Old social values you could get behind

[deletemygoddamnaccount]

I am frankly surprised to see so many of my fellow young men and women (on the Escapist, no less) advocating a return of traditional values. Warms my heart. I mean sure, we've got the revisionist history brigade out in force, with their "lel everything you think was good about the past was bad, don't hinder the glorious eternal revolution comrade XD", but there are a *ton* of posters who seem genuinely saddened by what we've lost to progress.

OT, the traditional social values I could get behind are...all of them. Traditional solutions to social organization were not only prudent and derived from centuries of wisdom, but often innovative and elegantly simple. I think my feelings on the matter could best be summed up in a song. Prepare for feels:

 

[Westaway]

Canada does have a culture, but it's one many politicians hate and most Canadians have forgotten: It's being the good the loyal Dominion and one that will back Britain to the hilt even if the Quebecers whine and squabble, it was one that took pride in being a part of the Empire and always being ready to answer the call of King and Country... one that was struck down after WWII and now resides in a minority of Canadians who know that Canada's culture, like America and the rest of the Anglosphere is first and foremost British with others added to it but still minor.

There is one lingering bit of the Old Canadian sentiment still strong in Canadian culture and that's Anti-Americanism. We were the first Anti-Americans and have been hard at work ever since the War of Independence and the expulsion of the Loyalists being everything America isn't, namely quiet, meek, compromising, loyal to Britain and as a result we've found it difficult to find who we are ever since we began to abandon the idea of being British and Imperial.

We have plenty of those, but you'll find that most of the names that come easy to Canadian tongues like MacDonlads and billy Bishop are Canadians of the Dominion. The more to approach modern days the more our icons become increasingly wrapped in Multicultural and Anti-British Sentiment - just look at Louis Riel. Once he was rightly regarded as nothing more as a rebel save for the opinion of Quebecers and Metis, but now he's become a multicultural martyr, all the more because it gives people the chance to spit on Britain while raising up someone who wasn't British.

I am in complete agreement. In my opinion, Canada's connection to England was its only chance to develop a healthy culture and come into its own as a nation. However, outside of Ontario that sentiment/aesthetic is non existent and cannot be accurately described as Canadian culture.

 

[beastro]

I am frankly surprised to see so many of my fellow young men and women (on the Escapist, no less) advocating a return of traditional values. Warms my heart. I mean sure, we've got the revisionist history brigade out in force, with their "lel everything you think was good about the past was bad, don't hinder the glorious eternal revolution comrade XD", but there are a *ton* of posters who seem genuinely saddened by what we've lost to progress.

OT, the traditional social values I could get behind are...all of them. Traditional solutions to social organization were not only prudent and derived from centuries of wisdom, but often innovative and elegantly simple. I think my feelings on the matter could best be summed up in a song. Prepare for feels:

They weren't clean and neat values, but they arose organically and that's why I'm at heart a conservative and traditionalist - it's not because I blindly think such things are good, instead it comes from great caution over destroying things that took centuries to build in people's hearts and mind that cannot be restore should they be torn down and that we must take great care in abandoning such things and leading to greater misery and destruction than that the flaws of those values inflicted upon us.

I look on such things like the French or Russian Revolution as people filled with grief and idealism tearing down a shabby, but still effective house, burning every piece of it and then finding themselves having to living in a cardbox when winter comes and their ideals are put to the test and fail them.

 

[deletemygoddamnaccount]

They weren't clean and neat values, but they arose organically and that's why I'm at heart a conservative and traditionalist - it's not because I blindly think such things are good, instead it comes from great caution over destroying things that took centuries to build in people's hearts and mind that cannot be restore should they be torn down and that we must take great care in abandoning such things and leading to greater misery and destruction than that the flaws of those values inflicted upon us.

I look on such things like the French or Russian Revolution as people filled with grief and idealism tearing down a shabby, but still effective house, burning every piece of it and then finding themselves having to living in a cardbox when winter comes and their ideals are put to the test and fail them.

My fellow dark-skinned gentleman. You are of course, speaking of Chesterton's fence:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion."

