This will probably be considered a troll /pol/ thread, but this is an honest question.
Is there any historical evidence that increased "social justice", sexual freedom, and welfare-esque programs have caused societal decline or even collapse in the past? Is it true that some of these things have a correlation with the collapse of Rome?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
newsreel.org
pbs.org
livescience.com
eurekalert.org
anyforums.com
twitter.com
Everything has a correlation with the collapse of rome.
Pretty fucking sure that Rome was a socially unjust place.
Not really. Rome was a welfare state for hundreds of years
lol
No. That's just a /pol/ meme
Nope, people just like to use Rome's collapse to support whatever social movement they like really. Well, /pol/ types do, but they can never really create a compelling argument for it, let alone present evidence.
And anyone who thinks Rome was some upstanding moral place at any point knows pretty much nothing about history.
this
Protip that chunky old book that the /pol/tards love so much, it was written by people who fucking hated Rome for being a sociopathic nation of crackheads
SJWs, Welfare programs, and Mass Immigration being the cause for the fall of the Roman empire is textbook /pol/ horseshit that has very little bearing in actual history.
The Roman empire was about anything but social justice, it was a welfare state for hundreds upon hundreds of years and actually started to cease that towards it's end as it slipped into proto-feudalism, and while the mass barbarian immigrations were a problem, they were a symptom of a much greater disease. One that actually had some benefits to it until the grossly incompetent handling of it by Roman leadership.
The same for sexual freedom. At its height, Rome laughed at Augustus for being autistic for trying to enforce strict sexual conservatism into law.
Tl;dr pol doesn't know a thing about history.
You would be surprised how many things have a correlation with the collapse of Rome.
>jewish influence
This
>implying romans didn't have a strict social code
Now you're the delusional one m8. Sure, they were more free about things in many ways, but the idea of a woman cheating or a man allowing dishonor often meant death by ones own hand.
>The idea of a woman cheating
Was such a problem Augustus literally had to make a law to try and stop it. Something that his own daughter was guilty of.
Which Tacitus says did absolutely nothing and romans kept about doing as they did.
One doesn't pass reform to something that doesn't need reformation. Romans didn't slow their roll until after Nero's reign and even then modesty expanded to several aspects of Roman life, not just sex.
>it's a "rome collapsed because of [thing about the present day I don't like]" episode
mein kampf?
Women's rights movement/liberation during the Mao era helped escalate the Cultural Revolution and bolster the ranks of the Red Guards.
He is asking the question, not stating the fact.
Feel free to fucking refute it, instead of making this shitty post as if it is an argument.
fucking memeposter
Didn't the same occur to the caliphates of old?
Cycle theory is rightwing bullshit
Sexual freedom, decadence etc, naturally happen in safe societies
Blaming the collapse of Rome on something is the historian's version of comparing someone to Hitler, cf. Godwin's Law
couldn't it be argued that Germanic immigrants helped caused rome's downfall.
>Cycle theory is rightwing bullshit
Literally the stupidest shit I've read all week.
Delete this at once and leave this board
>TRINITY, HELP
Well many civilisations have gone thru it, and it always results in seismic changes that may or may not involve total societal collapse. Rome didn't survive because it was invaded by barbarians, but India recovered from it's "permissive crisis" and entered a new golden age under Ashoka and his heirs. For us in Europe, the model of Rome is more likely because we have unrestricted immigration from barbarous societies in the Mid East. Americans are more likely to survive, albeit "Mexicanised" to some degree.
They invaded in part because of the weakness of the Roman state. The Republic and early Empire would have genocided those hairy apemen, the late Empire lacked the moral fibre to fight it's own wars and made itself dependant on Barbarian vigour in it's military, to disastrous long-term effect.
If it could be likened to any modern situation, it's similar to how Middle Eastern countries bankrolled and harbored insurgents to destabilize their neighbors and fight proxy wars for them, only to end up infested by these same insurgents as soon as they showed signs of internal instability and started losing control of their territory.
Other than maybe some islands in the middle of the Pacific, there were not many societies with "sexual freedom".
Rome was more conservative than people think and by the time it fell it was Christian.
Even in the case of Samoa, it was mostly a hoax invented by Margaret Mead (turns out Freeman was wrong too, the girls actually did say they were not huge sluts, the only person that said premarital sex was super OK in Samoa was... Margaret Mead's Samoan lover, the rest said it wasn't).
>"ROME FELL BECAUSE OF THE GAYS!!!!!!"
Christ, when will this meme die?
>anyone who thinks Rome was some upstanding moral place
Isn't it less about "upstanding morals" and more about just harsh life and toughness that comes of it?
