Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ex-RoNiN

What happened to our values?

Recommended Posts

I may be seeing things from a slightly skewed perspective, but I believe that the values that Western societies should be based on have been eroded in the past 60 years, in no small part due to the US governments who like to toss words like "freedom", "liberty" and "right for self-determination" around and then go on and do the exact opposite. I don't mean to imply that the post-WW2 US governments are solely responsible for this, however, I do believe they have a major part of the blame to carry. Then there is this disgusting concept of "political correctness", used by both left and right who try using it to curb the general use of language.

So what are our values? How have they been eroded? What have we been left with today? How does political correctness fit into this? I hope with this essay to provoke intellectual discussion that will remain free of immature rants of the "omg, foreigners steal our jobs/women/language" category and that we can instead discuss the true erosion of Western culture due to bigots in our midst.

Let's begin with values of Western society. Whilst Greeks and Romans laid the foundations for a set of values which we should try and live up to, and whilst the British improved upon this with the Magna Charter, it was not until the American and French revolutions that Western society had found its new identity and values, an identity that was in stark contrast with the imperialism of Sparta and Alexander, Rome's Empire or Spain's and France's overseas empires. This new identity, these new values were revolutionary at the time and they helped Europe to get rid of a repressive feudal system in which the King/Queen enjoyed an almost unlimited amount of power and where the "common" people were nothing but subjects who had to serve the royals.

The new belief system chose an entirely different outlook on the world. Humans were no longer subjects of God, ruled by God's ambassadors, the royalty. Nihilistic ideas were abolished, instead, humans now became the focus of these new values. This advent of humanism called for a set of values that would allow humans to live together in harmony. In my point of view, the value that stands out most is the following:

Tolerance

All other basic values are derivatives of this one, Tolerance. Freedom of Speech, Self-Determination, Freedom of Choice and all other basic ingredients of a modern, western-style democracy are derived from tolerance. Tolerance for ideas, tolerance for people to make choices, generally tolerating other people, irregardless of their choices.

This greatest strength of our culture is also the greatest threat to it. Being tolerant to new ideas, for example, would allow people with intolerant views to bring their ideas forward - the paradox should be self-evident. By following our tolerant views, we allow intolerant views that would upset our society to take hold. So what can we do in this case? Do we protect our society by stopping such intolerant people, thus betraying our own ideals? Or do we let them get on with it and let their intolerant ideas destroy society?

It is this paradox, this dilemma that has lead us to an erosion of our values. Instead of clinging to this one major value, Tolerance, our values have instead been cut into its constituent pieces and each piece is now regarded to be one of our values. This way, it was hoped, we could find the fine middle-ground of generally sticking to tolerance, but in some areas more than in others.

Let's look at the right for self-determination. As an example for this, we will look at the United States. Whilst the US constitution guarantees self-determination to her citizens, and whilst her politicians would be expected to adhere to these principles, the reality is unfortunately a bit different. After some internal struggle, the US were happy to grant the right of self-determination to black and other minorities in the United States. However, in international politics the right of self-determination was not only ignored, but spat on! Many Latin American countries have a tale to tell of their democratically elected governments being toppled by the United States, simply because these governments would not follow Washington's orders.

Let's look at a different example, namely freedom of speech in Germany. After WW2, Germany's war atrocities came to light. It was a huge shock and a huge shame for Germany, it was decided that this should never be allowed to happen again. So how could it be achieved to prevent a Nazi government taking power again? The solution was simple: simply prohibit anything to do with the Nazis. Painting swastikas became a crime, not acknowledging Germany's solely blame for WW2 became a crime, reading and purchasing Hitler's "Mein Kampf" became a crime (until a few years ago, apparently it can now be purchased), pointing out some good that was done by the Nazis was not exactly a crime, but if you did that in public you became an outcast. Perhaps the most extreme example of the curtailing of freedom of speech is the example of a German politician (his name evades me at the moment) who a few months ago stated that "whilst Germany was the prime criminal in WW2, Germany is not the only country in the history of human kind to have partaken in such atrocities, many others have done so, including the Jews who participated in the Russian Revolution." From a historical point of view, this statement is more or less correct. This politican lost his mandate as an MP, he was removed from his party and the German police is now investigating him and his remarks.

There are many more examples like this from all over the western world. It leaves us with a castrated remainder of our values which have been sacrificed to a great extent for reasons that do not truly justify this abandonment of values: homeland security, prevention of extremism, fear of terrorism, international political aims. What we would like to believe in, we can no longer do as these values have been betrayed by those who had sworn to protect them - politicians, voted in to represent the people and their opinions. It is no wonder that voter apathy is plagueing almost all western democracies. What's the point of electing a representative for me if he is going to represent something that I don't want to be represented?