 

[beastro]

They weren't clean and neat values, but they arose organically and that's why I'm at heart a conservative and traditionalist - it's not because I blindly think such things are good, instead it comes from great caution over destroying things that took centuries to build in people's hearts and mind that cannot be restore should they be torn down and that we must take great care in abandoning such things and leading to greater misery and destruction than that the flaws of those values inflicted upon us.

I look on such things like the French or Russian Revolution as people filled with grief and idealism tearing down a shabby, but still effective house, burning every piece of it and then finding themselves having to living in a cardbox when winter comes and their ideals are put to the test and fail them.

My fellow dark-skinned gentleman. You are of course, speaking of Chesterton's fence:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion."

Ahhh, lovely.

Some people don't like the fact that there's nothing new under the sun, when it comes to things like this I'm thankful I'm not the first mind these thoughts of mind have come to and have been put to print far more eloquently than I could have done.

Saving that, thanks!

 

[Professor James]

People in the past sucked. Lots of racism and bigotry, sexism, etc. You name it, societies of the past persecuted people for it (and still do in some cases). Still, it wasn't all bad, and there are some social values that we've lost due to "progress" that I wouldn't mind seeing a revival of, like for example the old Victorian adage that "children should neither be seen nor heard."

I hate other people's children. They're loud, they're annoying, and they ruin everything. Airplanes? Children make them hell. Restaurants? If there's a child in there you will not get a peaceful meal. Movies? There's always some shitty parents who decide to bring their toddler to the theater and then act surprised when the little bastard can't sit still and be quiet for 2 hours.

I really wouldn't mind if "children should neither be seen nor heard" made a comeback.

What about the rest of you? Any old social values that you miss and wish would be revived?

I think the adage you were referring to was "children should be seen and not heard" the past didn't look down on children but was just strict.

OT: The only thing I miss were the way people dressed.

 

[DementedSheep]

But it was also fairly jarring to us when we discovered that one estimate on Cleopatra (considered one of the most beautiful women of all time) was that she stood about 5'2" and weighed around 280 pounds. Made us wonder what Helen of Troy really looked like.

I thought it was popular knowledge that Cleopatra was kind of ugly, but that men were enthralled by her not because of her looks but because she was smart, daring, and powerful and could converse with them as equals.

And her position and wealth probably helped. Fucking people for political gain is hardly uncommon through out history.

 

[runic knight]

I want to say "honor, dignity, personal responsibility" but I am not exactly sure if that was ever that greatly prevalent outside of nostalgia goggles. The "lead from the front" idea I can definitely get behind though. Leaders, not managers thing.

 

[Dalisclock]

Dueling.

We should bring back the gentleman's duel; two evenly matched opponents settling their differences with sword or pistol.

Now, don't get me wrong, people died all the time from these. But the point of duel wasn't to kill your opponent (usually). In British honor culture, you were considered more of a man for putting yourself in danger than for fighting the guy you were quarreling with. And with modern medicine, the chances of either of you surviving are much higher. Hell, there could be thriving market for custom dueling tools.

I remember reading that the US Military banned dueling in the early 19th century because too many officers were challenging each other to duels for the smallest slights and killing each other.

I don't think it would happen, because a lot of people just wouldn't care if some random dude challenged them to a duel. It would be a lot like some 13 year old on the internet saying he's doing your mom. You'd have to revert the entire culture to were being considering a coward for not wanted to face death would actually bother most people.

 

[Dalisclock]

We should bring back Victorian England.

Nah, I'm good without workhouses for orphans, being fired because my arm got cut off in the steam press(because now I can't work as efficently), 18-hour workdays and no weekends, being paid pennies a day so the factory owner can own an small country, and dying from horrible diseases because there are open sewers in the street. You know, the products of "Unregulated business".

Captcha: Outlook not so good. Very appropriate.

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

We should bring back Victorian England.

Nah, I'm good without workhouses for orphans, being fired because my arm got cut off in the steam press(because now I can't work as efficently), 18-hour workdays and no weekends, being paid pennies a day so the factory owner can own an small country, and dying from horrible diseases because there are open sewers in the street. You know, the products of "Unregulated business".

