eugenics were failures pushed exclusively by progressives, by definition. Tradition slows progress, which is good because sometimes we progress into holes, like communism or eugenics. Sometimes progress is not progress.

>>1543 >why they failed is irrelevant No reading comprehension, it was clearly stated that the systematic failure was that these regimes were set up to begin with, go back and read what you're replying to. Discussion of of why they failed IS irrelevant, which is why the establishment of regimes is being discussed with respect to the roles of value systems. >Obviously all the people involved were progressive This is an assertion based on your own arbitrary model of traditionalists versus progressivists and only obvious to yourself. You can't seem to separate scientific progression from social progression (and other forms of progression) and lump it all into one catch-all term. When the complexity of these value systems and their context is pointed out you deem it to be irrelevant. >but you can't spell and you can't think Don't project your lack of critical thought on to me, unless you absolutely need straws to clutch at. >but this is irrelevant >What are you arguing about? Something isn't irrelevant just because it is currently beyond your comprehension. The argument is that your traditionalist vs progressives model is a flawed one because of the fluid definitions of what counts as traditional and what counts as progressive according to context. If being facetious and feigning ignorance is your response to an honest questioning of your beliefs then why even reply under the pretext of a serious discussion? >Communism and eugenics were failures pushed exclusively by progressives. Tradition slows progress, which is good because sometimes we progress into holes, like communism or eugenics. Sometimes progress is not progress. This is shooting your own argument in the foot, since it implies that all human achievement has been the result of a change fuelled by a progressive agenda and something that traditional values have hindered. This is of course ridiculous. Labelling traditional values (whatever their cultural/social context) as regressive by definition and intrinsically at odds with human progress is dishonest. So I'm not sure why you are still pushing for a black and white model of a traditional/progressive conflict when it is leading to generalised conclusions that undermine the values you're defending? Perhaps you are simply keen to win an e-argument, but I don't have such lofty aspirations. So carry on being facetious and dismissive of valid points and selectively replying to other points if it soothes your ego. I am pointing out you are digging yourself into an ideological trench by using poor examples in a simplistic model of thinking, not that you are moron forever incapable of comprehending the above points. But yeah, start with the greeks etc. Good luck to you.

>To start with, I want to counter my generation's current view of sex roles being fluid. I seem to have fondness towards the idea of the man being the “breadwinner”, while the woman takes care of the house, cleans, does recreational activities and such. A reason for this could be a sense of pride in taking care of your partner and the responsibility that comes with it. Also, having your partner take care of most house work leaves that worry out of your mind so such isn't a focus at all, leaving work and hopefully intellectual (programming, math, reading, etc) musings abound, This isnt at all compatible with individualism, the partner staying at home would be wholy dependant of the breadmaker, so it all comes down to ones values. Im also curious as to why the roles would have to be gender restricted. >and of course a deeper respect towards your loved one. Doesnt the history of stay at home partners prove otherwise?

>>962 >we ended up embracing monogamy >thinking Europe and USA are the whole world

It seems some people here still live in a magical fairyland where a family can survive on a single income. There is a reason why both parents in most families work these days and it ain't feminism.

>>939 how can you be so sure that the gender roles adapted for time long lost is fit for modern society?

>>1565 Considering that physical strength is no longer a requirement in most jobs and that anyone of either gender can change a diaper (unless they're a pussy) I'd say we can dispense with gender roles established in the stone age by now. Also see the post immediately above yours.

>>1562 The roles seem to be gender restricted because of the differences between men and women in what they value and think. I believe this line of thinking was mostly in reference to the stay-at-home mom. I think a person can add more meaning in their life if they provide for someone, it's responsibility. I'm an advocate for individualism, and retract that quoted quoted statement (OP here). >and of course a deeper respect towards your loved one. >Doesnt the history of stay at home partners prove otherwise? I don't follow. >>1556 >>1518 I'm the one who made reference to Mao's china and the USSR. In no way did I mean to imply that the entire complicated history of these instances can be reduced down to traditional value or progressive ones, I wasn't trying to pull in progressive/liberal ideology into this. I'll try to say what I mean: It's obvious that the seeds of these historical periods were of challenging the status quo, what was expected, as they were counter to the previously dominating ideologies. With this comparison, I was attempting to say that not all progress is progress per se. >Tradition is not synonymous with historical insight, nor is it instrinsically tied to freedom of speech, which is better described as a constitutional right or a moral/ethical precept. I disagree, the west has its own traditional values, one of which is the belief in freedom in general, and one of these freedoms is the freedom of speech. Some of us Americans even believe in the constitution but we see our politicians disregard it many cases, this is the disbelief in it. >>1539 Well then, more "spooks" would be liberty, love, expression; spook itself since that's an abstract thing which only has power over humans because humans are willing to believe in it. But so what? We believe in many things which are only vaguely in materialist belief but are good things, such as the non-aggression principle. This boils down to what you mean by existence. This is similar to Nihilism, it's an incomplete thought.