It could be argued that this was done to protect our society and what remains of our values from threats both inside and outside of it. Whilst it is true that bigotry presents us with a paradoxical dilemma, does it justify the erosion of our values? Do extreme views of non-western cultures justify our forgetting of our values? I don't think so. Who cares how extreme a foreign government is and how much they slant us, we should stick to our values and let them say what they want. As long as they don't start marching their armies against us, this is a perfectly fine view to take.

The sad thing is when bigots think that since country such-and-such can produce racist propaganda against us, then we can do the same. After all, we are better because we are so enlightened. This attitude is one of the worst forms of racism, this idea of superiority. It is also completely against anything we stand for. The minute one takes this view, then one abandons his values at the same time. It is a shame that people amongst our midst have these backward ideas and try to discredit the rest of us with such views. The only thing we can do is to counter their hollow rantings with precise arguments and show them the absurdity of their thinking. It is up to them whether they choose to change their opinion.

The concept of political correctness was originally meant to be a helpful guide to prevent insulting people in our society that were previously insulted by racist remarks or behaviour and to allow company's to escape the trend of getting sued for the most minor of things. However, it has long since abandoned to function as such and political correctness is nowadays one of the most racist and most absurd concepts in our society. It detects racism where no one would ever expect it, thus creating it in the first place. However, it also offers a protective shields for racists to hide behind it. It is a common view for someone to bring forth racist views, then shouts at the accusations of racism that the accusers are merely being "PC" and that he is merely expressing his freedom of speech.

The probably most absurd usage of political correctness by someone was by VIRII. In an argument, Mr. HaX proposed to have all muslims removed from Britain. It was pointed out that ethnic cleansing was illegal. Mr. HaX claimed it was not ethnic cleansing since nobody would get killed, merely "repatriated". Upon pointing out the exact dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing and my insistence that this suggestion was a perfect example of what ethnic cleansing was, Mr. VIRII then started to argue that the common usage of the word applies to killing, rather than removing. Because of this, I should not use this term as I may be obscuring Mr. HaX's proposal. Why is this PC? It is PC because it is yet another non-issue. The dictionary definition was there for everyone to see, it was clear that ethnic cleansing does not only stand for killing a certain part of the population, but also removing a certain part of the population to somewhere else. The common misconception and common denotations of the word are completely irrelevant, especially when the dictionary definition is produced openly for everyone to see.

This shows how political correctness is against our western values. Since being a western nation implies that we can be tolerant to ideas, it also means we can be tolerant to change. If an ethnic minority claims to be insulted by a certain phrase, then it should not be a problem to change that phrase if it is indeed deemed to be intolerant and implies a sinister idea. Instead of using PC to foster racism, PC should be abolished, since our traditional values of tolerance are more than sufficient to deal with possible problems or tensions. At the moment, PC offers benefits only to those elements of our society that threaten it - bigots.

In conclusion I would like to say that we should always be aware of what our values are. We should also be aware that other countries or societies may not share our values. It should then be decided whether one wants to stick to our values and treat the other society with them, or whether one wants to abandon these values and treat the other society the way it is treating us. We also have to safeguard ourselves against threats from within - but when does the threat become a threat? Is it a threat when it offers a different idea? Is it a threat when it offers an idea that is contrary to our ideals? This has to be decided on an almost daily bases, one hopes that we make the right choice. For the right choice is the chose to stick to one set of ideals, whatever they may be, and defending and promoting them in the scale and scope that those ideals allow one to do so - because without ideals and values, we are nothing.

© Ex-RoNiN, 13.01.2004

Disclaimer: Nations and persons mentioned were not intended to be insulted or shown in a bad light, they were merely used to illustrate my point. Apologies for any offence caused.

A sidenote: the brainstorming that ended up in the above essay was caused by a remark of denoir's in the thread about the BBC guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The dictionary definition was there for everyone to see, it was clear that ethnic cleansing does not only stand for killing a certain part of the population, but also removing a certain part of the population to somewhere else. The common misconception and common denotations of the word are completely irrelevant, especially when the dictionary definition is produced openly for everyone to see.

Ho ho hi hi. No comment  wink_o.gif

(Only some of you will know why I'm laughing at this part. )

Anyway, I'll post some comments to the essay later, I'm a bit tired right now smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree,political correctness is going too far.

Political parties being forced to take on a certain number of women,and more or less forced to take on certain numbers of 'immigrants' of north african origin,all in the name of political correctness (not that they don't enjoy getting votes from this,but still)

It angers me to see some 20-ish year old cow,who got into politics because she's a well-known politicians daughter,doesn't look too bad,and is a woman.

