Are we senselessly abandoning tradition? A nostalgia debate.

[Kernen]

Well it’s a fact we’re abandoning tradition to some extent,
Whether or not it’s senseless depends on opinion.

In my opinion some of the abandoning of the tradition is senseless when modern science implies these traditions make sense.
For example scientifically girls brains mature earlier than boys on average so a higher marriage age for males (e.g. 18 for men, 16 for women) is actually logical from a scientific perspective.

Alternatively, do away with state recognized marriage.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Well it’s a fact we’re abandoning tradition to some extent,
Whether or not it’s senseless depends on opinion.

In my opinion some of the abandoning of the tradition is senseless when modern science implies these traditions make sense.
For example scientifically girls brains mature earlier than boys on average so a higher marriage age for males (e.g. 18 for men, 16 for women) is actually logical from a scientific perspective.

Alternatively, do away with state recognized marriage.

Why?
That’s actually worse for freedom since marriage is generally required to be consensual.

The legal side of marriage is the same as the basis for contract law in general.

Should the state fail to recognise employment contracts?

[Kernen]

Alternatively, do away with state recognized marriage.

Why?
That’s actually worse for freedom since marriage is generally required to be consensual.

The legal side of marriage is the same as the basis for contract law in general.

Should the state fail to recognise employment contracts?

Employment contracts render a societal service. Marriage does not provide a service. Anything one can accomplish with a civil marriage has been addressed for non married couples sufficiently that marriage is now just a tax break.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Why?
That’s actually worse for freedom since marriage is generally required to be consensual.

The legal side of marriage is the same as the basis for contract law in general.

Should the state fail to recognise employment contracts?

Employment contracts render a societal service. Marriage does not provide a service. Anything one can accomplish with a civil marriage has been addressed for non married couples sufficiently that marriage is now just a tax break.

Marriage has symbolic functions.
Why would someone want the legal aspects of marriage but not call it “marriage”?
Dubious reasons in my opinion.
Besides all societies have symbolism.
The high rates of breaking up for unmarried couples are why.

[Kernen]

Employment contracts render a societal service. Marriage does not provide a service. Anything one can accomplish with a civil marriage has been addressed for non married couples sufficiently that marriage is now just a tax break.

Marriage has symbolic functions.
Why would someone want the legal aspects of marriage but not call it “marriage”?
Dubious reasons in my opinion.
Besides all societies have symbolism.
The high rates of breaking up for unmarried couples are why.

The legal aspects are useful, but need not be formalized. Intestacy can be addressed by wills and nontestate mechanisms. Paternity can be addressed by testing. Property by cotenanncy. One need not have a spouse to reproduce or raise offspring.

Indeed, marriage can be replicated by extant contract mechanisms. As such, why bother having legal marriage? Breakups happen with marriage extant, and ought be accommodated, not prevented.

Symbolism is useless without a benefit derived from such. The symbolism of marriage is unnecessary. It properly belongs in the past.

But for the tax breaks, my wife would be my partner. The marriage changed nothing.

[Ifreann]

Ah yes, the 60s. Truly a time of peace, tranquillity, sexual modesty, and the unquestioned supremacy of the nuclear family.

[Saint Nicholas and the Hussars]

Ah yes, the 60s. Truly a time of peace, tranquillity, sexual modesty, and the unquestioned supremacy of the nuclear family.

This is very funny, you absolutely wrecked them, or as the kids say, ‘rekt’. I will laugh as soon as possible.

[Tyrannyicalist]

This problem seems very tailored to the US. So I'll give you an explanation of the still intact traditions of Ireland so you understand that the whole world isn't being "destroyed" by your standards,

The catholic church is still very much at large in ireland with 78.3 of the populaton being catholic and 91% of the irish children going to catholic schools. The catholic church is still very much part of our culture as even people from different ethnic backgrounds celebrate irish traditions and holidays like Pancake Day. Catholic culture isn't forced down your throats either atleast in the schools I went to if your parents said you weren't catholic you could opt out of the church visits and the priests which could just come into school whenever. Also (this is branching away from irish culture) why should a growing athiestic population be discouraged? I'm a catholic myself but even I can recognize you don't need some words written in a few books to tell you you're not being a good person. It seems as if you're attempting to force religion down people's throats aswell mentioning "the church" (assumed to be christian) but what if they don't want to be christian? I'm sure you'd be less then pleased if you had to be forced to convert to being a muslim or buddhist.

