The Past is Racist and Sexist

As if we are living in an era with super great morality. We are living in a super hedonistic era.

I teach freshman at a high school and a lot of them seem to be getting tired of PC culture and SJW stuff. They're not full on /pol/ but they're tired of it nonetheless.

Women actually were happier in that era.

There is nothing inherently immoral with hedonism.

Epicurean hedonism, maybe so.

Frat boy style hedonism (the one that dominates this era) on the other hand is awful.

If it does not hurt anyone else, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

>it's a the '50s were actually a dystopian nightmare episode

>say "man that period after the war would've been a great time to live with the economic prosperity and all!"
Stupid Americans. Half of the world was under the most brutal version of communist regime.

>implying 1950s era Soviet Union wasn't comfy as fuck

It wasn't, you dumb fool. Stalin died in 1953. And in most countries destalinization started in 1956.

>implying post ww2 America hadn't its biggest golden age between 45-69

What's wrong with the 70s?

Europe was a pretty shitty place to live in the 50's

>Tfw you will never grow up in 1950's Rhodesia or South Africa

Just tell that bitch that words like racist and sexist are ignorant as fuck and overused by idiots who can't form a proper counter argument. I want to shit on any University student for destroying the meaning of those words into something casual and ever-present.

>If it does not hurt anyone else, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Ethics is a guide of life, it doesn't deal only with "not harming others". Smoking crack does not hurt others directly. It still is not a good idea to smoke crack. If an ethics system says that "there is nothing wrong with smoking crack", this ethics system is useless.
Hedonism (in the frat boy sense) hurts the hedonist themselves and at the same time makes them worse people.

And even from the point of "harming others" when people become worse, it harms society. See single mothers.

Vietnam.

>Women actually were happier in that era.

What did he mean by this?

>who cares about technological advancements, strides in medicines, great conquests, world-altering documents, and marvels in art and architecture? After all, women couldn't vote!!!!!

Go play in traffic.

Hippy movement, rise of modern feminism -> destruction of the nuclear family, rise of hard drugs and the horrifically failed war on drugs

Stagflation.

That feminism was a mistake.

That a majority of women are being forced into positions they're not comfortable with due to peer pressure originating from a minority of women who themselves are in it due to a bitter grudge towards the other sex.

Women today are miserable. They're expected to work long hours they're not fit for. They're expected to get drunk, to fuck, to sodomize, to act, to be strong, to be manly, to be ever ambitious.

And when women fail at these, the whiny minority of women will go back to blaming it on men culture further pushing the majority women onwards to their inevitable misery.

You are obviously a young guy so you don't even know if the 50s were that great. She is right.

im asian and 50s is pretty fine
many people have nostalgia of that era too here

many, many view ignorance, such as displayed by you, to be a much more dangerous character flaw than hedonism.

>a young guy doesn't know what the 50s were like because he wasn't there but a young woman definitely does
?????

Unfortunately, this great code of conduct doesnt definine our current society's morals

Consensual protected incest between adults (hurts no one) is more frowned upon than adultery (hurts someone) and abortion (kills someone).
Just one exemple among many btw

Yah, I mean, why don't we all just be frat boys. Who fucking needs anything else

>The 50's fucking blew in every aspect except the economy
meme

>objective economic prosperity
The question is for who. Consider this: "man, that period after the Arab Conquests would've been a great time to live with the economic prosperity and all!"

Now, assuming you're not already a Muslim and would have issues converting at all, do you still feel the same way? Your acquaintance was just pointing out that what's implicit in your statement is that the period after the war would've been a great time to live (for you). Even then, all you're doing is arbitrarily deciding that you, for whatever reason, would have been a part of this prosperity even though that's no guarantee. Instead of imagining yourself in a cozy house with a white picket fence, a nice car, and a stepford wife, try and imagine yourself looking at all of this through the open window of your shanty home a few blocks away.

>who cares about technological advancements, strides in medicines, great conquests, world-altering documents, and marvels in art and architecture? After all, women couldn't vote!

