Right Wing Discussion Thread X: Pol's closed

[Luminesa]

I would've went for "Society sees traditionally 'masculine' traits as more virtuous" over profitability tbh.

I disagree with that assessment. Motherhood is extremely virtuous, as is caring for the household. Gentleness is another virtue.

“Nothing is so strong as gentleness, and nothing so gentle as real strength,” as St. Francis de Sales says.

[Aellex]

You have to keep in mind that the French education system is quite substantially different from the North American one. For starters, we don't have lycées. Or rather, our version of lycées is different enough from that of France's to a point where the two systemsaren't really comparable. But that's all more structural than strictly academic, so I suppose it's neither here nor there.

The main issue in regards to the North American education system is that, as TEM pointed out, progressives have taken over the education system (although I'd personally chalk it up to a very nascent version of 20th century secular humanism combined with watered-down Socialist nonsense). There's been an obsession over the past couple of decades with the notion of equity, that is to say a worldview wherein social equality between individuals is considered the only desirable state of affairs, and thus efforts must be undertaken to enforce this ideal onto reality. This manifests itself in the education system primarily in the form of pedagogical inclusion, adaptations and IPP's. The latter two are pretty much different versions of the same things, but to briefly summarize all three:

- Pedagogical inclusion: basically, it's the theory that all students, no matter what intellectual level they are at, should all be in the same classroom. That is to say, in practical terms, that students who fare significantly more poorly than the average shouldn't be in separate classrooms. This includes everyone from kids who simply put in no effort and have thus become quantifiably stupid from lack of interest, to children with genuine mental disabilities. Doesn't take a genius to realize this is a terrible system, since students who would otherwise be given a chance to catch up or (in the case of the severely retarded) at least develop life skills in separate programs to survive in the real world and contribute to society as best they can upon reaching adulthood, are lumped into the same classes as everyday students. This inherently leads to the problem of teachers needing to teach multiple lessons in the same class (because there's simply no way in hell that kids with low mental capacities can learn at even a remotely similar pace to their counterparts), which leads us to the next problem.

- Adaptations and IPP's: both are essentially alternative programs or curriculums offered to the students mentioned above due to the abundantly obvious failings and impracticalities of inclusion. In essence, they're a means by which standards are lowered for students who fare worse than their counterparts so that they can actually pass the courses they have no business being signed up for. Adaptations, essentially, come in the form of easier tests and lowered standards for grading; whereas IPP's (individualized personal programs) are entirely new curriculums geared for students who are, for all intents and purposes, legally retarded. Essentially, it's elementary-grade work given to students who have been placed in High School classes with other everyday students. So while you have the majority of your class learning Shakespeare or classical literature, you'd got a few IPP students in the back reading kindergarten books or doing basic literacy exercises, all the while being robbed of an actual education because a few Social Democrats in office decided to take the notion of "everyone should be equal" a bit too literally.

Very interesting and insightful post, thanks a lot.

[Minzerland II]

I disagree with that assessment. Motherhood is extremely virtuous, as is caring for the household. Gentleness is another virtue.

People are rarely lionized for their ability to care for a household.

And plumbers are rarely lionised for their plumbing. But, boy, do they do an important job!

My point being, neither plumbing nor caring for the household lack in virtuousness because they aren't lionised.

[Mattopilos II]

Most people don't get lionised at all.

Looking back through history, it is typically the nobility and military personnel that get lionized. Nowadays... it really depends what we mean by "lionized". Also depends on the group of people you look at.

[Salus Maior]

People are rarely lionized for their ability to care for a household.

And plumbers are rarely lionised for their plumbing. But, boy, do they do an important job!

My point being, neither plumbing nor caring for the household lack in virtuousness because they aren't lionised.

I think the fact that motherhood isn't as lauded in our culture is a major flaw.

[Aillyria]

And plumbers are rarely lionised for their plumbing. But, boy, do they do an important job!

My point being, neither plumbing nor caring for the household lack in virtuousness because they aren't lionised.

I think the fact that motherhood isn't as lauded in our culture is a major flaw.

Indeed, motherhood is almost despised by modern western culture.

[The Parkus Empire]

Goodness is not a value, it is something valued. It IS normative and therefore a norm just as evil is a perversion.

Wtf? Are you not the same person that says humanity is sinful by nature of being fallen? How can the norm of the Fallen be goodness? Evil is the norm, not righteousness.

Wrong, humanity has simply become collectively deviant. Christ is the human norm.

Definition of norm
1 : an authoritative standard : model

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/norm

You are using it in the third sense

3 : average:

I am not.

[Revolutionary Equestria]

Just posting here for a tag and space for now...