Consequently,she gets on tv in game shows,and makes an idiot of herself,and that makes me wonder how exactly she qualifies as a politician.

Anyways,the system of free speech is being used by people like abou jahjah and his AEL to complain about the racism in belgium (amongst other countries).

Yes there are idiots who are rascists,me having some asian origin,and thus have experienced having insults flung at you for no reason other than the colour of your skin being just a tad darker,have had first hand experience with it.

_but_ the only minority that's getting any mention at all in politics and news are the north african minority,so much that in the mind of many,they are the only minority.

This making politicians issue laws and bills so that this 'minority',get ensured better chances at jobs etc,effectively having people who could do the job better,not get it,also simply because of the color of their skin.

I fail to see the political correctness in reverse racism  rock.gif

(I do acknowledge that some people get less chances because of their origin,but positive discrimination may make some other people angry,which doesn't really help)

Perhaps more on topic,I wonder how long religion will survive in europe,I don't know anyone who goes to church,and I've seen the number of people in religion classes in school drop down,and the number of people in...non-confessional...(help?) steadily rise.

Started with me and two other guys in elementary school,and after finishing elemntary,it jumped up to 20 and more,they just took advantage of the custom of celebrating some religous thing at their 12th birthday (communie,not sure about the english word) and then they quit,there was zero interest in religion,it was jsut an opportunity for gifts and money from their families.

I give religion another ten or twenty years,before the last churches are just locations for funerals and weddings.

Personally I see it as good progress,I never really did get into religion,or this whole 'faith' thing,but I wonder what others think about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians + Doing what they SAY they will do = BIG oxymoron biggrin_o.gif thats my opinion on anything to do with politics.

and political correctness is going INSANE, in the UK you arent allowed to call a blackboard a blackboard because it can be considered rascist, but excuse me for calling something by the colour i see because it is a BOARD that is BLACK, so i call it a blackboard, not using it in any racist implimentation at all.

its funny how you cant call a black board a blackboard anymore it is now supposed to be called a chalkboard, yet no-one has said anything about changing the name of a WHITEboard, you know the one you use magic markers on, to me that is very double standard (much like on some forums (not this one) where mods are above the law and have their own rules to follow and everyone else get the worse ones)

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps more on topic,I wonder how long religion will survive in europe,I don't know anyone who goes to church,and I've seen the number of people in religion classes in school drop down,and the number of people in...non-confessional...(help?) steadily rise.

although being born christian at about 14 i gave it up simply because (this is my OPINION so not trying to offend anyone) im NOT that stupid, most things i will only believe in if i SEE it firsthand, especially things that dictate how i should live my life, my beliefs now are a mix of Pagan/Wicca(n) and some spiritualism (hard to explain) also i believe in the GAIA theorum (dont ask me to explain too complicated........well for me to explain anyway.

heh thats enough of me ranting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
although being born christian at about 14 i gave it up simply because (this is my OPINION so not trying to offend anyone) im NOT that stupid, most things i will only believe in if i SEE it firsthand, especially things that dictate how i should live my life, my beliefs now are a mix of Pagan/Wicca(n) and some spiritualism (hard to explain) also i believe in the GAIA theorum (dont ask me to explain too complicated........well for me to explain anyway.

heh thats enough of me ranting

Umm nobody is born religious, it has to be taught to children before they become religious.

I also dislike the way people think it's somehow offensive to tell others they disagree with their religion. You can tell someone you don't agree with their political party all you like; why is religion so special? I'll tell you why; because religions know if their nonsensical beliefs are questioned people will start leaving them in droves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]I also dislike the way people think it's somehow offensive to tell others they disagree with their religion.  You can tell someone you don't agree with their political party all you like; why is religion so special?  I'll tell you why; because religions know if their nonsensical beliefs are questioned people will start leaving them in droves.

It's just a part of tolerance, if they aren't causing harm you really should leave them alone. There's no real reason to argue about the existence of supernatural beings, neither side can really win. The non-religious say everything can be explained scientifically, the religious say all science can be explained religiously. Argueing with people about their beliefs is a fool's errand. However, this doesn't mean that religion should interfere with science.

Quote[/b] ]and political correctness is going INSANE, in the UK you arent allowed to call a blackboard a blackboard because it can be considered rascist, but excuse me for calling something by the colour i see because it is a BOARD that is BLACK, so i call it a blackboard, not using it in any racist implimentation at all.