Whilst the nuclear family is dying in Ireland, I don't see the problem with that. You don't need traditions to be a good parent aslong as you are a good parent, you are a good parent. Your family structure has nothing to do with that.

The whole LGBT community censoring typical stereotypes on the TV is just utter trash. The people who complain about straight white males are usually fringe group feminists who don't know what the hell they're talking about and are probably looked down on upon other feminists. Any other TV shows being critcized are usually because there is real discrimination going on behind the scenes.

The "pornography" gripping our lives is admittedly true in europe but having a mandated prohibition is a little bit ... unorthodox. Don't you think it's just a bit authoritian to have the government censor pornography? That should be a person's own personal decision.

[New Ciencia]

Ah yes, the good old days. Like 2011 with the Syrian Civil War, or 2008 with the recession, or 2001 with the War on Terror, or 1995 with Oklahoma City, or 1990 with the Gulf War, or 1986 with Challenger and Chernobyl, or 1968 with MLK and RFK, or 1963 with JFK, or 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis, or 1955 with the Vietnam War, or 1950 with the Korean War, or 1946 with the Cold War, or 1939 with WWII, or 1936 with the Hindenburg, or 1929 with the Depression, or 1920 with a major terrorist attack and the Ponzi scheme, or 1917 with the Russian Revolution, or 1914 with WWI, or 1912 with the Titanic, or 1911 with the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, or 1901 with McKinley or 1899 with the Boxer Rebellion, or 1884 with the Scramble for Africa, or 1881 with Garfield, or 1870 with the Franco-Prussian War, or 1865 with Lincoln, or 1861 with the American Civil War, or 1853 with the Crimean and Second Opium Wars, or 1850 with a major stock market crash, or 1841 with the First Afghan War, or 1839 with the First Opium War, or 1837 with a recession, or 1828 with the Russo-Turkish War, or 1821 with the Greek War of Independence, or 1815 with Napoleon, or 1812 with the war thereof, or 1803 with Napoleon, or 1789 with the French Revolution, or 1776 with the American Revolution, or...

Gosh, times nowadays are so much more turbulent! (And that's only things an average American might care about!)

(note: not an American)

[Last Breath]

I don't really feel as if tradition has any value in and of itself. There's no reason we should be beholden to the practices of the past, especially when those practices are highly problematic. People often argue that this mindset has led to a decline in morality, but if anything people have become more moral overtime (we are much less racist for example. Most of the time what these sorts of people mean by morality is just a collection of random and arbitrary principles whose only justification is that our ancestors believed in them (which is fallacious reasoning). Rejecting systems of value that resemble this for more systematic approaches to morality is something to be encouraged.

[Esternial]

This isn't new. There's a reason we can make time-travel movies and people can just tell when they're in the 80's. There's a reason we have the expression "90s kids will remember".

Culture changes drastically all the time, every time. Some of our parents probably had the same question at some point. You can keep whatever traditions you like alive in your circle, provided it isn't now illegal.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Are we changing too fast? Nah.... we definitely are capable of going from a few thousand people banging rocks together in a cave to a world spanning society of 7 billion quasi cyborgs attempting to harness the power of a sun within 250 generations. No way there would be any issue there. *covers up massive suicide rate*

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Marriage has symbolic functions.
Why would someone want the legal aspects of marriage but not call it “marriage”?
Dubious reasons in my opinion.
Besides all societies have symbolism.
The high rates of breaking up for unmarried couples are why.

The legal aspects are useful, but need not be formalized. Intestacy can be addressed by wills and nontestate mechanisms. Paternity can be addressed by testing. Property by cotenanncy. One need not have a spouse to reproduce or raise offspring.

Indeed, marriage can be replicated by extant contract mechanisms. As such, why bother having legal marriage? Breakups happen with marriage extant, and ought be accommodated, not prevented.

Symbolism is useless without a benefit derived from such. The symbolism of marriage is unnecessary. It properly belongs in the past.

But for the tax breaks, my wife would be my partner. The marriage changed nothing.