[Aillyria]

Wtf? Are you not the same person that says humanity is sinful by nature of being fallen? How can the norm of the Fallen be goodness? Evil is the norm, not righteousness.

Wrong, humanity has simply become collectively deviant. Christ is the human norm.

Definition of norm
1 : an authoritative standard : model

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/norm

You are using it in the third sense

3 : average:

I am not.

So you're basing your entire argument on semantics? Humanity hasn't become deviant, humanity has never not been deviant, it's just becoming more deviant or simply dropping one type of deviance for another.

[The Parkus Empire]

Wrong, humanity has simply become collectively deviant. Christ is the human norm.

Definition of norm
1 : an authoritative standard : model

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/norm

You are using it in the third sense

3 : average:

I am not.

So you're basing your entire argument on semantics? Humanity hasn't become deviant, humanity has never not been deviant, it's just becoming more deviant or simply dropping one type of deviance for another.

It's not really just semantics, since "norm" is important in right-wing terminology, especially in "high brow" right-wing thought. This is why Russell Kirk was very peeved about the term "family values" and said one should use rather the term "family norms".

Humanity became deviant with the fall.

[The Parkus Empire]

"Deviant," by the way, means to have deviated (from the norm).

[Aillyria]

So you're basing your entire argument on semantics? Humanity hasn't become deviant, humanity has never not been deviant, it's just becoming more deviant or simply dropping one type of deviance for another.

It's not really just semantics, since "norm" is important in right-wing terminology, especially in "high brow" right-wing thought. This is why Russell Kirk was very peeved about the term "family values" and said one should use rather the term "family norms".

Humanity became deviant with the fall.

Ok, fair enough, but you're still using semantics. You're using "norm" in a rightwing terminological sense. I will admit, as someone who doesn't consider herself a rightist, I'm not very familiar with in depth rightwing terms.

Though, it'd be interesting to see how my thought process matches up with rightwing theory.

[The Parkus Empire]

It's not really just semantics, since "norm" is important in right-wing terminology, especially in "high brow" right-wing thought. This is why Russell Kirk was very peeved about the term "family values" and said one should use rather the term "family norms".

Humanity became deviant with the fall.

Ok, fair enough, but you're still using semantics. You're using "norm" in a rightwing terminological sense. I will admit, as someone who doesn't consider herself a rightist, I'm not very familiar with in depth rightwing terms.

Though, it'd be interesting to see how my thought process matches up with rightwing theory.

In the right-wing thread, right-wing use triumphs. It's also the first definition in the dictionary. The late change in the definition of "norm" is due to moral relativism, and the perverse idea that what is right is what is popular.

[Luminesa]

Just posting here for a tag and space for now...

You don’t really tag a space here, it’s a discussion forum.

[Aillyria]

Ok, fair enough, but you're still using semantics. You're using "norm" in a rightwing terminological sense. I will admit, as someone who doesn't consider herself a rightist, I'm not very familiar with in depth rightwing terms.

Though, it'd be interesting to see how my thought process matches up with rightwing theory.

In the right-wing thread, right-wing use triumphs. It's also the first definition in the dictionary. The late change in the definition of "norm" is due to moral relativism, and the perverse idea that what is right is what is popular.

I'm glad we agree on this.

[Northern Davincia]

The majority I've known aren't looking for personal glory, but to settle themselves in a lifestyle that is rewarding (or profitable, if the term is more appropriate).

...I think that's people in general you're describing there, bud.

Wouldn't you say that the number of men seeking glory is substantially higher than women?

I think the fact that motherhood isn't as lauded in our culture is a major flaw.

Indeed, motherhood is almost despised by modern western culture.

We must be willing to ask why that might be the case, however.

[Aillyria]

...I think that's people in general you're describing there, bud.

Wouldn't you say that the number of men seeking glory is substantially higher than women?

Indeed, motherhood is almost despised by modern western culture.

We must be willing to ask why that might be the case, however.

It is obvious, satanism has become the prevailing social norm, unbeknownst to most.

[Northern Davincia]

Wouldn't you say that the number of men seeking glory is substantially higher than women?

We must be willing to ask why that might be the case, however.

It is obvious, satanism has become the prevailing social norm, unbeknownst to most.

Indeed, but motherhood is attacked far more than other traditional social norms (forgive my hyperbole).

[Aillyria]

It is obvious, satanism has become the prevailing social norm, unbeknownst to most.

Indeed, but motherhood is attacked far more than other traditional social norms (forgive my hyperbole).

Hmm, you do have a point. Motherhood and femininity have a special significance in the sights of the "powers that be" to be discredited and destroyed.

[Revolutionary Equestria]

Hmm, you do have a point. Motherhood and femininity have a special significance in the sights of the "powers that be" to be discredited and destroyed.

