Why was everything so innocent in the 40s/50s? >inb4 lefty shills

It really wasn't.

Somewhere north of 450,000 Americans died in combat between 1941 and 1953, and pretty much everything after 1948 was spent in an atmosphere of imminent destruction.

File: 1283928399494.jpg (48KB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x377px

I didn't know proxy wars and nuclear threat were innocent.

Freedom, less government.

>>1466189
After WW2 and Korea that's what everyone wanted.

>don't glorify old times
>be a leftist
How fucking delusional are you?

>>1466197

>>1466215

Except it wasn't, the 1950s were comfy af. Literally probably the peak of American society.

Post-war prosperity caused by gigantic spike in purchasing power, everything became more affordable, 2nd and 3rd gen European immigrants started moving away from their ethnic ghettos to middle class suburbs, rise of consumer society and TV culture.

>>1466224
This isn't true at all. Some of the largest public projects ever were done in the 50s, Interstate Highways for example.

>>1466250
Keep cranking that meme like your agenda depends on it.

>>1466258
All things considered he's probably correct, the era was so prosperous poverty was almost abolished. From the mid 60s onwards it's been a steady decline.

>>1466189
They were trying very hard to create a sense of safe and stable normalcy after the destruction they'd lived through and witnessed, at least in European and other countries directly impacted by the war.

>>1466266

Basically society was wealthy and moral, instead of hollow materialism we have now.

>>1466298
It was crazy materialist because it was the beginning of the consumerist era, everyone cared about their new shiny TVs, cars, houses and vacuum cleaners, but honestly nothing wrong with that. At least they weren't fuck poor like they are now.

>>1466298
>DIE COMMUNISTS DIE
>CONSUMERISM IS THE DEFINING LINE BETWEEN ANARCHY AND CIVILIZATION
>WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT GOOKS, THEY WON'T EVEN SEE US COMING HAHAHA

>>1466189
Censorship played a large role in creating the idyllic 50s image in media and books.

>>1466310
>ALL CAPS

Butthurt as hell. Go away.

File: Senator Swish.jpg (122KB, 600x1038px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 600x1038px

>>1466298
Just because their porn came in books doesnt mean muh degeneracy wasn't athing.

>>1466189
It wasn't? Also
>viewing history throug a political lens
>not being as objective as possible
Lol

>>1466250
Hi /pol/. Isn't there a 50's roleplaying event you should be attending

>>1466315
It was for emphasis, i'm a britbong i could hardly care less.

>>1466357
>Bongs this mad that America has been and still is infinitely wealthier than them

Nothing new.

>It's a nostalgiafag episode

Pro tip: you'd be a square back then and get no girls

>>1466266
this, it was literally utopia on earth, mankind had eternal peace and everyone was completely and ultimately happy and in a perpetual state of nirvana, it was the atlantis, promised by G'd, the beffittance of Man, until THOSE DIRTY DAMN COMMUNISTS RUINED IT ALL

>>1466398
>marxist "humor"

Absolutely cucked

>>1466411
>brazilian "arguments"

fuck off monkey

>>1466398
Memes aside, name a better decade when it comes to wealth. The only other one that's even comparable is the 20s.

The greatest generation found a little prosperity. Good people who spent their money wisely and didn't take what they had for granted.

>>1466414
I'm a burger m8

>>1466423
no, you are disagreeing with me, so you are brazilian, I've decided thusly.

>>1466418
Wealth has been growing exponentially since then.
Do you mean inequality?

>>1466429
You know very well what I meant.

File: Yuro.jpg (52KB, 600x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x584px

>all the Bongs ITT

>there are people who long for the 50s when the 90s happened

>>1466435
No I don't.
An average middle class american or european is much wealthier than 70 years ago.
Even a poor american/european is. Well, not the homeless, but you know...

>>1466367
Nah, America wouldn't like me and I wouldn't want to live there. Your high schools sound horrifying, like they teach you how to be an American there rather than how to be educated. Combine that with the overly religious, puritanical culture... not for me nigga.

Anyway, we were talking about the fifties, not the present, so i'm hardly salty. Of course you're wealthier than us.

someone post the pic of black people standing in a bread line while there is a poster of a happy middle class white family above them.

>>1466446
Percentage of Americans in the middle class and social mobility. The 50s upwards social mobility was unprecedented.