No..NOT KEANU!, I WANT TO WATCH JOHN WICK 2, FUCK YOU ISIS!!
now I want a John Wick sequel where he unapologetically goes and kills ISIS
>The Republic and early Empire would have genocided those hairy apemen
Sure thing brah
en.wikipedia.org
Degeneracy, massive social and welfare programs and fringe groups being accepted into the mainstream has typically been the result of a societal collapse, not the cause of it.
These become commonplace when the moral fiber of a nation deteriorates, hard work is not valued highly, the person promising the most benefits (historically bread and circus) to the plebs at no cost to them, and the "norm" is challenged and attempted to be toppled over by fringe groups who feel under represented, and in gaining widespread appeal alter national values held in high regard because they were what allowed a nation to become strong in the first place.
Hard lives beget hard me. Easy lives beget weak men. Weak men beget attempts to change the values from those centered on strong, hard men so they can continue to be soft and live in luxury. This begets a collapse, which creates hard lives, which then creates hard men.
Humanity is a cycle of rise and fall, creation and destruction, hard and easy. It is inevitable so long as the majority do not look beyond themselves, and historically and currently, the majority never has.
That'd be rad
:^)
No
Dont believe the memes
>Le hard work
>Le moral fiber
Dont kid yourself, macho man. It all comes down to money, resources and manpower.
Is that why Mongols raped incredibly rich and populated states?
No, it's not all about that. And Rome had all three. Yet it still fell.
>b-but plagues
Even with plagues they were still dominant.
And fell.
What he mentioned is pretty much the history of competing states.
Happened in China many times.
Not an argument
>trusting /pol/ with evidence
>ever
They still believe in race realism, think the Romans and Medditeraneans were white, deny the holocaust, and ignore any counter evidence to their outdated/ bullshit claims.
Just yesterday, I got into an argument with a stormfag and I gave him evidence of sub Saharan Africans having civilisation and giving out inventions, as well as iq gains around various parts of the world involving blacks.
He then started whining about how without foreign trade they would collapse?
>Nooooo? A country that has been plagued with civil war, internal conflict, horrible dictators and sex slavery is only now getting better economically due to foreign aid? You don't say?
To;dr stormfags are fucking hopeless at debates and arguing, because the second you present counter evidence they call you a KEK and rely on feels over reals to win the day.
>I get all my information from Stop being a pleb/ Black pigeon speaks
You have to be over 18 to post here
We all know what happened to the Eldar...
>They still believe in race realism
What, that races exist? That's true
>think the Romans and Medditeraneans were white
WE WUZ SPQR BEFORE WHITEY CAME ALONG
>deny the holocaust
Yeah that's classical stormfaggotry
Race does exist as far as the concept is acknowledged. Race realism is the idea that race is a valid biological concept, which it isn't.
Race, as the stormfags like to point out, doesn't exist
Try donating bone marrow to a west or east african famalam.
>About 85% of all genetic variation can, on average, be found within any local population, be they Swedes, Kikuyu, or Hmong
C L A S S I C Lewontin's fallacy.
While it's true that 85% of genetic variation is ingroup and only 15% between group, dogs, for example, are similar. 75% ingroup and 25% between group. Yet would you, with a straight face, say that there is more difference between two great danes than a great dane and a chihuaha?
1. Humans aren't dogs
2. A lot of those dogs are like due to selective breeding, purebloods are unhealthy because of this.
pbs.org
3. Not even brain size or skull shape defines your intelligence
Humans aren't dogs, retard
>Humans aren't dogs
Correct, humans have been approximately 10X longer on this planet than dogs, allowing for more genetic diversity
>A lot of those dogs are like due to selective breeding, purebloods are unhealthy because of this
That... has literally nothing to do with what I said
>Not even brain size or skull shape defines your intelligence
Nor did I ever say this. Do you always strawman this bad, or are you making a special exception for me?
>race realism
Races exist, however I'm personally not sure as to how much they influence human behavior. You're really just relying on semantics to prop up your ''races don't exist'' argument.
>Romans and Mediterraneans were white
They were ''white'', or European, genetically. And those who believe they were blonde Germanic people or something like that are a fringe group of lunatics even in those circles.
>deny the holocaust
Fringe loud group. Go see any thread about that on /pol/, there's plenty of people who ridicule those idiots.
Completely obvious, and irrelevant. There are some dog breeds that are only a millenium old. Yet humans, who have been here for 200,000 years, are somehow special and won't develop races?
It does, because you compared the genetic diversity of humans to dogs, and I gave you can explantation as to why that comparison was null.
you know that expression; there is no race except the human race?
There is scientific evidence to back that up.
He's kinda right though, dogs were literally artificially bred to produce certain breeds.
That never happened to humans. People who adopt racial theories rely too much on feelings and looks.