We have all of these things today, on top of women's suffrage.

What was the demographic of America in the 50's?

>I dont have an argument or any thought out concept of ethics, so I'll just call him stupid

Not even the user you're responding to, but you sound like an ass

Amen.

>All of history before now was wrong because MUH RACISM and MUH SEXISM

>Therefore we must not learn anything from it so we can repeat all the same fucking mistakes

Fucking completely terrifying.

Your limited reading comprehension does not really convince anyone except for the fact that you're an under age edgelord who talks about "ethics" as a naive stormfag would.

>We have all of these things today,
We have incremental advancements in how many transistors you can put on a silicon plate. We have the highest rate of STDs in recorded history. We have Infinite Jest. We have the Pompidou. We have nothing.

>implying there was not a boom in black commercial districts from returning soldiers
>implying it was not a prime balance of labor-saving devices and stable marriages for women
>implying there was not a massive network of ex-sailors having endless sodomy parties with no AIDS or moralizing

>Instead of imagining yourself in a cozy house with a white picket fence, a nice car, and a stepford wife, try and imagine yourself looking at all of this through the open window of your shanty home a few blocks away.
Try and imagine being able to take a bus from your shanty home, get a job in a factory, save up enough to buy a car and start a business, and have that white picket fence yourself inside five years. That's what we're nostalgic for.

>naive about ethics
>if it doesn't cause anyone physical pain it's OK
sure thing skippy

Your limited reading comprehension strikes again.

Racism and sexism don't hurt anyone as such.
>inb4 hurt feelings
They may be motivations for a crime but it is wholly different from the crime itself.

Hence, per your post, there is nothing wrong with racism and sexism.

In America it sucked big time.
Highest crime rates in history of the country, mass spread of atrocious drugs (most were synthesized earlier but were anecdotal before late 60s), stagflation, socialists actually gaining ground in the world, ...

There is nothing inherently wrong with it but you cannot say that there are no victims caused from sexism or racism in the grander scheme of things.

You're thinking along the lines of reason and logic. Most people now think only along buzzwords and emotion. You can't win an argument with them if they're incapable of thinking along the same lines as you.

I never said that.

And if mere motivation is enough to call someone a "victim" of something (you can readily see the difference of meaning between "victim of [motivation]" and "victim of robbery, rape, ..."), then every opinion has made victims, and every opinion with many followers has made many victims.

As long as the motivation is incidental (not directly involved in the opinion in a "kill the kuffar" way) this is a not a serious argument.

Tell her that people should stop thinking in populations as absolutes.

For Jim the owner of a car dealership, for whom business is booming, he has a stable family, and owns a home, it's great.

For Steve, who died in the Korean War, and never went back to his wife, it's not so great.

For Xing, the tenant farmer in Sichuan who enlisted in the Red Army and can now give himself a good life, the 50s are great.

For Jun, the landowner who was dispossessed of the land his family have owned for centuries, and is starving in a hovel due to collectivized farming, it's terrible.

You could go on like this for hours. The point is that, like all events and time periods, it was a great time FOR SOME PEOPLE, a terrible time FOR SOME OTHER PEOPLE, and somewhere in between FOR MOST PEOPLE.

I disagree, since cumulative amount of victims can be bad for society. Racism itself isn't inherently bad, but the effects of it are. Creating a lower class of people injects society with an element of unrest which makes it less stable. That's the short version.

So racism, in the long run, is extremely destructive for a society and is furthermore often associated with a lack of intelligence and empathy. Two character flaws which most would consider bad.

And hedonism is better because?

That's not a very convincing view.

>Racism itself isn't inherently bad, but the effects of it are.
We are entering shaky grounds, condemning things for remote effects when there is often no way to assert what caused what. Besides, the bad effect you put forth is
>Creating a lower class of people injects society with an element of unrest which makes it less stable.
The assertion itself is debatable. In fact socialists could replace racism with property or inheritance and use the same trail to promote socialism.
The argument also assumes as some sort of strong restriction that there is a lower class in a given society, which is a very specific form of racism. Most "racists" as the term is understood ITT (began by talking of the 50s) want some form of segregation far more than subjection.