True but religiously men cultural marriage makes differences.
A mutual pledge of loyalty otherwise similar to other oaths of allegiance.
The symbolism encourages honour, love, loyalty and respect.

[Kernen]

The legal aspects are useful, but need not be formalized. Intestacy can be addressed by wills and nontestate mechanisms. Paternity can be addressed by testing. Property by cotenanncy. One need not have a spouse to reproduce or raise offspring.

Indeed, marriage can be replicated by extant contract mechanisms. As such, why bother having legal marriage? Breakups happen with marriage extant, and ought be accommodated, not prevented.

Symbolism is useless without a benefit derived from such. The symbolism of marriage is unnecessary. It properly belongs in the past.

But for the tax breaks, my wife would be my partner. The marriage changed nothing.

True but religiously men cultural marriage makes differences.
A mutual pledge of loyalty otherwise similar to other oaths of allegiance.
The symbolism encourages honour, love, loyalty and respect.

Cool. The state needn't be involved in that. You can get all that from an informal pledge to the extent it is necessary to pledge such things rather than to earn them.

[Prozitia]

This is the price we pay for development. It may be scary, but trust me, what straightens it out is to be even more progressive. This is a point of no return both technologically and culturally, so there's no reason to be afraid in the first place. What we must do as a society is to not bring back "necessary" cultural blockades, but rather shape this new culture into a liberating concept and defend it against degeneration(such as: feminists, not feminazis; enviromentalism, not PETAism etc.). And degeneration happens in all cultures, so it's not a matter of the "right" type of culture. Yes, we do need sex-ed, but we must accept that free access to adult material has made the youth much more aware and responsible as general. If you think about it, prohibition makes things worse and makes people do irresponsible things when they get their hands on said things. In conclusion: don't restrict, reform.

[Nolo gap]

are we not senseless in retaining any tradition that is not indiginous?

what even is a tradition that has existed for less then a thousand years?

"development" is not a magic good either.

its about environment and the experience of living in it.
use logic to make development a plus and not a minus.
logic guided by consideration, all inclusively, of what everyone has to experience.

and while we're at it, let's get passed needlessly complicating the issue, as we do by prioritizing symbolic value and its accumulation.

nostalgia? my nostalgia is for a future in which people do not hate logic, even if they will have had to learn to not hate logic the hard way,
which that hard way is what our miopic perspectives are driving us toward.

[East Blepia]

This is the price we pay for development. It may be scary, but trust me, what straightens it out is to be even more progressive. This is a point of no return both technologically and culturally, so there's no reason to be afraid in the first place. What we must do as a society is to not bring back "necessary" cultural blockades, but rather shape this new culture into a liberating concept and defend it against degeneration(such as: feminists, not feminazis; enviromentalism, not PETAism etc.). And degeneration happens in all cultures, so it's not a matter of the "right" type of culture. Yes, we do need sex-ed, but we must accept that free access to adult material has made the youth much more aware and responsible as general. If you think about it, prohibition makes things worse and makes people do irresponsible things when they get their hands on said things. In conclusion: don't restrict, reform.

What is so good about economic development as an end in and of itself?

[Kernen]

This is the price we pay for development. It may be scary, but trust me, what straightens it out is to be even more progressive. This is a point of no return both technologically and culturally, so there's no reason to be afraid in the first place. What we must do as a society is to not bring back "necessary" cultural blockades, but rather shape this new culture into a liberating concept and defend it against degeneration(such as: feminists, not feminazis; enviromentalism, not PETAism etc.). And degeneration happens in all cultures, so it's not a matter of the "right" type of culture. Yes, we do need sex-ed, but we must accept that free access to adult material has made the youth much more aware and responsible as general. If you think about it, prohibition makes things worse and makes people do irresponsible things when they get their hands on said things. In conclusion: don't restrict, reform.

What is so good about economic development as an end in and of itself?

Economic development brings with it an improved standard of living.

[East Blepia]

What is so good about economic development as an end in and of itself?

Economic development brings with it an improved standard of living.

And so what? Why should human beings seek out increased material wealth? So long as they have a reasonable standard of living I think happiness is more important. Suicide rates are markedly higher in wealthy countries and among wealthy people. Why should we destroy the fabric of our society just so that we can live decadent and consumerist lives? Why? What good is it for anyone?