Captcha: Outlook not so good. Very appropriate.

Someone getting offended because they read to far into an otherwise joking comment? How surprising. Did I not say that the past is generally not a good place? Did you make this post to convince me of something I already know?

If we were in Victorian England, this would be the part where I challenge you to a duel.

Captcha: Uselessly opinionated. How appropriate.

 

[Riot3000]

Black man here I take the current way more than the old and personally I don't really have that much fondness for old fashioned ways I feel the positives make people forget about the negatives.

But you know back on topic I see a lot of people saying one parent staying at home. I wonder why not have extended families where it is mom dad, cousins, uncles and aunts some grandparents under one household or in close proximity. I was kind of raised like that and I think the extended family is way older than the standard nuclear so maybe we need to look beyond that but that is just me.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I wouldn't call anything positive that is considered an old social value as...well...an old social value.

Good things persist, it's up to individuals to put them in place.

Being reasonable is basically the one social value I expound, but it doesn't seem to be very popular.

 

[deletemygoddamnaccount]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh by Allah's grace you are funny. You know Socrates never learned how to read? He thought people should just remember his lectures in their entirety (as if his students were who would use his knowledge. Of course)

Or are you a disciple of Pythagorean, conceiving of truly absurd shapes in an attempt to define the natural world in a purely mathematical view?

So far I've had used auto-correct 3 times. Did ANYTHING like that exist in these traditional societies? No, of course not, it's a technology of modern computer programming that relies on microchips, mass assembly and input processing to even conceive of. Never even seen the inside of a machine, have ya?

Quit being such a fucking simpleton.

[color="{#789922}"]>we have autocorrect now
>this makes our society objectively better than any that came before it
>I'm the simpleton[/color]

I shiggy diggy don't.

Apparently you're under the delusion that technological progress goes hand-in-hand with ideological progressivism. The truth is that technological and scientific progress is completely independent and in fact tends to obscure societal decay by keeping people alive who otherwise would have died and distracting them with shiny toys. If traditional societies had the technology that we have, they wouldn't all see the holy light of capital-P progress and suddenly all become good little party members. They'd use it for what every successful society has used technology for - to take over the world.

Overall, 2/10 made me reply.

 

[M0rp43vs]

I kinda want to bring back dueling, don't know why. Either with boxing, swords or pistols. Someone slights you, are you man or petty enough to die for the off chance of killing him or at least maiming him? Duel. Someone's a massive bully and the school system does absolutely nothing but blame you for it? Pop a cap in his ass but shout "DUEL" right before you do.

It'd be some good entertainment. Some of the old duels were pretty insane, like having a pistol duel on two hot air balloons. Throw in Youtube, alcohol and the insane imagination of modern teenagers and you'll have viral videos for years. It'd also do well to clean out the gene pool a bit and help with global overpopulation.
Even I don't know if I'm being serious or not for this post.


I hope pink for boys and Blue for girls makes a resurgence. Not for any civil reason, I just think I and a couple of guys I know look fuckin swank in it and its so hard to find the colour in my size.


Guilds and craftsmans should be more widespread than it is. Guilds should be available as extra curricular activities for children so they don't have to be stuck down one scholar line. Blacksmiths and the likes should dot around every shopping district, so if you need any quick metalwork done, you can just pop down for a quick bang.

 

[Dalisclock]

OT, the traditional social values I could get behind are...all of them. Traditional solutions to social organization were not only prudent and derived from centuries of wisdom, but often innovative and elegantly simple. I think my feelings on the matter could best be summed up in a song. Prepare for feels:

When I read this, all I keep thinking of are numerous reprehensible things that are usually defended with calls of "Tradition!" as if that in itself means it should remain forever.

Just because we've always done it someway doesn't mean it was a good idea in the first place. I'm kind of happy to see society actually look at traditions and decide whether or not they need to continue.

 

[Dalisclock]

We should bring back Victorian England.

Nah, I'm good without workhouses for orphans, being fired because my arm got cut off in the steam press(because now I can't work as efficently), 18-hour workdays and no weekends, being paid pennies a day so the factory owner can own an small country, and dying from horrible diseases because there are open sewers in the street. You know, the products of "Unregulated business".