And meanwhile in the US we had a guy lose his job crazy_o.gif  because he dared to use the word "niggardly". It has an entirely different origin from "nigger" (Yes, I said it wow_o.gif ), so it's really just a case of idiots allowed to run wild. We've had people say that it doesn't matter if something is offensive, it only matters if they "feel" offended by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]also i believe in the GAIA theorum (dont ask me to explain too complicated........well for me to explain anyway.

Is that the belief that the Earth is a living, intelligent organism that slowly compensates to what happens to/on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I just finished an essay on equality and other related things. Let me just copy and paste biggrin_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]So as you can see commander, humans do not enjoy equality at all. They do however enjoy individualism, where everyone is different. The catch is that modern society pushes for equality, so no one is treated unfairly. Yet when everyone is equal, life is boring. If equality is enforced then the enforcers have more power, which makes them unequal, so equality is never to be successful. Maybe in 50 years we should come back to earth and see if they finally decide what is best for them and continue our research. If they still have civil strife and problems with equality we will force them to make a decision.

Er, yeah. I had to be a alien researcher/ tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spam must go on, the spam must go on... tounge_o.gif  wink_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]Er, yeah. I had to be a alien researcher

I'm going to try and prevent The Frenchman from tearing out of my chest. wow_o.gif  ghostface.gif

Quote[/b] ]If they still have civil strife and problems with equality we will force them to make a decision.

And then we will nuke them, then invade and see if they have any oil. tounge_o.gif  crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Er, yeah. I had to be a alien researcher

I'm going to try and prevent The Frenchman from tearing out of my chest. wow_o.gif  ghostface.gif

You cannot stop the Covenant Armada, punny human! mad_o.gifblues.gif

biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's just a part of tolerance, if they aren't causing harm you really should leave them alone.

And similarly, you don't just go running up to a political advocate and start argueing with them. But if they start discussing things with you, its perfectly reasonable to state how you disagree. Apparently it isn't to do the same thing with religious recruiters.

Quote[/b] ]There's no real reason to argue about the existence of supernatural beings, neither side can really win. The non-religious say everything can be explained scientifically, the religious say all science can be explained religiously. Argueing with people about their beliefs is a fool's errand. However, this doesn't mean that religion should interfere with science.

Until such time as any supernatural being or energy is discovered, believing in them is stupid. And wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]You cannot stop the Covenant Armada, punny human!

We can, however, make 1000 Justin Timberlake clones and sneak them into your ships wow_o.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]And similarly, you don't just go running up to a political advocate and start argueing with them. But if they start discussing things with you, its perfectly reasonable to state how you disagree. Apparently it isn't to do the same thing with religious recruiters.

If they try to recruit you, then you can start attacking them. wow_o.giftounge_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]Until such time as any supernatural being or energy is discovered, believing in them is stupid. And wrong.

Just because people want to believe in a fairy tale doesn't mean that you can convince them into believing something else. If someone has been indoctrinated from childhood to believe in a supernatural power, then no amount of debate will persuade them into thinking otherwise, unless they didn't have much faith in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]We can, however, make 1000 Justin Timberlake clones and sneak them into your ships

Ah the irony of ironies, destroying the world in order to save it sad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope with this essay to provoke intellectual discussion that will remain free of immature rants of the "omg, foreigners steal our jobs/women/language" category and that we can instead discuss the true erosion of Western culture due to bigots in our midst.

Well that lasted all of 3 posts before degenerating into a Justin Timberlake, alien invasion, wicca fest. Sad really. wink_o.gif

I'm too tired to think sensibly now about the issue of the thread so I'll stick to snide comments, far less taxing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Well that lasted all of 3 posts before degenerating into a Justin Timberlake, alien invasion, wicca fest. Sad really.

I'm too tired to think sensibly now about the issue of the thread so I'll stick to snide comments, far less taxing.

Fighting spam with spam never does much. Besides, I did make a couple productive posts before falling to the wiles of The Frenchman tounge_o.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The dictionary definition was there for everyone to see, it was clear that ethnic cleansing does not only stand for killing a certain part of the population, but also removing a certain part of the population to somewhere else. The common misconception and common denotations of the word are completely irrelevant, especially when the dictionary definition is produced openly for everyone to see.

Ho ho hi hi. No comment  wink_o.gif

(Only some of you will know why I'm laughing at this part. )

Because you're glad you're not a moderator anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that the essay was very nice. It was pretty much exactly how I feel.

The erosion of our values is in my opinion caused by our crave for security. When we build security, we destroy our freedom. A total police state is totally safe.

One of my favourite quotes: "Those who would give up their freedom for some security deserve neither freedom nor security."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post count deductions: 100 posts per spam post. Final result will be posted in a second.

m21man loses 300 posts, The Frechman loses 200 posts. I urge you to stop spamming this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×