Leftists: Old Culture was too imbalanced? Let's make it even MORE imbalanced in an opposite way!
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (10)
sorted by:
The old order wasnt imbalanced.
It was what brought us to the moon.
OP here - I agree.
Old Order = Masculine qualities
New Order = Feminine qualities
I think we can all agree that Masculine was much better for the advancement of our civilization.
Just because it produced amazing results doesn't mean it wasn't imbalanced.
Look at China - they are lifting millions of their people out of poverty every year. Their rise over the last 40 years has been nothing short of meteoric. It really is, undeniably, amazing, inspiring stuff... Until you look at how they are doing it. A brutal police force, massive surveillance, absolutely unchecked state authority, corruption everywhere, and blatant disregard for their own workers. The party is all that matters. The only reason they're lifting people out of poverty at all is because as long as they deliver economically, dissent against the party will remain easy to stamp out.
It seems to me that humans are very bad at picking reasonable, balanced, middle-ground solutions. Moderate systems of any kind don't seem to last longer than one generation before a more hardline approach from one angle or another takes the reins and fucks things up for no real reason other than to see if it'll improve things, even when things weren't bad before.
The older brought us to the moon, but it also obliterated families by keeping dad at work for so long that his kids never got to see him and his wife inevitably cheated on him.
Where is the "imbalance" in the first set?
Reality is fucking harsh. The only reason women and children get to pretend is isn't because strong and resilient men sacrifice themselves to be shields, shelters and carve out spaces where the weaker individuals can survive and even thrive.
Any attempt to change reality will inevitably fail and lead to MORE suffering than what would have happened if the naive utopians hadn't interfered.
Instead the goal should be to strengthen individuals so they can persevere DESPITE reality being indifferent to their suffering.
I don't think it's an "imbalance" so much that ConInc types have used those arguments as a Motte and Bailey for why people shouldn't be upset at what the politicians are doing or are complacent with.
If a bad wind storm causes a tree to fall on my house then shit happens. Not much to do but clean up the mess and maybe make the clearing around my house a bit bigger to make it less likely to happen again.
If my job was shipped overseas it's because policies allowed that to happen, and people voted for those policies. That's not an Act of God, but a lot of these ConInc types would have you believe it is. If I lose my job ultimately the responsibility falls on me to provide for myself and my family regardless of the cause, but it's also not "playing the victim" to criticize politicians and government policies for policies that allowed it to happen.
They've started doing the same thing at work: HR has started to put on these "dealing with change" seminars that on the one hand assume "change" is always positive and on the other hand treats it as some Act of God never to be questioned, criticized, or resisted. I think it's because employees have started to complain about the direction the company is going and they're trying to deflect responsibility away from management for making unnecessary or harmful changes the employees don't like and onto the employees for not properly "dealing with change".
The column on the left is traditional conservative discourse that has ruled much of western society throughout history, the column on the right is how modern progressivism has responded to that discourse as it has taken over western society. The meme is disagreeing with both approaches and saying they are both imbalanced.
Endeavor to be anti-fragile.