File: Great-Depression-Unemployment-Line-.jpg (94KB, 620x458px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 620x458px

>>1466450
If you mean this picture, that's from the Great Depression, not the 50s.

File: 1466957699133.jpg (88KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 640x480px

>>1466450

>>1466456
Ok.
That's an entirely different concept than wealth though.

I'd still much rather live today than marvel at how my social mobility can afford me a colour TV and a brand new car though.

>>1466470
Except color TV back then was like an expensive VR set today, you have to adjust for technological level.

>>1466476
> you have to adjust for technological level.

Herein lies the problem, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't want to live at the dawn of the stone age, even though you'd marvel at the adoption of using stone as a cutting tool (adjusting for the technological level).

>>1466464
>>1466469
thanks lads, I needed it for my his folder.

>>1466496
I wouldn't time travel to the 50s either, your point?

>>1466418
>the 20s

What is the great depression

>>1466506
my point is, nostalgia based on delusional ideas of "wealth", "innocence" and "non-degeneracy", experienced almost entirely through propaganda pieces, are silly

>>1466514
Only started in '29.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties

>>1466515
I'm not being nostalgic about anything and I'm not even the OP, I was just stating raw facts. It seems to me you're the one with a clear agenda to push.

>nostalgia goggles: the thread

>>1466530
I don't think anyone ITT lived in the 50s anon.

>>1466526
>raw facts
>some vague notion about an abundance of wealth in the 50s

uhuh

>>1466189
Because you keep looking at media where everything deliberatly is innocent. It's like some guy a hundred years from now watching dumb sitcom on the Disney channel and wondering why everything was so innocent back in the 2010's

File: Income-Growth-51.png (35KB, 647x430px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 647x430px

>>1466536
Are you the frustrated Brit or some different poster?

>>1466549
I think you'll find that what you posted is a graph of income growth.

If that's the metric for wealth then African shitholes are amongst the wealthiest countries in existence, since their income growth is probably the highest, percentually.

>>1466298
>Wealthy and moral

Wealthy, yes, Americans had more money than ever. Moral, no. Many considered by many to be very vapid and empty feeling. Just go read up on the Beat generation.

>>1466557
Except you're comparing apples and oranges, African shitholes are in the process of building their countries from the grounds up while America already was a modern, industrialized country in the 50s.

>>1466418
1990's. That decade had wealth AND the post-Cold War pre-9/11 zeitgeist.

>>1466189
Go watch that movie The Lost Weekend, from 1945.

>>1466224
>less government

Don't tell me you actually believe this.

>>1466565
And that still doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you're using terms in a wrong manner.

I'll leave you be, it's clear that you're the type that just doesn't let go, you've won.

>>1466266
>From the mid 60s onwards it's been a steady decline.

Not true in any sense.

>>1466570
90s are a strong contender because of how sharply crime rates went down I guess.

So let's sum it up:

>great
20s, 50s, 90s

>shit
30s, 70s, 2000s

>>1466526
>facts

The 50's were pretty prosperous, but you're a fool if you believe it was some utopian time. Leave It To Beaver wasn't a documentary, anon. There was the Red Scare, the Korean War, the Civil Rights movement, the Beat Generation etc.

>>1466298

Lol, the 50s were more "materialist" than we are now.

>>1466582

The 2000s were fine except for terrorism hysteria.

>>1466388
>implying i wouldn't turn them all onto jazz and reefer
>implying i wouldn't use my historical foreknowledge to jump-start the counter-culture and mold it to my own means

>>1466585
In the Fifties, there were about 10 huge airline crashes every year. You could buy a round-trip life insurance from a vending machine at the airport.

>>1466582
It goes in cycles of growth and decline, yes. I wonder what the 2010's will eventually be classified as.

>>1466602
70s 2.0

>music scene is dominated by shitty, mindless dance music
>the political lines are becoming blurred
>widespread contempt of government institutions
>economic stagnation
>terrorism is everywhere

>>1466597
Nah, the 2000s were pretty shit. Economic decline, two wars, terrorism on the rise, Russia reverting from being our friend to being our arch enemy once again and then in 08 the real estate bubble burst and everything went down the toilet for a few years.

Not to mention culture, I can think of what constitutes 80s culture, 90s culture, but what about the 2000s? Britney Spears and ipods? Bland shit all around.