[Adeulchland]

Well, there is truth in there about some kind of social decline. Did anyone see the movie Idiocracy?

[Albrenia]

Economic development brings with it an improved standard of living.

And so what? Why should human beings seek out increased material wealth? So long as they have a reasonable standard of living I think happiness is more important. Suicide rates are markedly higher in wealthy countries and among wealthy people. Why should we destroy the fabric of our society just so that we can live decadent and consumerist lives? Why? What good is it for anyone?

It also has greatly reduced child mortality rates, increased average lifespans, increased maximum population and made people generally less violent. So it's apparently quite good for a lot of people.

[Kowani]

This is the price we pay for development. It may be scary, but trust me, what straightens it out is to be even more progressive. This is a point of no return both technologically and culturally, so there's no reason to be afraid in the first place. What we must do as a society is to not bring back "necessary" cultural blockades, but rather shape this new culture into a liberating concept and defend it against degeneration(such as: feminists, not feminazis; enviromentalism, not PETAism etc.). And degeneration happens in all cultures, so it's not a matter of the "right" type of culture. Yes, we do need sex-ed, but we must accept that free access to adult material has made the youth much more aware and responsible as general. If you think about it, prohibition makes things worse and makes people do irresponsible things when they get their hands on said things. In conclusion: don't restrict, reform.

What is so good about economic development as an end in and of itself?

If you don’t develop, you’ll be crushed by the neighbor who did.

[Cisairse]

Quite the opposite actually

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/opin ... dence.html

Also, please click the link in my signature if you're seriously going to try and defend nuclear families

Having lived the effects of broken families firsthand, maybe I misused the phrasing of "traditional" families when I intended to put it in the context of "extended families" to compare it with a lifestyle of "no families". My mistake.

I'm not sure if that fundamentally changes your argument, but feel free to expand.

[Czechostan]

In the middle of completing my online classwork, I came across a youtube channel having a broadcast of an antique former radio channel I occasionally come across on the local christian radio channel. It's called The Quiet Time and by what little information I could find, it was running from the early 60s to maybe the 80s and is rarely broadcast today once a week on niche channels, most times skipped over if lucky. The fatherly voice of Albert H. Salter strikes an uncanny nostalgia from deep within me, for things which I have never experienced in an otherwise unstable and broken life, with a lack of faithfulness. Some of his words strike a chord with me. Back in the 60s or 70s, he mentions that "now is the time that we need a quiet place for God in these uncertain times" on a different broadcast and it rings almost ironically prophetic with today's situation.

But what is today's situation?

We've advanced so far in technology that the childhoods of our youth will never be the same. We are increasingly addicted to technology. Parents are either too afraid to let their kids out of the house, or to careless that they let the kids that do have freedom create trouble. Television shows and even toys are being bombarded by increasingly radicalized generations. This is apparent if you study the shift of cartoons over the past ten years /alone/. We have virtual propaganda shoved down our throats at every chance possible. I'm all for LGBT rights and ethnic representation, but it's gotten to the point where straight white people are not only guilt-tripped, but demonized by the media. This is coming from a gay male, so stop your typing. There's a difference from the respectful representation of Steven Universe to the LGBT community than many other shows. Boys who like football can't be boys and girls who like barbies can't be girls. I used to think the "common sense" ads were just to stop me from having fun on my computer as a kid but now they make me genuinely scared for my younger friends.

Pornography has gripped the entire youth of our nation, and made a vast majority of said generation-- me included-- addicts. There is no possible solution apart from prohibition for everyone to get rid of this problem. A checkbox does nothing. Credit cards can be stolen and read off of. It is the job of the parents, churches, or educational system to provide sex ed, not a nineteen year old "model". Again, before you send a rebuttal, your older brother's magazines have /nothing/ on the sheer scale of this complete brainwashing of our youth. I've seen kids in *elementary* school blabbering about vulgar things-- I've been one of those kids. It's clear that the parents don't care to respectfully educate their youth or at least check their phones every once in a while. I used to think the "common sense" ads were just to stop me from having fun on my computer as a kid but now they make me genuinely scared for my younger friends.

This generation seems to pride itself in dressing, talking, and acting like gangsters. Dresses and suits as per retro fashion now have the potential to have a negative connotation with being a bigot. Source? Mormon fashion and the negative stigma of the "tradwife" community. You're a sexist if you think women should wear long dresses, EVEN IF YOU THINK that men need to cover themselves up as well to avoid a double-standard.

