Is there any time in history where a self-indulgent crybaby didn't start blabbing about the decline of their...

The average progressive thinks that anyone who has lived over a 100 years ago was a complete unenlightened simpleton compared to modern people.

Are you really going to go off on your non sequitur you fucking moron? The point is that it doesn't matter if the progressives or whoever "own" the media, which they dont, its just that people think their own media "doesn't count" when it comes to saturation. They all pump this stuff out on a daily basis in their own way and we are saturated in it all the time.

Fully mobilized civilization. Nomadic tribes. Just tribes too, probably.

>which they dont
lmao
>and we are saturated in it all the time
We're definitely saturated in something and that is the whig theory of history.

You said the media is saturated with people complaining about the decline of civilization. For someone to say civilization is in decline, it was supposed to be better in the past. Most people in the media don't hold a very positive view of the past.

>My media that is constantly handed out through the internet and various media publications is not actually media because I said so.

And besides that you've completely missed what I'm saying again. It doesn't matter what political affiliation is behind it because all it boils down to is number of members will roughly translate into amount of media produced and a overwhelming majority of it is always "be afraid be angry" just with different targets.

To them you are the decline in question, that should be obvious. There were already people in the fucking 60's and 70's whining about about the evil right wing destruction and corrosion of democracy, if you read enough shit from that era you would know that.

Artistotle complained about the utter moral degradation of the people of his time, and how the invention of writing had made scholars lazy.

So no. There has never ever been a time when people weren't certain they were facing the end of civilization as we know it.

A couple times they were even right, albeit temporarily - the fall of Rome, the Huns invasion of the middle east, the sacking of Constantinople, etc

Tell any of them "I wish we could go back to the past" and see their horrified reaction.

lmao they would just pick their specific past era they have chosen to romanticize. It could be as recent as the 60's or as far back as pre-agricultural society, doesn't matter.

I don't know if Aristotle did so. But if he did, he would be correct, considering the era he lived in.
And it is not true that people everywhere always complained about degradation. They usually tend to do so when they have a point.

Cicero lived during the Fall of the Republic, when morals were pretty bad. Recently, there were many complaints about decline in the late 60's to 70's. And they were right. That was an era of moral decline.
The old ladies of the moral panic about Elvis Presley... were actually correct.

The 60's are seem as an era of homophobia and racism by progressive types. Pre-agricultural society is seem as violent, poor and illiterate by them.

Morals, being nothing more than the aggregate opinion on social expectation, cannot 'degrade', only change or distort. In order to degrade you must have an origin point where they were un-degraded, which has never been established. The Christians will even argue it's impossible, since the whole of human history has been one long slide down from Adam and Eve due to original sin, since our moral height was living naked in a forest eating fruit except one very particular kind of fruit

>The 60's are seem as an era of homophobia and racism by progressive types.

"Ah yes the era when people finally started to push back against the evil man and start getting this country back on track! If only I could have been there to help next to (insert favorite civil rights activist here)"

>Pre-agricultural society is seem as violent, poor and illiterate by them.

Lmao nope, didn't you hear? Pre-agricultural society was a egalitarian paradise, just ask John Zerzan.

From a virtue ethics point of view, morals can degrade.

They think it was improving in the 60's, they don't think it was better than it is today.
And they are usually not primitivists.

>virtue
never has a more empty and meaningless phrase been uttered, Robespierre

>Morals, being nothing more than the aggregate opinion on social expectation, cannot 'degrade', only change or distort. In order to degrade you must have an origin point where they were un-degraded, which has never been established.
That is completely wrong. Social norms are an ideal construct. Degradation denotes lack of adherence to them, which can be present in a greater or smaller extent. It is not just norms, either. Degradation is also used in the sense of institutions (family, most prominently, ) failing (divorce rates, dropping fertility etc.).

Why am I not surprised that you are ignorant of ethics?

If they aren't primitivists it will just be a different era like if they are an anarcho-communists they will invariably wish they could be living in the C.N.T. F.A.I.

>they don't think it was better than it is today.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, the 60's was the general time where they picked up and had the cultural momentum and were in a good position generally speaking with accomplishing their goals. Point is though the prevailing narrative is that we are in decline because of the spread of right wing politics across Europe and America trying to destroy freedom and democracy, this same narrative gets repeated at least as far back as the 60's.

Tell a progressive, "I wish I was back in the 60's" and watch their reaction. They will talk about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc

"but compared to today? When literal nazis are walking in the streets of America?!?!?! I would prefer it!"

In the 1960's, the KKK was much larger and more active.

That's an actual rough quote so I'm not sure why your trying to argue against it. Everybody has their own time frame to idealize.

I really don't think that you get out much.