[–] [deleted] 1 points 77 points (+78|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
18

[–] MillstoneNecklace 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Teachers in the 70's were literally told that they were just paid babysitters.

1
10

[–] Armpit_and_Ass 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

I went to public schools '80-'93. Corporal punishment was still very much in use, as were dress codes. Haircuts, not so much. Not long after graduation, though, is when they started calling cops for fights instead of parents, started slipping cops into schools (my old HS has had a permanent office for the school's "Resource Officer" since '95), and started with the everybody gets a trophy bullshit.

As I mention in my post over here, the poz was already starting to creep in.

And keep in mind that I went to a very small high school in Jerkwater USA with a total student body that was ≈500 kids back then and, while most likely more heavily populated, for sure still isn't near 1,000 kids these days.

When I fucked off in school, I payed for it when I got home. While "absentee parenting" is at least partly to blame these days, I think a good measure of that absentee parenting is due to the fact that it's mostly illegal to discipline your children in today's world. They live in a world that has no real repercussions for bad behavior until that behavior reaches a certain level or degree, in which case the criminal justice system steps in and a kid's life is ruined before they're even out of high school.

Most of this is because of, at its root, jewish influence both in our education system and in our courts.

0
6

[–] 234134124123 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's the same pattern we see with the 2nd Amendment: "We're for reasonable gun control. No one is trying to take away the 2nd Amendment!" Meanwhile, a good quarter of the country wants to eliminate the 2nd Amendment.

The two-faced defense of these positions are more obvious today than back then.

"Authoritarian" social rules were generally attacked collaterally rather than directly. The general position was that even if the values protected by the rule were legitimate, the nature of it being a rule was oppressive. The rule might have merit, in which case a free society will follow it voluntarily. But the rule can be constraining at times, and some people may disagree. For these reasons, the government shouldn't be enlisted to give force to a strict rule which some think is unhelpful or even harmful.

They didn't challenge the legitimacy of those social norms, and assured people that the values would be protected. A free society wouldn't possibly deviate from legitimate values. For instance, people who saw merit in requiring school uniforms could still have their children dress the same way.

Meanwhile a substantial group of people wanted the rules invalidated because they disagreed with the values. But they never had to directly base their opposition on such fundamental differences.

Once the rule is gone, the reason for the rule is made clear. Once ignoring the rule becomes acceptable, it becomes normalized. Adherence begins to be less celebrated and appears to be more stubborn. Sending one's kid to school in a uniform is now a stringent imposition on the child's ability to make friends and "be cool".

The thing is, some rules are rules because they're hard to follow, even among those who agree with the values that the rule is supposed to protect.

The government, for instance, has rules. The rules exist even though politicians frequently win elections by convincing voters that they have such integrity that the need not be relied upon. In office, the temptation to break the rules becomes real, and some politicians will prove the need for rules.

The same exact argument could be made: "Since the government is representative of the people, they wouldn't elect people who did things they didn't like. The rule's values are legitimate, but they can be served without the formal and strict constraints which the rule imposes. And some people may disagree with the rule's purpose. It shouldn't be a rule if it removes all possibility for disagreement to be explored, whereas those who agree with the rule can simply comport with it anyways."

Meanwhile, those who want to break both the letter and spirit of the rule are not challenged.

This position works no matter the rule. The Bill of Rights, separation of powers, public oversight... all would be in play.

0
1

[–] DanyMcbrideAsHanSolo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And of course the worse is yet to come. I don't even want to imagine the shit that people will pretend is normal and commonplace in the near future. Probably will make me sick to my stomach what will pass as fucking business as usual. Something drastic needs to be done or we are fucked as a species.

0
57

[–] Talc 0 points 57 points (+57|-0) ago 

it never stopped being okay to call people out for their shitty behaviour. It only became less fashionable to do so.

0
16

[–] The_Duke_of_Dabs 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

That's, a; BINGO! People like myself and presumably @Talc are considered "assholes" IRL because we call others bullshit.

0
7

[–] elitch2 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Yep, you can add me to that list. My sister just can't understand why I think she's a loser. ~35, divorced, two kids, sleave tattoo...