>>1567 The differences between men and women are more than just physical anon

>>1580 Though we reached a point where we can pretty much raise girls as boys and vice versa. Or rather we can raise them androginously. Not make them transsexuals though. People with actual gender dysphoria are a completely different discussion.

>communism >failure Please don't mention communism unless you know what it is. Communism is another name for anarchism, and the most well-known time it may have possibly occurred was in Catalonia. Other places that you think were or are communist are usually state capitalist, not even socialist. >>1562 >This isnt at all compatible with individualism, the partner staying at home would be wholy dependant of the breadmaker Well yes, capitalism and individualism were never compatible.

>>1579 >I think a person can add more meaning in their life if they provide for someone, it's responsibility. that doesnt seem to be much in the spirit of individualism, imo.

>>1594 Individualism doesn't mean the disregard for others, why would it? It just means having freedom over yourself and being able to do as you wish.

>>1556 All this noise and no signal. All you've done is yell "complexity" and interpret my words with different definitions then the rest of this thread. You could argue, and even be trying to argue, that the occasional failure in progressive movements doesn't mean we should be wary of change in general, but instead that we should analyze things on a case by case basis. You could be arguing that, but there's no way to know because despite all the reading you imply you've done, you still can't explain your points clearly and concisely. You can't even understand my points, which are shorter, don't have a misspelling in every other sentence, and use very basic words. I don't even believe in the argument I'm defending, I'm just entertaining a thought that isn't my own, something you are incapable of doing. I can see why you love Greek men so much; Socrates would have his way with you!

>>1584 If people who call themselves communists and are called communists by a majority of outsiders attempt something both groups refer to as communism and is based off of what both groups agree is communist philosophy or communist reasoning, then they are attempting communism. If it fails, then communism failed. This fallacious "No True Comrade" argument has always been wrong and disingenuous.

A discussion about traditions. I wish that the OP were less edgy but if you guys just look at tradition through the lens of history or as something intrinsically holy or of a nature that we cannot define then we can't get away from the dichotomy of conservative and progressive or whatever other buzzword people use to define it. The way I see it traditions can be very deep experiences for everyone and it can vary from and individual feeling to a social interaction among a community. My point being that traditions can form the basis of fulfilling a necessity and that can be anything from entertainment, distraction from the everyday, spiritual or even just social. For example I have a tradition of watching all of Serial Experiments Lain in one sitting during July and I've been doing it since I was in middle school, now this might seem like such a small thing but traditions don't have to be something grandiose or deep it just has to give you the feeling you need.

>>1605 agree. Communists and anarchists need to own their failures. anyway, wrt the actual topic, traditions as a category are neither positive nor negative, but are often negative or positive. They change faster than they seem to. People shouldn't appeal to tradition as a way of justifying things.

>>1601 Maybe there are different definitions, I've thought of it as to also including personal ambitions. Though I might be mixing up individualism and individualism in capitalism

>>1605 >is based off of what both groups agree is communist philosophy That's where they would differ I guess. I don't expect Marx advocated dictatorship and all the insanity that goes with it. Seems to me, failed attempts at communism only show that they chose the wrong way to go about it, and don't prove that communism is impossible to achieve. (Not saying that we should be risking another attempt in another way, given the poor record.)

>>891 Bro what Dozer wrote is not disrespect. It is merely a tip off to a meme that plagues these kinds of conversations.

>>895 The japanese have some beautiful customs. The west also has great customs, but we are less aware of our own history than we should. Thus it is sometimes hard to appreciate how cool our culture CAN be.