I never said genetic diversity doesn't exist. What I mean is that the boundaries by which we divide races are mostly arbitrary and cultural.
Some breeds. But others "Evolved" (for lack of a better term) on their own.
>People who adopt racial theories rely too much on feelings and looks
How do you thinks zoologists categorize animals?
If there was only one race there wouldn't be such differences within it.
I agree with that, because a lot of people believe race only comes down to skin color, which is plain wrong
Yeah and there's genetic research that shows Europeans are a genetic cluster and are pretty close to each other. All Europeans.
But you'd probably claim an Italian and a Swede are different races. That's my point.
I... wouldn't? But don't let me shelve your strawman
ANYONE who claims Rome stood on a social higher ground has never opened up a book in his life.
Rich aristocracy?NEETs can always allow themsleves to be more lethargic and unbothered, they have slaves or near slaves to worry for them.
What happened in rome is irrelevant. You only have to use your eyes and brain to see the negative effect of the new direction our society is taking.
Brb
Women liberation=less kids and children not raised by families but by the state
Less marriage=less reason for men to contribute to society and the adoption of xbox and porn culture
More random sex=more divorce and more single mothers which produces lower quality children
Welfare state=disgenic effect on a nations gene pool
Im sure theres many more examples but yeah.
I don't understand why people use the "artificially bred" thing as an argument. Black bears and polar bears are from the same species, but clearly different races, and they weren't artificially bred. Same with Bengal tigers and Siberian tigers. Same with Aryans and Negroids.
Different subspecies, Not races, learn taxonomy, retard.
And what would be wrong with adopting racial theories over subspecies rather than species?
>subspecies
>a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race
>race
Not really. Society changes, nations fall.
there is no historical precedent for the modern socio-political situation.
>women liberation=less kids and children not raised by families but by the state
No, less children is a result of a population being wealthier. Less than 1% of children are in foster care.
>Less marriage=less reason for men to contribute to society and the adoption of xbox and porn culture
That's the result of social alienation, not from people simply stop believing in marriage.
>More random sex=more divorce and more single mothers which produces lower quality children
People don't divorce because they fucked a few people before. Single mothers are a result of poor choices in women and social alienation in men.
>Welfare state=disgenic effect on a nations gene pool
Niggers and spics would be fucking and having a lot of kids without the welfare state. But it is correct that the welfare state is having a negative effect on people and social cohesion.
Black bears are distantly related from polar bears, you're thinking of brown bears, which are separated from polar bears by 150,000 years. Not to mention that they have very distinct behaviors and habitats and there's a very clear line between them. Whereas there's no clear line between "Aryans" and "Negroids" unless you think race just means skin color. Biological race does not exist for two reasons: the first is that all humans are mostly genetically the same, with only up to a 15% to 7% difference, with those differences not being specific to a specific group or location; as in there are no genes that only blacks have or that whites never have. The second reason is that it's impossible to objectively and accurately define where one race begins and ends, partially because it's like a color wheel where one color slowly morphs into another.
>People don't divorce because they fucked a few people before
user...
Ever wonder where that social alienation comes from?
Mongols had manpower and money from all the shit they looted. Mongol soldiers weren't working for free you know.
Just lol if you actually believe anything that you just posted
Yes, a liberated/wageslave woman is less likely to have children and children that she does have will require state care
Social alienation affects a tiny percent of the population. Most dudes play xbox cause theres nothing better to do
Sluts will never make a housewife and the same is true for men
Niggers and spics would starve without welfare so less kids.
>Is there any historical evidence that increased "social justice", sexual freedom, and welfare-esque programs have caused societal decline or even collapse in the past? Is it true that some of these things have a correlation with the collapse of Rome?
No, not least as "social justice", sexual freedom and welfare-esque programmes are all modern constructs you've imposed on a period of antiquity.
I know those graphs and they're bullshit. It equates correlation with causation. Half of it is religious people staying in their marriage because they're religious, and half of it is because promiscuous women don't want to be married. There's probably a factor of certain damaged women whose symptom is promiscuousness being less capable of staying in a long term relationship, but we wouldn't know that because the graphs are entirely about the spook of marriage and not relationships in general.
Probably just a degenerative effect of urbanization and people having less time for others and deciding to substitute it with social media, or vidya, or whatever else.
All wealthy societies have few children, it's just something that happens, it has nothing to do with sexual liberation because even a place like Japan has few children. Social alienation effects everyone, it doesn't necessarily mean being a NEET or a forever alone; a person choosing something like vidya over meaningful relationships isn't because Call of Duty is just that much fun.
Sluts don't make housewives probably because the belief is marriage being good goes along with the belief that premarital sex is bad. Without welfare money wouldn't go into unsustainable black communities and would force and allow people to get jobs, while spics would probably just get a fourth job.