We've all heard the old adage that children should be seen and not heard, and the complaints that children these days have no respect for their elders.
Were things different in the past? Were children more obedient back then, more respectful of their parents? If yes, then why have things changed?
>The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
Allegedly a quote from Socrates. So I'd say nothing has changed.
...
...
people always bitched about the younger generations,
but i would see that our modern society is on a downwards path of breaking up the nuclear family
.
Raising your kids is no longer an possible option for our society, except when you're either rich or are able to survive when only 1 parent sustains the family with a job.
We value nowadays day cares and schools as the "Havens" of education, giving the teachers and educators free reign over the development of our children, without giving a damn,
because Money/Work/Success > Family
meaning that those who have to "raise" as a surrogate parent our children have to do it to 30 loud mouthed brats with mostly no manners from home, because some parents could give no lesser fuck about them and add to that the special snowflake-ism of modern education.
TL;DR: people always bitched about children, but we see a slow turn into shitting on our kids by sending them off to public education, instead of teaching them ourselves.
(fun fact; that's what also the commies did in the SU, so they could brainwash the children in good little proletarians)
1. "OBEDIENCE" IS AN EUPHEMISM FOR "SUBMISSION"; TO THE PARENTS, A CHILD IS "OBEDIENT" WHEN THE CHILD RELINQUISHES HIS FREEDOM, PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY, AND SPIRITUALLY, TO THE WILL OF HIS/HER ELDERS, REGARDLESS OF REASON, OR RESPECT.
2. RESPECT IS EARNED, AND IT IS BEYOND AGE; IF ANY PERSON, REGARDLESS OF AGE, DOES NOT RESPECT ANOTHER PERSON, IT IS BECAUSE THE LATTER HAS NOT EARNED THE FORMER'S RESPECT.
THE NOTION THAT RESPECT AUTOMATICALLY ACCRUES WITH AGE —THE SAME AS WISDOM— IS A SPURIOUS AND CHAUVINISTIC GERONTOCRATIC ABOMINATION; THIS HAS AS ITS LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE THE REGARD OF CHILDREN AS INTRINSICALLY IMPURE AND IMPERFECT BEINGS THAT MUST BE "PURIFIED" AND "EDUCATED" TO BECOME "RESPECTABLE".
3. CHILDREN ARE THE NATURAL HEROES OF THIS WORLD; THEY SHOULD BE REBELLIOUS; AN "OBEDIENT" CHILD IS A DEFEATED PERSON.
Children are sociopathic monsters.
Children only have what they've learned from others, so blaming anything on them demonstrates an astounding lack of self-awareness.
This also applies for adults, but it becomes harder at that point so all brainlets start making up ridiculous ideas like "innocence" and "evil" to disguise their regress to animalistic aggression.
>!KNDY.F27NY
>KND
Hmmm...
In the old days parents said no to their kids and kicked their asses. Now parents give kids whatever they want, shove them in front of the TV, give them toys, give them smartphones, give them snacks. Anything to shut them up.
While it's true that every generation thinks the world is going to the dogs, there is no doubt that children in, say, the Victorian period were far more "polite"-- we might say, "inhibited"-- than children of today. Presumably, there will eventually be a correction, a generation that is more austere and formal than the one before it, to rest the clock, but how and why this happens is anyone's guess.
The Jews made it illegal to hit your kids in the 1950s.
>i know every single generation says it but this time it's true I swear!
lol
Kids were more obedient, but they held more grudge towards their parents. They left home as soon as they could, even if they were underage. People were more aggressive back in the day.
Things changed after WWII, more precisely at Woodstock, when people realized that living in a society full of rules that nobody really wanted to follow benefits no one.
Yeah, beating your kids taught them that violence resolves problems and that innocence doesn't guarantee safety from punishment. Now people try to resolve things nonviolently and think that no harm will come to them if they do no harm.
"The behaviour of young men today is not what it was when I was young. In those days men hankered after deeds of derring-do, either by going raiding or by winning wealth and honor through exploits in which there was some element of danger. But nowadays young men want to be stay-at-homes, and sit by the fire, and stuff their stomachs with mead and ale; and so it is that manliness and bravery are on the wane."
t. Ketil the Large, Egil's Saga
People have always bitched about the next generation, nothing new
>People don't realize this is a manifestation of the cultural pendulum swing between decadence and virtue, rather than the implied claim that people who complain about ill mannered youth are just hysterical hypochondriacs.
>everything i dont like is COMMMUNISM
It's almost like there's a correlation between white people refusing to hit their kids, cucking, and degeneracy.
Are you implying it isn't?
Communism doesn't deserve to be treated with nuance.
and then they have the gall to act as if the strong men create good times narrative is false.
I agree with some aspects of your post, but to say that communism is the cause of all of this is ridiculous. communism collapsed 20 years ago and we live by in large in a capitalist, individualist society; the people of this country have lived this way for the late 2 centuries by and large. To blame is on communism is a massive spook.
>inb4 cultural marxism
Violence does resolve problems. If it didn't, the police would not carry guns.
Because you are literally omniscient and can tell exactly how often those things occurred in the past, right?
>communism collapsed 20 years ago
Ideas do not collapse.
>inb4 cultural marxism
If you already know the counter-argument why make the argument in the first place?
because the cultural marxism is another /pol/ construct that doesn't exist in reality.
>Ideas do not collapse.
but again, communism as an idea never had sway in america in never more than a small minority of people. it's not even subscribed to by a majority of academia if thats what your also trying to imply