>>896 >you are a fedora edgelord. Yeah bro, this means nothing though. Calling names to people with whom you disagree is the best way to start a completely useless conversation. Just sayan.

>>1580 So? Demonstrate how these differences matter. Just saying we're different proves nothing. You'd think conservatives in the west would have given up whining about women making weak leaders or being too emotional and unpredictable for certain roles after Margaret Thatcher. Society evolves and values change. Adaptation is as natural as gravity. Deal with it.

>>1603 Ironic that your reply contains zero substance relating to what was being discussed. The argument put forward is clear enough, the fact that you haven't been able to address any of the above points in the reply implies that you are either too dumb to understand them or can't think of a satisfactory answer. So go ahead and attempt to muddy the waters with desperate cries of misinterpretation and misunderstanding if you're looking for an exit. It's pathetic but understandable considering your inability to wrap your head around a concept. >I don't even believe in the argument I'm defending Aww sweetie, classic damage control. Good, put some distance between yourself and your half baked statements. The less said about that tepid parting shot the better. Perhaps when you graduate from being a brainlet you'll manage to work less obvious Greeks into your sick burns.

>>1725 What are you talking about? Did you read my comment at all?

>>1730 never said it doesn't matter. It's a soykafty debate topic.

>Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. >You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. >Don't respond with aggression to perceived flames or trolls (or at all.)

>>1734 You know, our soykaf flinging is done in good humour. No need to censor it. Just delete all politics threads if we can't make playful jabs about each other's manhood.

>>1738 slippery slope

>>1734 Thank you for your presence mod. These kinds of topics are too prone to becoming soykaf flinging fests. And when they go unchecked for too long then we get cancer..

>>1740 Fair point.

"Keep a-pluggin' away, Perseverance still is king". This is about Dunbar high school, an amazing all black school turned ghetto. I implore you to read the source material attached first as what's written below is colored with my own opinions and is just a short summary of sorts. One of the most often preached sermons from liberals is that you cannot expect minorities to be as successful as whites because of their socioeconomic position. But in this historical case, especially in the beginning of Dunbar, where black men and women were just given freedom (still segregated, mind you) they were able to succeed despite their conditions. Not by lowering standards or giving out money. Most of these blacks were from incredibly poor families. They succeeded by having teachers instilling a tradition of hard and passionate education, and having support from their families. Dunbar graduates, both men and women, were the first to hold any significant position. These were not genius blacks but their IQ was above the average of blacks, and of the national average, 105~ vs 85[1] Besides its unique founding, the black community in D.C in the 20th century was not anything special. In fact, most of the blacks who lived in the Dunbar neighborhood did not go there and "the neighborhood in which Dunbar was located was one of the poorest multi-problem areas of the Washington ghetto". One third of those enrolled in high school went to Dunbar. It was a self-selection process enabling those who had the will to show up. It's unique founding had a substantial grounding due to the fact that its leaders (and all blacks in D.C) had more opportunity initially. The founders were amazing individuals in their respective careers before founding the school. Being of incredibly strong character, this was the tradition to be passed down. About one of the founders of the school, William Syphax: "Syphax was frank in telling the black community that it would have to send its children to school with respect for teachers and a willingness to submit to discipline and hard work, if their education was to amount to anything" However in 1954, the school began to die essentially. What happened in this year? Desegregation. Not directly however, as whites against integration rallied for neighborhood schools. The reorganization of the school system was a sort of compromise for both sides (black and white leaders of their respective movements it would seem). Dunbar was forced to become a neighborhood school. Instead of kids that wanted to learn, they got thugs with behavioral problems. How can good teachers and prospect students be attracted to just another ghetto school; that is what it became, a ghetto. Blacks are not some incapable race inferior to liberal whites. They can do it given they have strong culture. What's most damaging to my fellow blacks today is their thug culture and blaming "The Man" instead of themselves. They can rise if they so choose, and such is same for all minorities, for everyone. I leave you with some quotes, I hope you'll read the attached source material as it's well worth it and just under 20 pages. "While Dunbar promoted racial pride, it was pride in the achievements of outstanding Negroes as measured by universal standards, not special black achievements by special black standards." "The class size at which learning breaks down and disorder sets in is a function of the attitudes brought to the situation and teachers" "Black schools that have been educationally successful generally have not shared a common teaching method or education philosophy. They have almost invariably had a high level of parental involvement." "What is needed, above all, is a sense of purpose, a faith in what can be achieved, and an appreciation of the hard work required to achieve it" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Stanford.E2.80.93Binet_Intelligence_Scale_Fifth_Edition