>>1466597
2000's were actually a pretty terrible decade. 9/11 puts an end to the 90's zeitgeist and replaced it with a feeling of fear, confusion, and anger. America was thrown into 2 long, frustrating, and expensive wars in the Middle East. Katrina and the government's poor response caused many to lose what faith they still had in the government. Then, to top it all off, we have the single greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression near the end of the decade.

>>1466189
It wasn't. It just looked that way in contrast to the 60s.

>>1466621
the rise of the internet.

>>1466607
So that'd make the 2000's the new 60's, which actually makes a whole lot of sense.

Also I'd change
>music scene is dominated by shitty, mindless dance music
To
>Dance music dominates the mainstream charts, but various musical genres flourish like never before underground.

I think we all can agree that the 70s were the worst postwar decade though, right? Talking about specifically just America now, I know the USSR was going through their golden age basically.

>>1466629
It's a bit of a wash between positives and negatives with the internet, and the internet culture as we know it didn't become a thing until the latter part of the decade.

>>1466638
The latter part of the decade was when it went mainstream. The early part was when it developed.

>>1466636
The 60's were more of the Soviet golden age, the 70's was more just the aftershocks of said golden age and ended with stagnation.

The 1970's were pretty bad, but the 1870's might have been the worst post-war decade in US history.

>>1466645
I meant post WW2 obviously, not just any war.

>>1466643
I'd argue it developed during the late 90's along with the rise of AOL, personally. Regardless, the internet has had much more influence on the 2010's if anything than the 2000's.

File: richard-dick-cheney1[1].jpg (64KB, 768x525px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 768x525px

>mfw the 2000s

the "rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic" decade.

File: The_summer_man_don_drink.jpg (85KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1280x720px

>>1466189
it wasn't, they drank..................a lot.

>>1466647
Oh, okay. My apologies, you should have clarified by saying post-WW2 though. But yeah, I'd agree the 70's were probably the worst, just a bit worse than the 60's.

File: United_States_per_capita_energy_use_1650-2010.png (34KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1024x768px

>>1466636
The 1960's was objectively the golden age of humanity, the 70's is when cracks began to form and it should've corrected but we've managed to keep things going with debt

>>1466560

I don't give a fuck what dirty proto hippies thought, they ruined this country.


>>1466312

Good, we should've blown out leftists even harder.

>>1466660
What metrics are you using to conclude 1960's being the golden age of humanity? It was bit of time of crisis in a vast amount of places.

Well, in some ways they were indeed better than us.
There were less divorces, less single mothers (meaning less bastard kids), etc. If I had to guess, there was no happiness research at the time, they were probably happier.

>>1466418
the 80s and 90s.

globally the 90s and 00s.

>>1466661
Ah the "dismissing opposing viewpoints with ad homium and only recognizing evidence to support your confirmation bias" card. Classic.

>>1466448

You sound like an edgy fedora, I wouldn't want you in my country either

>hating on things that make a society great

Go on to evening prayers now

So if the 1990's were the new 50's, the 2000's the new 60's, and the 2010's the new 70's, does that make the 2020's the new 80's? What do you think will happen during that decade?

>>1466672

>faggotry
>abortion on demand
>atheism
>welfare state
>nanny state
>destruction of marriage
>drug/alcohol abuse


argentines were right to throw you out of airplanes t b h

>>1466668
>No chinese cartoons
>Happy
Please

>>1466682
Music gets better?

>>1466668

Women are statistically recorded as being happier back in the 50s as opposed to today. They deserve it for feminism though.

>>1466690
Alt-right go and stay go if you're going to keep peddling your idealized version of the 50's.

>>1466699
>80's music
>Better the 70's music

Fight me

>>1466682
the 80s were obviously more like the 50s, corny music, commies, the swing to the right, are you being wrong intentionally

>>1466690
ah the "being a 14 year old edgemaster" card

>>1466708
I heard it was all the antipsychotic medications and Leave it to Beaver retconning.

>>1466189
1960s were better...more wealth, better cars and birth control pills.

>>1466714
Do you think those things he mentioned didn't happen? That atheism didn't increase, for example, and people were always as irreligious as they are right now?

>>1466714

>idealized

>>1466721

Sorry that I have morals?

>>1466729

>muh dik

>>1466720
The 80's have their own separate identity from the 50's.

>>1466729
But also the start of more people having the ethical system of a chimpanzee, like you, who only takes in consideration material goods and sex.