The traditional family is a minority. Again, I am a gay man and I certainly press for rights for all people, but I also recognize the need for traditional nuclear families-- gay or straight. Having come from a relatively broken family, I will defend to the grave that people need two parental figures in their life, a strong family bond, a non-abusive relationship, and SOME semblance of traditional roles.

Organized and institutionalized religion is constantly and mercilessly attacked. I personally believe that church and state should be together for moral reasons, but even I understand this is a fringe belief so I'll refrain from addressing that directly. If you need sources, look at all the scandals about public prayers in school being shut down, religious clubs in public schools being looked down upon, some rules against bringing scripture even for personal reading, and the sheer fact that the president himself has to push for our right to express our religious beliefs in schools. A teacher pushing creationism is NOT the same as a faithful teacher leading a prayer of consenting faithful students, allowing an opt out. If we were to ban something obscure like missionaries coming to school, why not ban army recruiters because someone from an anti-war family might get offended that their son or daughter has to be in the presence of people wanting their blood to spill for their country? There was also a "what would you do" video about a woman chastising a family publicly praying in a restaurant. (It's still on YT so feel free to search it up for source). As we all know with that television show, it's based on real events. So, we can only assume saying grace in a public place is frowned upon by some people.

Imagine this. It's the year 2275, and we have super high-tech flying cars. All buildings, even in rural areas are neon-lit skyscrapers. Morality and religion are all but out the door, and the culture is unrecognizable from 2020, let alone 1980. If our view on society has evolved so much in 50 years, imagine what it could do in 255. We likely have colonies on the moon, mars, and venus at this point. You dig out your late great-grandfather's radio and plug it in to your antique houses' outlet, and you hear the ending to the broadcast I attached. Not even the entire thing, but the last 1-2 minutes. What would you feel knowing how radically everything has changed: Betrayed by society? A deep nostalgia for a simpler time of hard work and relative stability? A bitterness for the generation you live in? A longing for grandma's apple pie and the milkman and the old "realistic" toy guns?

This is what brings me to the discussion point. Are we changing too fast? Before you call me hateful or [insert political belief] despite me obviously not being the majority, I'd like to remind you that you aren't the one that is having your entire livelihood being snatched from you. If you in 2020 were thrown into this cyberpunk-like future, would you feel the same as our elders do today? What aspects of traditionalism should we retain? What should we abandon? Should we just revert to the ideals of the United States constitution or the founding ideals of your home country altogether? Are you just sad because the old radio broadcast and prayer sounded pretty, or are you angry at me for daring to speak my mind in this radicalized society, especially in NSG?

Speak now, because you may never get to in a couple of years.

-

Firstly, I want to say that it seems when you speak of traditionalism, you speak in a religious, specifically a Christian, framework. But tradition, of course, goes beyond religion: there are linguistic traditions, political ones, literary ones, etc. So that's one thing to consider--what traditions might you be overlooking in your assessment of a society's traditionalism?

Secondly, I think we should consider that a society never really has one singular tradition, and often, these differing traditions are at odds with each other. Like in the US, we have a strong Christian tradition (a faithful, morally-concerned population), but also a strong secular tradition (freedom of religion). We have a tradition of industrialization and mechanization, but also a tradition of agrarianism. We have a tradition of conservatism, and a tradition of progressivism. These various traditions wax and wane, some more dominant than others at the time. So when you see things like LGBTQ+ faces everywhere or kids saying vulgar things, as much as it forces the conservative tradition to rear its heads away, those are embodiments of a tradition of individual expression that is so tightly wed to the US.

Thirdly, traditions are never truly solid; they're continually be reshaped, evaporating, and new ones are taking their place. The Christian tradition you belong to was once radical and tore the fabric of the Roman society into which it grew. The Americas, too, had their own rich traditions before the settlers arrived. But it's not even that one tradition knocked another one way--often they fed back into each other and evolved. I'm sure we're all familiar with the connection holidays like Christmas have to pagan tradition. In that sense, it's not even that tradition is being abandoned at all. It's just changing.

[Dreisburg]

Technology is the new international tradition. Get used to it.