>is extremely destructive for a society
Many cultures have lasted centuries being racist, and some are still lasting being racist, like Japan
.
>is furthermore often associated with a lack of intelligence and empathy
And they were brilliant cultures. Some of them I definitely consider better than what I live in now. Anti-racism being the current norm has caused that it is mostly people on margins that openly show it. This is no argument against the Grand Siecle in France or the British Victorians or the Spanish Golden Age, all of them racist.

It should be a given that the past is sexist and racist and mean and so on. If they're too stupid to understand the concept of "besides that" than don't waste your time with them.

>0491▶
> (You)
>And hedonism is better because?

The ball is in your court, not mine.

I'm dismissing your other points because you're ignoring to many aspects. That racism is a detriment to increased productivity and longevity is not up for debate. Have there existed succesful racist societies before? Yes. That doens't change the fact that overall well being is a positive trait when it comes to positivity. Only a fool would think otherwise.

>it was better when whites could lynch blacks illegally and either not even be convicted or be sentenced "not guilty" by a biased racist jury of all whites.
>a society with racist laws like Jim Crow that treat citizens like slaves is good

Kill yourself. Racism among the majority allows a repugnant corrupt society to take root.

>They can't shut you up if all you teach are objective facts about the past.
That's naive.

> That racism is a detriment to increased productivity and longevity is not up for debate
Even if it weren't (which is extremely dubious) it wouldn't be a compelling argument without the accompanying assumption that "increased productivity" is an all encompassing goal.

As for your argument, it could be framed better.
Imagine group A has ability for activity X, and group B ability for activity Y. Let's say group A and B have the same number of people.

An investor looking preferentially for A people for X (devoting, say, 80% of his attention to A possibilities and 20% on Bs) and B people for Y (which is literally racist/sexist/whateverist) has very little chance of seeing decreased productivity from his pattern of assumptions and preferences, even if he so happens to miss a B candidate that is good at X or to have less chances to notice him.

In a production lien, it may be better to keep manufacturing process A for a product even though B can give some good results too.

It is edgy when talking about people this way, but this is just to respond to the argument.

What are you even doing out of Reddit being triggered like that?

>it's ok to deny someone opportunities for something as basic as a job based solely on their skin color

Do you even listen to yourself? Would you like it if your race was treated in this way and your doors were shut based just on your skin color?

>Would you like it if your race was treated in this way and your doors were shut based just on your skin color?
Not skin colour, but I didn't get to work for the dry cleaner next door as a teenager for the summer because he only hired fellow Jews. I didn't throw a tantrum. Less dramatic than what you describe but still.

Since we are in the retarded argument league, I could take your "argument"
>it's ok to deny someone opportunities for something as basic as a job based solely on their skin color
and turn it into
>>it's ok to deny someone opportunities for something as basic as a relationship based solely on their height
Yep, I'm a manlet an I have heard in plain words from the women involved that it blocked me opportunities with them. Where do I fit in the oppression scale?

>the 50s were great for white people in the society that they built
>it was shit for people who werent welcome there
Tell me more.
Fuck off you uneducated buffoon.

>it was better when whites could lynch blacks illegally and either not even be convicted or be sentenced "not guilty" by a biased racist jury of all whites.
>a society with racist laws like Jim Crow that treat citizens like slaves is good
Both of these things are correct, if you're looking at it from the white perspective.

Utter contempt for everything Old and Evil, and the belief that it must be torn down and stomped on, lies at the heart of every fascist movement. There are no exceptions.

Take a look around, kids. You're repeating history... and not in a good way.

I'd gladly repeat history if it meant the revival of white racialism, even in just my nation-state.

Sometimes violent purging is necessary.

It's amazing how people will universally condemn violent behavior towards their 'special groups' and never consider that the violence was justified.