Captcha: Outlook not so good. Very appropriate.

Someone getting offended because they read to far into an otherwise joking comment? How surprising. Did I not say that the past is generally not a good place? Did you make this post to convince me of something I already know?

If we were in Victorian England, this would be the part where I challenge you to a duel.

Captcha: Uselessly opinionated. How appropriate.

I didn't realize you were joking, partially because I've read/heard people seriously say things like "Political Correctness destroying America"(Where "Political Correctness" is code for "Not being racist/homophobic") or more bluntly "If we just treated all middle eastern people as terrorists(Kill them, or imprison them forever), we'd never have to worry about terror attacks the US again".

 

[Thaluikhain]

When I read this, all I keep thinking of are numerous reprehensible things that are usually defended with calls of "Tradition!" as if that in itself means it should remain forever.

Just because we've always done it someway doesn't mean it was a good idea in the first place. I'm kind of happy to see society actually look at traditions and decide whether or not they need to continue.

This. How is this even up for debate?

Society is supposed to progress, so old things are supposed to be replaced. Just because footbinding or owning slaves or castrating young male singers was done, doesn't mean it was right.

 

[deletemygoddamnaccount]

OT, the traditional social values I could get behind are...all of them. Traditional solutions to social organization were not only prudent and derived from centuries of wisdom, but often innovative and elegantly simple. I think my feelings on the matter could best be summed up in a song. Prepare for feels:

When I read this, all I keep thinking of are numerous reprehensible things that are usually defended with calls of "Tradition!" as if that in itself means it should remain forever.

Just because we've always done it someway doesn't mean it was a good idea in the first place. I'm kind of happy to see society actually look at traditions and decide whether or not they need to continue.

The question in my mind is whether society has actually taken a good look at any of them before deciding to throw them into the proverbial "dustbin of history"; or whether, finding traditions that just so happen to conflict with their distorted view of what they think society is supposed to look like, reformers have rubbed their hands together in glee and said "I have no idea why *this* is here; so it'll have to go!"

This idea is most eloquently described in the parable of Chesterton's fence, which I was discussing with beastro earlier and which I will reproduce here:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion."

On the flip side of this, to elide or replace an old tradition, a reformer must not only understand what purpose the old tradition fulfilled, but also what the full consequences of the institution they intend to replace it with will be - if they intend to replace it with anything. I'd argue that for most of the institutions that we've lost to "progress", only one or the other half of this necessary thought process has been done - and that, badly.

How is this even up for debate?

It's funny how progressives are all for open discussion and debate when they happen to be living under traditions they find uncomfortable, but after they've won and gotten their ill-conceived notions written into law, suddenly any other opinion is beyond the pale of reasonable thought.

Society is supposed to progress, so old things are supposed to be replaced. Just because footbinding or owning slaves or castrating young male singers was done, doesn't mean it was right.

"Society is supposed to progress." What an interesting and completely ahistorical notion. I wonder where you got it, or if you actually know what you mean when you say it? Because, to me, it bears a curious resemblance to the Puritan notion of Providence - a mysterious, history-spanning force for good that slowly and inexorably immanentizes the eschaton, whether we like it or not.

Oh, and nice job cherry-picking traditions that you find horrifying, one of which isn't even from western culture, which is what I assumed everyone knew I was referring to when I said I liked "all" past traditions. I could easily do the same for modern society, though in that case it'd be less like cherry-picking and more like combine harvesting.

 

[Thaluikhain]

How is this even up for debate?

It's funny how progressives are all for open discussion and debate when they happen to be living under traditions they find uncomfortable, but after they've won and gotten their ill-conceived notions written into law, suddenly any other opinion is beyond the pale of reasonable thought.

You're right, I worded that badly. I should have said "Why does this even need to be debated?" or somesuch.

I could easily do the same for modern society, though in that case it'd be less like cherry-picking and more like combine harvesting.

Sure, if I was to say that all new values are good ones. That would be remarkable foolish of me.