For there to be a standing building, it must have a foundation and supports. For there to be a healthy society, there must be a foundation and supports. Mothers and feminine people are these supports; I forgot who said it, but "Men create the system and women uphold it". In the eyes of the rootless, internationalist clique these supports must go in order to deconstruct Occidental - and to a slightly lesser extent, all - civilization in order to build up a minor proletarian. A brown sea of low intelligence, morally dead, and physically limited workers to aide them up a ladder to Godhood. There is basically no other reason to deconstruct the role of women in our societies, besides plain, seething hatred against us.

[Northern Davincia]

Hmm, you do have a point. Motherhood and femininity have a special significance in the sights of the "powers that be" to be discredited and destroyed.

For there to be a standing building, it must have a foundation and supports. For there to be a healthy society, there must be a foundation and supports. Mothers and feminine people are these supports; I forgot who said it, but "Men create the system and women uphold it". In the eyes of the rootless, internationalist clique these supports must go in order to deconstruct Occidental - and to a slightly lesser extent, all - civilization in order to build up a minor proletarian. A brown sea of low intelligence, morally dead, and physically limited workers to aide them up a ladder to Godhood. There is basically no other reason to deconstruct the role of women in our societies, besides plain, seething hatred against us.

Another side-effect of this mentality is that, while masculinity is promoted among women, femininity among men is encouraged, yet this does not create equilibrium but instead swaps gender roles.

[Questers]

For there to be a standing building, it must have a foundation and supports. For there to be a healthy society, there must be a foundation and supports. Mothers and feminine people are these supports; I forgot who said it, but "Men create the system and women uphold it". In the eyes of the rootless, internationalist clique these supports must go in order to deconstruct Occidental - and to a slightly lesser extent, all - civilization in order to build up a minor proletarian. A brown sea of low intelligence, morally dead, and physically limited workers to aide them up a ladder to Godhood. There is basically no other reason to deconstruct the role of women in our societies, besides plain, seething hatred against us.

Another side-effect of this mentality is that, while masculinity is promoted among women, femininity among men is encouraged, yet this does not create equilibrium but instead swaps gender roles.

It's not like everyone was hunky dory and suddenly some commies came along and managed to persuade all the boys to start watching romcoms and all the girls to start playing rugby. That's a nice narrative, but that's not what happened.

In a given group a certain number of people are going to deviate a certain amount from an accepted norm. The task of society is to hold people into these norms (there's no need here to go into why that is a good idea). What we should have been doing is refining our ideas of masculinity and feminity - what makes a man a good man and a woman a good woman and so on - but what happened instead was that our culture(s) decided to simply destroy these ideas instead, so that the number of people who deviate from the accepted norm vastly increases, and the spread becomes much wider.

This mainly happened because the concept of gender roles did not appeal to educated women, who via critical theory then decided that gender wasn't real at all, and all men in their default state are a definitive threat to all women everywhere. This is bad news, but the good news is that it's easily reversible, not only because it's intuitively (and rationally) just bollocks, but also because men actually crave masculine norms and women crave feminine norms.

[Aillyria]

Another side-effect of this mentality is that, while masculinity is promoted among women, femininity among men is encouraged, yet this does not create equilibrium but instead swaps gender roles.

It's not like everyone was hunky dory and suddenly some commies came along and managed to persuade all the boys to start watching romcoms and all the girls to start playing rugby. That's a nice narrative, but that's not what happened.

In a given group a certain number of people are going to deviate a certain amount from an accepted norm. The task of society is to hold people into these norms (there's no need here to go into why that is a good idea). What we should have been doing is refining our ideas of masculinity and feminity - what makes a man a good man and a woman a good woman and so on - but what happened instead was that our culture(s) decided to simply destroy these ideas instead, so that the number of people who deviate from the accepted norm vastly increases, and the spread becomes much wider.

This mainly happened because the concept of gender roles did not appeal to educated women, who via critical theory then decided that gender wasn't real at all, and all men in their default state are a definitive threat to all women everywhere. This is bad news, but the good news is that it's easily reversible, not only because it's intuitively (and rationally) just bollocks, but also because men actually crave masculine norms and women crave feminine norms.

I can't even add anything to this, you've said pretty much my opinion on the matter.

[HMS Barham]

Another side-effect of this mentality is that, while masculinity is promoted among women, femininity among men is encouraged, yet this does not create equilibrium but instead swaps gender roles.

It's not like everyone was hunky dory and suddenly some commies came along and managed to persuade all the boys to start watching romcoms and all the girls to start playing rugby. That's a nice narrative, but that's not what happened.

It pretty much is what happened, except that more than persuasion was used.

[Republican Corentia]

I hate this website and these nuclear takes.