>>1780 The author wrote this to show blacks have been successful in groups before, while the people at his time would mostly focus on special individuals. He says this at the very beginning. I'm disgusted you've used this to argue your borderline racist soykaf. >One of the most often preached sermons from liberals is that you cannot expect minorities to be as successful as whites because of their socioeconomic position Which is still statistically true >But in this historical case, especially in the beginning of Dunbar, where black men and women were just given freedom (still segregated, mind you) they were able to succeed despite their conditions. Sowell also mentioned most of the locals, with Dunbar in the poorest part of the D.C. ghettos, didn't attend this school. Did you forget that? What happened to those blacks? They would've just jumped in and did well? How many whites throughout D.C. had to take remedial math courses too? Let me also point out they were just given 'freedom' despite the mass racial hatred and deprivation that preexisted and continued to remain. So, automatically, by granting freedom, I should expect blacks en masse, in the one of soykaftiest ghettos in D.C. to just fix themselves up? >Dunbar graduates, both men and women, were the first to hold any significant position This is vague, incorrect, and ignoring successful blacks outside Dunbar. Overall, 2/10 summary for hidden convolution. >These were not genius blacks but their IQ was above the average of blacks, and of the national average, 105~ vs 85[1] Thanks for the citation. I didn't see your attachment. >Besides its unique founding, the black community in D.C in the 20th century was not anything special. So what was that opening appraisal about anyway? > In fact, most of the blacks who lived in the Dunbar neighborhood did not go there and "the neighborhood in which Dunbar was located was one of the poorest multi-problem areas of the Washington ghetto". One third of those enrolled in high school went to Dunbar. It was a self-selection process enabling those who had the will to show up. Oh yes. It was totally fuarrrking about self-will, because any black kid is going to have the same supportive family. > Being of incredibly strong character, this was the tradition to be passed down. This was not really tradition of anything. This was about getting blacks representation and rights. >Instead of kids that wanted to learn, they got thugs with behavioral problems. Cue the racism. I hope this is where everyone stops reading, >How can good teachers and prospect students be attracted to just another ghetto school; that is what it became, a ghetto. A school became a literal ghetto? +1 >Blacks are not some incapable race inferior to liberal whites What does liberal have to do with white? When did anyone say it was blacks themselves who are incapable? Our argument, which isn't even liberal, is that blacks don't have the same privileges as whites do. Racial privilege isn't made by the biological of a person, it's made by people preferring the biology of certain persons. Blacks have to work harder, on average. Discrimination in housing and the workplace exceed over 60,000 cases per year. >They can do it given they have strong culture. What's most damaging to my fellow blacks today is their thug culture and blaming "The Man" instead of themselves. They can rise if they so choose, and such is same for all minorities, for everyone. And this is such a gargantuan piece of soykaf argument. The western world is responsible for the soykafty conditions of blacks today. What blacks want are reparations and competent representation, which can be earned by getting the world to recognize it's not their fault. If I remove the "tough luck" attitude of you borderline racists the healing process is going to be expedited . The liberal argument is simple. No one that actually represents us believes in genetic inferiority. The fact blacks have to work harder, which you want them to do, is the past shockwave of what was hardcore racism, segregation, and slavery. So I can either help them or tell them to go fuarrrk themselves, they're on their own. I think it's obvious which side should be chosen. It's pretty obvious which side is immoral. I'm really tired of this fake sympathy minority groups get. You're not helping and it only looks like covert animosity. >"While Dunbar promoted racial pride, it was pride in the achievements of outstanding Negroes as measured by universal standards, not special black achievements by special black standards." Really no one is denying the value of pride or attributing black achievement to intellectual superiority. >"The class size at which learning breaks down and disorder sets in is a function of the attitudes brought to the situation and teachers" Everyone realizes what educational culture can do. Nearly everyone knows about Asian countries. >"Black schools that have been educationally successful generally have not shared a common teaching method or education philosophy. They have almost invariably had a high level of parental involvement." Most educational experts today are aware of what parental support does. >"What is needed, above all, is a sense of purpose, a faith in what can be achieved, and an appreciation of the hard work required to achieve it" Sowell's quote here no longer makes sense today, since the dynamics have changed since the 70s. This paper was written before the education reforms that are in effect now. But this cluster of quotes you gave me are mostly symptomatic of his time, and were valuable then. Today, most people, especially liberals, believe him. You've done nothing but twist liberal arguments.