"I don't judge you! Why are you judging me?!"

Because, bitch, back when we judged each other and held each other to account for our poor behaviour, our society was a much better place.

0
6

[–] chmod 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

We just say bingo.

0
4

[–] Naught405 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If people call you an asshole cause they don't like themselves, you're not the issue

0
5

[–] BlackGrapeDrank 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

go on an internet date with a "body type = average" and see how fat she really is. tell her.

For the good of western civilization.

1
1

[–] CouldBeTrump 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

To be fair, "average" has been getting fatter and fatter.

0
3

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Be prepared for a verbal assault from the lowest lifeforms that could escalate to physical confrontation if you question these morons walking around these days.

0
6

[–] Talc 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I'm always prepared, especially for the physical, 4 decades of martial arts.

Being an outspoken asshole doesn't come free, it requires hard work and training.

0
22

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

While it started earlier as others have pointed out, I think the phenomenon gained steam and became more mainstream when Bill Clinton refused to reign and the Democrats decided flat refusal to be embarrassed about acting badly was appropriate for their side, but not for others. As a result, over the last 20years, they have pushed the idea that it is inappropriate to question the morality of others’ actions unless those people profess to believing in morality and purity in which case any failure to meet the ideal is cause to claim hypocrisy.

Eventually the result of this is leftists do not even try to act morally and treat claims of immorality themselves as immoral acts. Meanwhile, many non-leftists, tired of the asymmetry and being accused of wrongdoing simply because they are not Jesus Christ himself have decided they too will refuse to be held to moral standards, at least by leftists.

0
8

[–] Things_Stuff 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

"tired of the asymmetry and being accused of wrongdoing simply because they are not Jesus Christ himself have decided they too will refuse to be held to moral standards."

This is a great point. I would like to add that in my experience modern christians, especially protestants, will stretch "by faith alone" to its limits into obscurity, whereby they rationalize the can act as a degenerate like most others but it's ok because "Jesus forgives brah."

It gives us a bad rep.

0
2

[–] rgwibu 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The problem is that it's both mainline protestants and evangelicals. The evangelicals are really into the "by faith alone" stuff, and the mainliners are liberals anyway. Good churches are getting rarer and rarer, unfortunately.

0
0

[–] Imjgalt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Was it the Protestant clergy raping little boys and covering it up or the Catholics?

0
5

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

The left thinks calling someone gay or faggot is negative, but encourage puberty age kids to take hormones and eventually cut their dicks off because of mental disorders.. I'd pay for a psychology book from the 1950 that still defines homosexuality for what it really was.

0
2

[–] bob3333 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Strange. There has only been two years in the last 23 (9%) where Democrats had the Presidency and Congress, and only 6 years (26%) they've controlled Congress. 14 of the last 23 years (61%) Congress has been controlled by Republicans, and 6 of those also had a Republican President (26%). The Republicans have been in far more control since the mid 1990's than Democrats.

The Republicans NEVER controlled Congress for the 40 years before 1995. You tell me how that means Democrats are at fault for things that didn't happen while they had control of Congress for four decades, but started happening almost to the day when they lost control.

Check my history, I hate liberal fags more than most, but you can't dispute the facts here. The REAL fact, I suspect, is that Republicans are just as bad or worse than Democrats.

0
5

[–] gentronseven 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Did you ever stop to think that the democrats started losing control BECAUSE they're anti American degenerates?

That's exactly what happened.

0
5

[–] Wahaha 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

What has Congress and the presidency to do with the topic? The media has more influence over how people view the world.

0
4

[–] Food_Stamp 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Both parties are corrupt gangs of jewish pedophiles.

0
4

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I’m honestly not sure what any of that has to do with the point I was making. I remember liberal friends being convinced Clinton was going to have to resign when the Lewinsky affair became public. However, when he refused to give in, it did not take them long to wholeheartedly support him. Since then, it has become standard policy for Democrats to ignore the immorality of people on their side and to attack anyone who suggests there is any issue.

It took Republicans quite a while to act the same, but I think we are at least close to there, maybe all the way there. Think of people like Bob Livingston and other Republicans brought low through scandal and how their stories played out, for instance. Now look at how they act with Trump and others.