For example: if jews are kicked out of dozens of nations, what's the common denominator?

>For example: if jews are kicked out of dozens of nations, what's the common denominator?
Institutionalized anti-Semitism. Look, see this guy? This is your fellow traveller.

Unfuck yourself.

>without the accompanying assumption that "increased productivity" is an all encompassing goal.

Very well, pick another goal and we can argue that point of view. I assume Well Being could be another goal, in which case racism is detriment again.

Furthermore your example has nothing to do with racism, so I fail to see how it applies. When people employ someone, they tend to look at their credentials and references, not the color of their skin (and if they don't, they're idiots who shouldn't run a business).

So you don't see a problem if fucking the vast majority of businesses would do what that Jew did and put up "Help Wanted: whites only"?

You lack any ability to critically think. You've experienced a single example of prejudice and can't even look at the big picture of a whole society who would act like that Jew that denied you a job based on ethnicity.

Your a naive idiot if you think being denied by the majority the basic right to work is "throwing a tantrum"

>le wrong generation

guys, this is getting more frequent than the posts under beatles songs on youtube...

>He doesn't know what the 50s were actually like
How does it feel to be indoctrinated? Make your own research instead of regurgitating a highly biased view.

>Well Being could be another goal, in which case racism is detriment again.
There is no magic formula for well being.
If Aziz ben Youssef doesn't want infidels, that's taken into account in his well being, and he will minimize his dealings with infidels. It never needs to be drastic. He may only have a train of preference for dealing with other Muhammadans, as is at least what is inscribed in the sharia.
Go and say to him that Muhammad was a faggot in recommending that. And that you have the secret ingredient of well being and it involves X and Y and not having distaste for infidels.

I don't, and no one has a "right" to work.

>So you don't see a problem if fucking the vast majority of businesses would do what that Jew did and put up "Help Wanted: whites only"?

nah. Businesses should be allowed to do that. However they get to deal with the ramifications. People might boycott the business due to what they see as unfair business practices, this would include minorities AND a lot white people. A business that wants to be successful wouldn't shut itself off from those customers, businesses that did so would fail. In addition, any successful business would simply hire the best people for the job. If they find a black guy who is a whole lot better at something than all the white guys that applied, they'll take the black guy.

tldr: The free market would fix it. I can tell you're a libtard though

>muh special version of free market

fuck off bizarro-commie

To be fair, libtard user was using the scenario where an all encompassing conspiracy of (white) people decided not act in an unified way. Basically a race-wide cartel. Good luck maintaining that. And if it does, that probably means there was satisfaction in it.

I think we lost libtard user by mentioning race. I wonder how he would respond if instead of the very mean whiteys, we were talking about a trade union uniting masses of wage earners in a grand cartel. Would they be big bad meany people too?

Yeah because the free market really changed the South from being a openly racist shithole. Oh wait, no that was the federal government that had to force them to treat all citizens equally. Even then the resisted up until the 80s.

All you're saying is you're ok with discrimination as long as your race remains in control. I'm sure if most business were Jewish and wouldn't hire your goy ass you'd be more demanding of equality.

>Oh wait, no that was the federal government that had to force them to treat all citizens equally.

Yeah, force who exactly?

That's right. The state governments, not businesses. State governments enforced Jim Crow you idiot.

A private business that openly discriminated against black people voluntarily would be out of business in months.

>There is no magic formula for well being.

Nobody has ever said there is, but we can easily deduce that some things contribute to and from it.

>the mean people having the incorrect opinions must be forced and coerced to our superior ways
Truly the puritans have no shame.

But even then the argument doesn't hold because of

Federal law is what created anti discrimination laws for employment retard.

>Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e and following) prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (including membership in a Native American tribe).

And in a society that encourages racism employers could definitely stay in business with a "whites only" policy.

>A private business that openly discriminated against black people voluntarily would be out of business in months.

>And in a society that encourages racism employers could definitely stay in business with a "whites only" policy.