>>1628 This image accurately describes Marxism. My man, Bakunin.

>>1783 >One of the most often preached sermons from liberals is that you cannot expect minorities to be as successful as whites because of their socioeconomic position >Which is still statistically true You're right in a sense but Dunbar is a counter-example. In modern times black americans have easier access to welfare and disability checks, and can more easily find employment with diversity programs. In terms of default positioning in life, blacks are at a disadvantage, sure. But so are millions of americans. I believe in terms of opportunity, blacks level out relative to others at the same income. >Sowell also mentioned most of the locals, with Dunbar in the poorest part of the D.C. ghettos, didn't attend this school. Did you forget that? What happened to those blacks? It was a self selection school, the blacks who were unwieldy thugs surely couldn't succeed at a school with the tradition of higher courses and such. >They would've just jumped in and did well? How many whites throughout D.C. had to take remedial math courses too? >I should expect blacks en masse, in the one of soykaftiest ghettos in D.C. to just fix themselves up? No, they caused issues in the classroom and destroyed the school. The school system at the time had no regard for Dunbar, where blacks were actually excelling. Quite amusing considering what the political aim was. >Dunbar graduates, both men and women, were the first to hold any significant position >This is vague, incorrect, and ignoring successful blacks outside Dunbar. Overall, 2/10 summary for hidden convolution. You're right, I shouldn't have said that. Dunbar graduates, both men and women, were among the first blacks to hold significant positions. >Being of incredibly strong character, this was the tradition to be passed down. >This was not really tradition of anything. This was about getting blacks representation and rights. This was a tradition though, as even Sowell states so. The school's founders were incredibly tough and had to have immense courage to be a black woman taking mathematics courses in a university at the time. >Instead of kids that wanted to learn, they got thugs with behavioral problems. >Cue the racism. I hope this is where everyone stops reading Is Sowell racist as well? "Teachers used to bright, eager students began to find learning problems and then disciplinary problems in their classrooms." >A school became a literal ghetto? +1 It became a ghetto school: "Equally qualified replacements were hard to find, with Dunbar now rapidly becoming a typical ghetto school. Ironically, the drastic changes forced upon Dunbar in the reorganization that followed the 1954 Supreme Court decision had virtually no desegregation effect, given the virtually all-black neighborhood in which the school was located." >What does liberal have to do with white? When did anyone say it was blacks themselves who are incapable? Liberals imply it all the time with saying blacks need special treatment programs. >Blacks have to work harder, on average. Discrimination in housing and the workplace exceed over 60,000 cases per year. No, blacks have to work just as hard as everyone else. Also, how is discrimination defined here? Who reports this and how are cases defined to be valid? >And this is such a gargantuan piece of soykaf argument. The western world is responsible for the soykafty conditions of blacks today. No, modern blacks have no excuses. They aren't slaves anymore, and "The White Man" isn't responsible for them killing each other. >What blacks want are reparations and competent representation, which can be earned by getting the world to recognize it's not their fault. Which denies personal responsibility of individual blacks. It's not their fault that they kill each other? It is when they're glorifying thug culture. The world recognizes blacks history, they have an entire month dedicated to the pride of their race, they can file for discrimination as you've noted, and they're able to walk in masses known as the BLM, which ironically does more harm than good. >You're not helping and it only looks like covert animosity. I have animosity towards thug culture. >Sowell's quote here no longer makes sense today, since the dynamics have changed since the 70s I think it makes even more sense considering the culture of blacks which is thug glorification and racism towards anything not part of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg4UW-3wGEM

