Yes good idea. A great reset. And then we can build back better.
How Do We Revive Conservativism? -
- Thread starter Mariposa Electrique
- Start date
-
Sister services, email, and search will continue to be negatively effected by the attacks. I made a thread to talk about it, if you're into networking.
Except that the Industrial Revolution isn't possibly able to uproot the millions of years of evolution and the thousands of years of civilization prior to it, all of which is far more embedded into our fundamental psyches and the bases for our societies/societal assumptions compared to the Industrial Revolution and its consequences. Put another way, our needs are governed by assumptions and processes that are much older than the Industrial Revolution, to the point that despite its effects, those effects are still ultimately shone though said assumptions and processes as though they were a prism-- it's not a distinct, alien event unmoored by the rest of history.
You're not going to convince anyone that a string of events starting from the late 1700s have so fundamentally transformed society as to obviate the millions of years of evolution without. It couldn't even obviate slavery-- the institution is alive and well even in sufficiently technologically advanced countries because other countries that technically don't practice the institution outsource labor to said countries to bump their profit margins, knowing full well the conditions of those laborers.
I reckon you severely overestimate how much humans have changed.
In what world is rampant single motherhood resultant of the decay of the family structure (to give one result of second wave feminism) suited to anything?
If we actually talked about those societies, I reckon we'd find that you're either wrong in saying that they "never had anything comparable to Western feminism" or that their society had undergone a distinctly different transformation that just happened to yield a similar result because of their unique conditions.
Feminism is an umbrella of ideologies that is applied in politics. It's a social phenomenon that isn't inherently political.
Hellbound Hellhound
kiwifarms.net
The industrial revolution did uproot the millennia-old social norms of agrarian civilization, and to pretend otherwise is flatly delusional. I don't see how evolution could be held up as a refutation of this point, either, since the entire lesson of evolution is that changing environments necessitate changes in the means of adaptation, and we can clearly observe this in humans.
Even the urban-rural divide in average social attitudes paints a consistent picture in this regard, and civilization clearly isn't moving in a rural direction (more people live in cities now than ever before, and this is projected to increase to nearly 70% of the global population by 2050). To act like this is just a coincidence or of little consequence to the way that people think about life strikes me as highly incurious.
It "happened to yield a similar result" because the factors I've been talking about were the same, which clearly points towards them being the common denominator. Societies which experience industrialization, urbanization, and rising living standards invariably see a rise in divorce rates, a fall in fertility, and a demand for more female empowerment, and this is just as true in Saudi Arabia and Iran as it is in the United States or Sweden. The only real difference is that the former examples are experiencing the effects much more rapidly.
Which was precisely the point I was making to you. If you only look at the political manifestations of social change, you'll miss the underlying causes.
Again, the Industrial Revolution isn't an alien event that happens to find its way into the flow of human history. It's a human event that indisputably changes much but is incapable of overwriting human nature in its extremely short timespan.
The scope of evolution is tangibly measured in millions of years and leaves biological changes that often last for that long.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the Industrial Revolution was a late 20th century phenomenon.
It's an allegation that doesn't make much sense on its face. The reason why divorce rates were low in the States was because no-fault divorce wasn't the law in any state until the 70s, at a time when the family structure was already dissolving between the sexual revolution and the welfare state financially obviating marriage, and in an applied court system that would prove to be biased (and biased towards women, no less). What does that have to do with the Industrial Revolution, apart from happening after it?
While you insist that I'm only looking at the "political manifestations" rather than the underlying causes of social change (a bit more on that below), you use the Industrial Revolution as your magic bullet without actually trying to tie it to other operative events. Even the narrative you provided earlier is a black box that boils down to "the industrial revolution changed everything and since every norm they had back then was based on past assumptions those assumptions fell out of step".
"Political manifestations"? As in, changing laws, as opposed to demographic and cultural changes that may or may not be caused by changing laws?
Hellbound Hellhound
kiwifarms.net
It doesn't have to overwrite human nature; it just has to change the way it manifests.
There are plenty of ways that our nature can be channeled in wildly different ways depending upon the environment, and there is perhaps no better example of this than our relationship to food: whereas once upon a time our innate cravings for calorie-rich foods drove us to want to endure blisteringly cold temperatures to hunt for bison; today it makes us want to pick up the phone and order a pizza. The nature is the same, but the behavior that results from it is extremely different.
By the same token, ways of structuring our lives that were once optimal in past circumstances may no longer be optimal for people today, and I think you need to seriously reflect on whether this applies to a lot of the social mores advocated by conservatives, because the way I see it, trying to convince people to return to a pre-sexual revolution social dynamic would be like trying to convince a 300lb American to hunt for bison instead of ordering a pizza.
The industrial revolution might not be a 20th century phenomenon, but the comfortable, middle class living standards it ultimately gave rise to most certainly are, and it's only really since the 1950s that this way of life has been the norm in the West.
Do you seriously believe it's a coincidence that the feminist movement initially began among upper-middle class women of means, and then gradually filtered down to everyone else as that way of life became mainstream? Do you really think it's a coincidence that the sexual revolution started just a few years after the invention of the birth control pill?
There's plenty of countries in Europe that never had no-fault divorce, and yet the divorce rate experienced a similar rise to the one observed in the United States at around the same time. You can't blame these social changes entirely upon the law, because A) that doesn't explain why there would be a popular demand for the law to change in the first place, and B) it completely robs people of their agency.
People who are happily married don't file for divorce, regardless of what the law says. You need a better explanation for why people suddenly decided that they no longer wished to adhere to social expectations that were once strong enough to assuage them.
Someone mentioned them earlier, but take a look at the Amish. Did changing laws ever result in the kind of social changes we observe in the wider culture among their population? The answer is clearly no, and your point of view has no way of rationally explaining this; mine does.
We can't revive conservatism, 1984 is here, and you are the last of your kind.
Lord Neeba
kiwifarms.net
Genuine conservatism, as opposed to classical liberalism masquerading as conservatism, was never a significant force in American politics, not since the defeat of the Loyalists in the American Revolution at least. European conservatism in turn died in the trenches of World War I.
Thats the funny thing about conservatism. Most American conservatives are nationalistic liberals who hate unelected elites, idealize decentralized authority, and want expanded civil liberties (regarding anything that doesn't offend the nation).
American Conservatism is strange because the golden age they look to (1950s) was a golden ages of internationalism, and New Dealism, while their other golden age (1980s) was the explosion of the very neoliberalism they reject with their populist impulse.
This post is satire, right?
I could say the same thing about your mom.
TyrasGuard
kiwifarms.net
You revive it using the same methods you used to kill it. Teach the future generations that chopping your dick off and calling yourself a woman is mental illness. Sadly, there is no short-term solution for this without going full 1488 on the situation.
Makes me dread of having children honestly, the last thing i want to see is my kid being thaught that Fetanyl Floyd was a hero and that mutilating yourself is a stunning act of bravery. Thank god i had an actual father and mother that would tell me i was a retard when i was about to do some retarded shit.
Makes me dread of having children honestly, the last thing i want to see is my kid being thaught that Fetanyl Floyd was a hero and that mutilating yourself is a stunning act of bravery. Thank god i had an actual father and mother that would tell me i was a retard when i was about to do some retarded shit.