The South DID encourage racism you ignoramus. And they still HAD to have the Jim Crow laws because no business would refuse to accept money from people without government threat simply based on skin color.

>the federal government
Only when it became politically profitable to do so. Which followed the great national outcry that followed the invention of television, and people all over the country saw civil rights marchers getting the shit beaten out of them.

You are pretending the entire society was racist, that the civil rights movement never happened, and that the mighty and benevolent federal government swept in with its magic wand and cured society of all its racist ills -- three Orwellian lies in one.

My parents were part of this episode in history, you vicious brainless little fuck. Mom busted her tailbone getting hosed off the steps of City Hall in San Francisco protesting Jim Crow, and it still hurts when the weather turns wet. Dad spent several summers going south with boxes of books teaching blacks and poor whites how to read so they could pass these chickenshit voter literacy laws. Both were and are devout Christians who got a classical education, and who saw their work as a high act of patriotism. All of this you airbrush out at the behest of your deconstructionist leftist professors. Fuck you and fuck them.

I predict a brilliant future for you as an intern in the second Clinton administration.

Tell her that her view is presentist and that she is committing presentism and that she is culturally biased and should be more cultural relativistic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)

>And in a society that encourages racism employers could definitely stay in business with a "whites only" policy

Businesses simply wouldn't WANT to do that because that limits the amount of people they can sell their product to. That's the power of the almighty dollar.

Fuck you. You're putting words in my mouth and making assumptions so you can play victim online.

I never said anything to imply the civil rights movement didn't influence the federal government finally stepping in. However it was federal law that gave power to what the Civil Rights movement was striving for.

Fucking faggot

>no moralizing about teh gays
>in the 50s

What did you mean by this?
youtube.com/watch?v=mkzSVR2Oqck

>muh economic boom in black districts
So economic prosperity is more important than basic civil liberties? Great, how about I take away your right to vote and you can't use hotels or have good seats on public transit or be served in most restaurants anymore. I mean you get to keep your job, but that's about it. Since economic prosperity is everything I'm sure you won't be upset at all.

>labor-saving devices
Surely you can't be serious.

Feel free to start arguing anytime.

I doubt it, you will very quickly summon vague generalities like friendship or health.

Given all possibilities, a man acts on what he truly prefers. This is his empirical preference, as opposed to whatever conflicts he may set up in his mind.

If a man truly had option one, getting another involved in his life, and option two, not getting him involved, and chose option two, that is his empirical preference. that is what he actually leans towards.

When he acts, what are you going to say? That he prefers "unhappiness"? Would that change anything?

Then why did the South need federal law to force private business to stop this "whites only" shit?

>man that period after the war would've been a great time to live with the economic prosperity and all!

What a retarded line, you deserved to get laughed at for that.

The fact of the matter is, ignoring all the shit about racism and sexism, right now is the best time to live. The most advanced technology, the most advanced medicine, the most widespread peace, the lowest rates of violent crime overall (in the west at least), the most variety in consumer/luxury goods, the most freedom of movement, I could keep going.

Anyone who seriously wants to live in the past has a major case of rose tinted glasses and is ignoring just how lucky we are to live in this era. The present and future will continue to be better than the past unless we go through some kind of doomsday scenario.

There was some mandatory segregation imposed on the local level.
Also, with mandatory aspects lifted, you would have the possibility of taking blacks in, not the obligation, which is just another mandatory restriction.

There is no need for the disappearance of the oh so evil satanist "white only" things. If they can remain in business, they serve their purpose.

>she says "oh you mean the time when sexism and racism was rampant?"

Bah! There are tradeoffs to everything.

>I doubt it
Doubt it all you want, it does not make it any less true.

Have you ever considered that people may have different criterion that you?

Don't worry. I don't doubt your infinite wisdom knows what is Good and True.

>jewess explains to women why they should be miserable

terrific.

also:

elle.com/beauty/health-fitness/advice/a10665/female-depression-why-women-are-unhappier-than-theyve-been-in-years-385696/