Saturday, June 07, 2014

Upon Further Review

After contemplation, I think my commenters on the last post have pointed out a division between types of changes brought on by the Spirit of the Age that I had not quite thought through.  They both described situations in which a person's attitudes changed gradually, in stages, however quickly.  As if Year One: Women should not be allowed to use the alphabet:  Year Two: Okay, Women should be able to use A, but not B or C; Year Three: okay Women can use A-D, and E and F if there are no males present, but that's it; Year Four: Women can use all letters up to P, but only lower case, etc.

What I had described is a situation in which people retained the same value, but the mode of expression completely reversed, like something a magician does when he pulls out blue flowers instead of red ones from the jar.  The equivalent to the women in politics or allowing blacks into the good schools would be 1957: Blacks should make their own schools better vs 1967: We should give blacks the best schools.  Or, we should not have a female president, because of gender differences to we should have only female presidents, because of gender differences.

If we could measure what is going on inside hearts and minds, as Jonathan Haidt tries to do, perhaps we would find that there is no difference between these types of change, that they are the variations of the same process.  But I now suspect, as I did not quite in my original post, that these are distinct phenomenon.  Keeping one's stated value unchanged, though its expression is completely inverted, is one type of sheeplike obedience to the Spirit of the Age; giving ground quickly for unclear reasons in response to social pressure is another.

Addition:  Steve Sailer discusses how public perception of cops and teachers has moved recently.


bs king said...

Ah yes, I think I follow. In some cases we go from thinking A -> B -> C to A -> B -> D, and in some we hold "C" constant instead. We believe the same endpoint, but totally change our way of getting there.

I think we actually did see that happen a bit in my lifetime with the Secretary of State position. It went from a "man's man military" position to a "of course women are good Secretary's of State, because their collaborative and nurturing". I might be misremembering that (I was rather young when Albright took office) but I think it did happen at least a bit.

Anonymous said...

When discriminated classes are used as tools, and told equality is here, they only have to betray their status quo tradition, this produces inequality, not equality.

Since there is no equality, being treated poorly will merely be reversed, by the victims becoming the villains. And villains need new victims.

The wise and the independent don't fall into this trap, generally speaking. That's why the Left needs to rape children to make homosexual sex slaves, create welfare slaves, and various other machinations preying upon weakened masses.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I disagree that legalising sexual contact with ever-younger children is enormously leftist. It certainly isn't exclusively so. Those advocates are trying to ally themselves with homosexual groups in an effort to gain legitimacy, declaring that their struggle is much the same. That positions them on the left in many places. They are also able to use a lot of anti-church and anti-traditionalist rhetoric, which also has some appeal on the Left. But it doesn't seem to have progressed any further in the last 5-10 years.

As my posts note, things can change quickly, and surprisingly, so you might sound prophetic on rereading in a decade. But something quite opposite could also rapidly occur.

Anonymous said...

I'm referring to specific incidents, not legal fait accomplis.

The Hollywood engineered productions, going back several years.

Reports of the Left infiltrating agents into the Catholic Church, to use homosexuality to destroy the Church, from School of Darkness and other comments by Bella Dodd.

The pressure to protect homosexuals in the teacher's unions as well as implanting them in the Boy Scouts.

Anti Church would make sense, they were after all mostly responsible for that to begin with. The Leftist alliance is not a political party, it is a socio-military alliance composed of several thousand factions. Often with mutually exclusive politics and theologies.

If homosexuals are given more leeway, such as in the US military, that produces more recruits that can be put into higher ranking positions to affect more US policies. If they are denied and rejected, this can be used to propagandize the American people (68% of them which believe almost anything they are told to believe) into thinking freedom and rights are being violated. A win win strategy in military campaigns is optimal.

If one looked at the US planescape as only a few individual factions un aligned with everything else, then it might appear that the damage is localized or that the coordination is meaningless. But once the perspective changes, everything else will change as well.

That post of my should explain in greater detail and depth some of the Left's previous accomplishments. Obviously a 50% population access is better than a 3-10% population access for homosexuals.

Another strange thing is that I suspect the Roman Catholic Church banned a lot of this because they saw the same things in Rome, via Caligula and Nero.

Jonathan said...

I think there might be a rathole that this comment section just leaped into...

Bethany, agree 100% on that odd shift for Secretary of State. I think it happened fairly rapidly. I remember many discussions at CCHS about how foreign leaders wouldn't respect a woman, so we couldn't have one. I wish I'd thought to bring up that these same leaders often wouldn't respect a Christian either, but we've had those before.