>>889 >Do you respect or care for tradition? Traditional crafts, music, art, stories, etc, are an interesting source of inspiration, though more as a starting than something to strictly adhere to. And it'd be nice if I had a more coherent source of information from a few generations ago than a handful of old photographs and half-remembered second-hand stories from my parents. >I used to have a disdain for anything remotely associated with traditional, say, roles, religion, and marriage; culture in general really. Oh, right, this kind of tradition. Whatever, I guess. Live it if you want, but don't enforce it in someone else's life. Enforcing tradition as a rule unto itself just separates the act of performance as a ritual unrelated to whatever brought about the practice to begin with. >I believe my feelings towards women in a traditional manner comes from the fact that I was raised primarily by women, having a lack of father roles in my life. Which I think was a horrible mistake on my mothers part. There's a huge amount of study showing the lack of one parent, or the separation of parents, severely affects children in a negative way. Being raised without a father made you value traditional sex roles? Yeah, I guess that is a negative effect. >One tradition I think that's really missing from the modern family is a sense of deep respect for your family name and lineage. Your name nowadays is random and you have no respectable history. This part's kinda alright. Personally, I mostly just think it'd be neat to set up a database for sharing family photos and stuff without putting it all up on the public internet or hiding it away in the attic or some closet as photographs too irreplaceable and precious to be handled freely by children. Incidentally, I like the idea of family businesses, though my dad insisted on preventing any of his children from following his early career path just because it involved a lot of ladders that contributed to him getting a worm out hip, and none of us were about to dive into a job that consisted of answering emails all day. >If I was to start a family, something I'd aim to instill in my children would be to give your family honor. Honor is kind of an imprecise thing to be throwing a lot of value at without clarifying what you actually mean. It basically means being able to hold promises and agreements, but many promises and agreements are founded on ill principles and better off disavowed. >>978 >Why is this a problem? Men are masculine and rather play with legos, girls are feminine and act this out in playing with dolls. I remember there being a study showing women on average do better in school than man and have a higher aptitude for math but still end up choosing non-STEM related fields. That's just it, though. Simply knowing that women turn away from STEM-related skills despite having aptitude doesn't tell us why they're doing it. Some of it might be an inherent sex-based bias, but a lot of it could be pressure to hold up a reputation of being properly feminine so as to appear cool/normal, or a reaction to seeing a culture that treats women in STEM subjects as only being there to avoid competition with other girls. Imagine if doing math was considered a girl thing, and guys who got into it were seen as just looking for an easy way for ugly clutzes to impress girls instead of something you do *despite* it lowering your chances of getting a girlfriend. Seems to me like it'd reinforce itself about as well as the current situation. I do think think efforts to stop this pattern probably ought to be less about convincing more women that STEM subjects are good for themselves personally and more about letting women who already think STEM subjects are good point to stuff that gets dumb people to nod their head and stop pressuring them away from their desired interests.