It has been a cultural change slowly leaking out to all of society, not a matter of what positions a political party has been elected to.

0
22

[–] GoofyGrape 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

I think there have been at least a couple waves. One was in the early to mid 1990s. Think Bill Clinton's first term. MTV starts getting political. Some young women asks Clinton in a public forum whether he prefers boxers or briefs. It became socially unacceptable to discipline children too harshly.

0
11

[–] GoatEmperorTrump 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

“It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

  • William Jefferson “the rapist” Clinton

0
2

[–] worthlesshope 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Whatever was wrong had to have began before bill clinton's first term. I had some pretty bad teachers then, and they'd already been teaching for awhile. So any problems had to have existed since they started teaching.. I live in California though, so maybe it was a problem with California itself..

That brings the question of "if it's a problem with California, then why?" It's probably because of diversity. Being on the coast, next to mexico, and a large city.. Many blacks, and mexicans live here. Probably fear of being too offending to other races is what started it.

So as long as diversity spreads, this sickness spreads..As time goes on diversity is spreading to the various cities of USA.

If you look at the countries without this problem, they're less diverse.

0
1

[–] ARsandOutdoors 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I remember him being asked that question. I was young at the time I heard it. Was that really important in the timeline of things you think? I ask because I too young to be aware of things back then.

0
5

[–] GoofyGrape 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

JFK and the 60s were before my time, so I can't compare it to that. But it seemed to lower and set a new benchmark in terms of the dignity of the office of the president, which Bill Clinton would further denigrate as time went on.

2
13

[–] Giraffestronaut 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago 

A lot of people want to blame politics, but that's really putting the cart before the horse.

This country used to be overwhelmingly Christian, and the very idea of shame goes straight back to the story of the Garden of Eden, when Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit and first knew shame at her own nakedness. Christianity and shame were heavily intertwined for hundreds of years, and that shame was an integral part of how Christendom grew. The Medieval Church taught chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, and kindness as the Seven Virtues, and their opposites as the Seven Deadly Sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Shame unites them all.

When you have a people who learn to self-regulate their desires, you create a society of high trust, and high creative capacity, and this is how Christianity once conquered the world. But science, technology, and consumerism have gnawed the soul out of Christianity in the West, and out of the Church itself. Television has been a huge part of that. The internet and social media, too. The Catholic cathedrals inspired awe and wonder in all those who looked upon them, but modern eyes are fixed on porn and Netflix.

The demise of Christianity and its values didn't happen all at once. It's been a slow process, perhaps starting in earnest with the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, but increasing in pace as electronic media exploded in the 20th century, and even more so with the widespread adoption of social media. Our society now is only coasting on hundreds of years of Christian tradition. Without Christianity or something like it, nothing is wrong, and everything good will eventually be lost.

What a shame.

0
3

[–] Calgacus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The loss of millions of lives in both world wars caused a loss of faith. Then socialist ideals were able to spread to fill the void of belief.

2
2

[–] looking4truth 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

We should go back to instilling christian values into society again. Doesnt matter if they believe in a god or not . Whenever people stray away from religion society becomes corrupted. And i am not saying people should believe in a religion but society should not forget about christian tradition and culture . Modern christianity is fake christianity though. Many churches perform fag marriages now. Orthodox christianity will set western society straight. Even if i ever become an atheist i will be raising my future children in a christian environment and tradition.

4
2

[–] Humansized 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

If you need religion to teach you not to be a shitty person, youre just a shitty person.

0
3

[–] truthwoke33 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Nobody had to teach me not to rape and murder. I just figured that was implied in a civilised society. Guess I was wrong.

0
2

[–] causticity 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Civilization is the art of managing the inescapable hordes of shitty people so that they stay out of the way of the not-shitty people. Religion, for all its faults, is still an extremely useful tool for that. It would be foolish to dismiss religion and other traditional customs just because you don't need them on a personal scale. You still benefit from them on a wider social scale.

