💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29415393 captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
Interesting anecdote or observation:
It’s a cliché, but it often seems that some of the most socially conservative 20-somethings are the children of divorce, reacting against the wild bohemianism of Generation X.
-
And the ending is quite fitting:
Those Regency men raised in the 20th century must feel the same way about this new age, even if it is a better world in most ways. The new Victorians may preach about different sins, but the sanctimony is the same.
--
Wonder if there are such studies on the boom and bust or pendulum swings of morality and moralizing.
dunno about "studies", but the social forces at work aren't mysterious to religious philosophers. The taint of "religion" makes all that work unpalatable, at best, to people born since the 70s; so it's all but lost.
Moralising behavior is often sourced in insecurity, that some call it a 'civilising process’ is quite funny.
In my country "catcalling" wasn't really a thing 20 years ago, probably even far longer. I was never in a strip club, my parents and grandparents weren't either, nor did anybody want to irrespective of stigmata.
Still we had outrage about catcalling which was more induced by peer preassure than by reality as it seems. This already hints to the real issue, I believe a lot of these complaints are sourced in other issues and these issues had to make it the outrage of the day. Outrage and distributing judgement can make yourself feel secure if you get support from peers in common indignation. Finally something that you can share with someone. Shame on those that jumped on that bandwaggon btw., this is like enabling an addiction, nevermind the false indignations against the enemy of the day.
An offense in higher society was far more serious throughout most of the time. It could lead to duels and over-exaggerated ceremonies to appologize to slighted parties. But I believe there is a difference today. Formerly it was slighted egos, today it is an offence if you have one. You are expected to deny its existence and if you have one it must be for the greater good to save us from
Racism was already getting better, in fact academic propositions made it worse again in my opinion. It killed the humanist perspective and replaced it with a childish form of compensatory justice. And some people overdo their quest dejure with ridiculous fervor. The EU recently recommended that officials use holidays instead of christmas in official capacity. The casus belli was closely averted as the proposal was withdrawn, but I believe there are indeed false assumptions propagated.
The institutions have to be secular and neutral, but you don't need to hide your history (most christians would be surprised that their faith is taken seriously). Or asked otherwise, if I were someone of a different faith who is asked integrate more into society, why should I do that if institutions would deny their own history at some point anyway? Not worth it, or is it? I certainly wouldn't do that and I don't believe anyone has asked for this and this certainly isn't the form of secularism people fought hard for.