>>1801 >You're right in a sense but Dunbar is a counter-example. In modern times black americans have easier access to welfare and disability checks, and can more easily find employment with diversity programs. In terms of default positioning in life, blacks are at a disadvantage, sure. But so are millions of americans. I believe in terms of opportunity, blacks level out relative to others at the same income. This doesn't say anything. Millions of Americans are disadvantaged by poverty regardless of race, but we care politically about black people since racism still exists. Much of what is still problematic is a result of racism. These are separate issues, and it doesn't discount black discrimination. Lastly, I want you tell me, from the bottom up, what makes employment for blacks easier. Is this employment enjoyable? Is it the same on average as white people? >It was a self selection school, the blacks who were unwieldy thugs surely couldn't succeed at a school with the tradition of higher courses and such. Devious reasoning. You're assuming all those who didn't attend were thugs. This is not what Dunbar argues. He also provides evidence why the other locals did not attend. This is why I can accuse you, outrageously, of being racist, prejudicial, and arguing this out of your pure stubbornness and hatred. Those traits are the only thing which can explain why you're so illogical about racial issues. Does it trigger you when you hear people saying blacks are disadvantaged? It's time to accept racism is an issue, black systematic discrimination is an issue, and the people who want change aren't weak, lazy, or whining. >No, they caused issues in the classroom and destroyed the school. The school system at the time had no regard for Dunbar, where blacks were actually excelling. Quite amusing considering what the political aim was Why would you find this amusing? This comment is very revealing of your actual feelings. >Dunbar graduates, both men and women, were among the first blacks to hold significant positions. Yeah, continue being an asshole. There were rich and influential black people before Dunbar. Evidence: the founders. Blacks were also successful in other discriminatory countries at the time. >This was a tradition though, as even Sowell states so. Yeah, but even Sowell would've said it's more about ending racial disparity. While he uses similar words to what you've said, it isn't his position, and it's instead a deliberate lie on your part. Things get passed on from generation to generation, but the motives of the founders were to help black people, not to create a tradition where blacks have to go to colleges surrounded by people who want to kill them. The only thing that makes this traditional is a process was repeated, which is ridiculous to describe only as tradition. It's about doing the right thing. >Is Sowell racist as well? No. Sowell's tone is different. He was describing what happened whereas you are biased and bringing out the negatives. It's in your choice of words. "Thugs", "amusing", abuse of quotes, and thinking this question actually pointed anything contradictory out of me. People aren't just what they say, things are more concrete. I think, modestly, it's really clear your tone is antagonistic and earlier pats on the back were insincere. >It became a ghetto school Again, this is your tone and misrepresentation of Sowell. Sowell said a "typical ghetto school" whereas you angrily jump to saying " that is what it became, a ghetto" like a total idiot whose never been in ghetto in his life. >Liberals imply it all the time with saying blacks need special treatment programs. We don't imply. We explicitly argue blacks need coalitions because their support systems are frequently bad for a reason as stupid as race. It's fuarrrking idiotic they are underprivileged due to RACE. >No, blacks have to work just as hard as everyone else. Also, how is discrimination defined here? Who reports this and how are cases defined to be valid? You just said earlier they are disadvantaged. Can you verbally deny for us racism is no longer an issue? It's the only sort of wrong reasoning I can find would make someone argue this. You're a denialist who won't say racism is still a thing but are willing to concede blacks are disadvantaged. Can you explain to me why they are? I personally think it's racism, you know, but is it really that? Ohhh, blacks are lazy... I forgot. >No, modern blacks have no excuses. They aren't slaves anymore, and "The White Man" isn't responsible for them killing each other. Well I never discussed killing and most of them are aware blacks are killing more blacks through gang problems and such. Racist killings are still a thing, hence why their opprobrium is valid. Also, they do have an excuse unless you're willing to argue people with a worse default position in life don't have an excuse for succeeding less on average. All I need to get you to accept is these are legitimate aftereffects of racism, cultural effects included, and telling them to suck it up immediately, no excuses, is actually out of racist leanings. >Which denies personal responsibility of individual blacks. It's not their fault that they kill each other? It is when they're glorifying thug culture. The world recognizes blacks history, they have an entire month dedicated to the pride of their race, they can file for discrimination as you've noted, and they're able to walk in masses known as the BLM, which ironically does more harm than good. Pure strawman. I feel like you're losing it. Also, personal responsibility isn't being denied. I don't see how you came to this conclusion except through impulsive black and white thinking. Black people are still held accountable for their actions. Evidence: The mass incarceration of them. >I have animosity towards thug culture. Well that's a lie and incomplete thought. >I think it makes even more sense considering the culture of blacks which is thug glorification and racism towards anything not part of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg4UW-3wGEM I don't see you complaining about the idiotic cultures some nonblacks have which promote discrimination, mainly because you're not willing to question the beliefs you're arguing. I never said blacks couldn't be racist too, but let's look at why thug culture exists so badly in blacks. It's because of poverty, no education, and discrimination. Not once in your two posts I've responded to have you addressed racism, maybe because you're furious whenever you hear topics of race brought up. I'll agree topics of racism are extremely irritating, but people need to take the right position and admit the truth the present circumstances are because of past racism and the continuing neglect of blacks. There's a reason why even after segregation ended blacks did not have leading roles on television, for instance. Segregation didn't end all the soykaf America does to blacks. The only people which take your side are people that do not care about other's peoples powerlessness (in your mind a terrible weakness that needs to be stomped out) and are angered at the sight people can't just fix themselves immediately. That's what being a rightist is about. I can only hope when you grow up you can get over your hate of people, and learn to be actually empathetic to them instead of turning more traditionalist and conservative.