1
0

[–] Skeeterdo 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

What about being a faggot? Christianity kept that under wraps pretty well. Now everyone is a faggot. Hell 40 years ago the Baptist were at the forefront about the supposed "gay plan."

0
0

[–] jesusmccheese 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Truth

0
0

[–] Schreiber 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It is true that the decline of traditional christian values is a huge problem that results in the mess we have today. It's not just about religion, it's about traditional culture. Common sense that was common across every religion and culture in the past, for example, traditional family. For example there are places where there's no Christianity, yet you don't need Jesus to tell you that marriage is between a man and a woman. That shit should be common sense... even if you're hindu, buddhist, muslim, pagan, or whatever fancy religion you have in the past, marriage was always between man and woman!

This is why as a society we need to force people to conform to traditional values. Instead of allowing gay pride parades, we should be bashing them and sending them to correction camps.

People are too fixated on "feels" and human rights. It's not about feels, it's about doing the right thing. God destroyed Sodom because that was the right thing to do. But these days you have human rights activists fighting for the rights of convicted criminals? Surely if hell exist all of these SJWs will be sent straight to hell.

Do you remember in old times when muslim jihadist respected christian crusaders? Not anymore, these neo-christian domesticated faggots are literally begging to be genocided. Sorry, I find it hard to blame the muslims. I look at those liberal neo-Sodomite nu-males and I think God uses muslims to punish them.

0
0

[–] Fagtardicus 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Do you remember in old times when muslim jihadist respected christian crusaders?

sauce?

0
9

[–] crunchyCookie1 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I haven't thought this all the way through-----shooting from the hip. So my quick take is ---I suppose it depends on what kind of Shame. Back in the day, if someone wanted to paint their house pink-- we'd laugh and say "It's a free country! That's my crazy neighbor who loves Pink!" Nowadays, someone would "report them" to the commie home owners assoc. WTH? If someone was out flirting and grabbing people's wives at a party, all of the husbands would take him out and kick his a$$. Guess who would stop flirting. Your church or mother would lecture you on morals. People actually went to church and the church actually talked about behavior and expected repentance. Today's "Shame" is all about forcing the "odd/different view" back in alignment with the socialist mob. The old "shame" was more about moving people to live a Godly, moral life.

0
7

[–] HighEnergyLife 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I miss walking in stores with my grandfather in the early 90s, he would point at obese people and say "look at that fatass"

0
7

[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

When I first started working in a warehouse, they called all new employees niggers, and treated us that way too. We had to call the foreman Massah. 100% true - and considered completely normal. It was worse than that - we were taught to sing slave songs while we worked at hard manual labour, of which there was plenty. The songs helped, and I know some good ones even now:)

You didn't speak to management unless spoken to - or your ass was fired the same day. The foreman did all of the talking.

Didn't like your current job? They always had a nastier one to assign to you, just waiting for that moment of rebellion. You learned the easy way or the hard way - failure to communicate - but you learned good.

On the bright side, when they ran out of work, they created new work to keep you employed. They didn't have to do that. Layoffs were avoided if at all possible, instead of the preferred policy option.

That management system came straight out of the slave owner's handbook - everything but beatings and chains. All perfectly legal.

Mind you, this was in Canada, and all of our niggers were white.

There was one real faggot in the company, and the entire company openly abused him for it, all day long. To be fair he had a shithead attitude, and brought the abuse upon himself. Even though he was openly gay, he still got married and produced children, because gay people did that, and were expected to do that, in that era. Gayness was seen as a kind of decadent degeneracy, not worthy of the sympathy of others.

There was also an alcoholic in the company - and everyone made fun of him all day long too. He was so drunk most of the time that all he could do was wash the company vehicles - he sure as fuck could not drive them. The company knew all about it, but they would not fire him. They carried his worthless ass until the day he died of liver failure. It was a different time. Drunk driving was still legal, and seat belts were a new thing - for people in the front seat - and not mandatory.

This was after the hippies - it stopped after the hippies became the teachers, and the schools were filled with drug culture by the government.

Private prison industrial complex and the militarized police state came later on.

What are the teachers teaching now? Marxism.

We need to stop that ASAP.

load more comments ▼ (50 remaining)