>>1466731
>Declaring a whole decade one of prosperity and high morality
>Not an idealized viewpoint

>>1466708
>crazy ptsd from having your buddy splattered all over during the war
>>pressure of being your family's sole source of support

Men probably weren't happier though...

>>1466731
yeah, sorry for living LEFTY, like, HELLO!!??!, MORALS!

>>1466718
>implying Zen Arcade isn't the greatest hardcore album

>>1466753
>Implying new wave, synthpop and hairmetal hold a candle to punk, funk and classic rock

File: Mike-Myers-Austin-Powers-1-.jpg (32KB, 349x302px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 349x302px

>>1466739
yeah baby, like a damn dirty monkey...

>>1466586
>the 50s were more "materialist" than we are now
Wut. They were materialist, yes, but no where near the level we've reached. Materialism as we know it is a by-product of the 1980's. In the 50's it was more, candy pink stoves, automobiles and that's about as far as it went.. Now it's the newest iPhone, designer clothes, automobiles and whatever else in en vogue. You didn't really see that much materialism in the US before 1980 outside of suburbia.

>>1466730
>implying chastity and religiosity are the only components to morality

>>1466464
>>1466469
>>1466503
>>1466450
It wasn't even caused by the Depression and it wasn't a breadline. It was a line for the Red Cross after a fucking flood. They were going to get clothes and blankets.

>>1466772
The middle class has and always will be materialist in nature.

>>1466778
It doesn't negate the irony.

>>1466779
I never denied that. I simply denied they were anywhere near as materialist as the modern US because it's false.

>>1466775
It is a pretty large part of it. And you didn't answer the point.

>>1466786
It does.

>>1466789
It's debatable.

>>1466791
>My opinions are facts

>>1466801
Nu-uh

>>1466805
It isn't. Materialism hadn't seeped into all aspects of life in the 1950's. That is a post-1980's phenomenon.

>>1466806
I repeat, you didn't answer the point. You claimed his vision of the 50s was untrue, when in fact, all the changes he mentioned in the post happened.

Acknowledge you were wrong, you piece of shit.

>>1466810
Materialism was one of the defining aspects of 50's culture. Your success and the American Dream were defined by having a house, a car, a refridgerator, a TV, washing machine, kids etc.

>>1466818
His claim was that the 50's were an unparrelled tim of prosperity and morality, when I gave evidence to the contrary, he dismisses as hippy bullshit and goes off spouting stormfront bullshit as proof morality has faded. Kys nigger.

>>1466772
>Materialism as we know it is a by-product of the 1980's

80s materialism was just a revival of 50s materialism.

>>1466586
I don't think so, actually. For one thing, America went from a decade-long depression to relatively rolling in money and consequentially people were buying a lot of big-ticket items (stoves, cars, houses, travel, nice cuts of beef, etc.) that they couldn't afford before so that tends to skew perception, and for another thing the materialism was largely limited to what I just described - the modern cult of consumerism was in its infancy and so-called "family values" were still very much the bedrock of middle America. In later decades you had even more intense materialism with even less moral or spiritual grounding, and I think that one has to factor that into the equation.

>>1466838
All the points in the post you quoted were true. >>1466690

>>1466838
Commies like you will one day be purged

>>1466851
>MY OPINIONS ARE FACT!!!!!1111

Yes, yes, gas the kikes, burn the faggots, racewar when etc etc

>>1466250

Black man here- in what way was the 1950's comfy?

>>1466866
Shhhh, don't trouble him with facts or opposing viewpoints, he doesn't take well to that.

>>1466866
50s fetishism is just how American conservatives deal with their sublimated desire to reverse the civil rights movement.

>>1466862

So again, you really don't think those things are bad/ didn't increase after the 50s? Maybe lefty pol is more of your thing

>>1466869
>>1466871

>unironically caring about niggers

Wew

>>1466871

Name one benefit to American society from nigger voting

File: 1951 dancing.jpg (289KB, 700x706px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 700x706px

>>1466866
Your kind had better dressing code and culture.

>>1466874
The point of this whole debate was whether those things make society less moral. Then it turns into a game of go back to /pol/ and go back to tumblr. Don't think I haven't played this game before.

>>1466250

Sure if you were a WASP living in the rust belt. You still had massive poverty in the south, witch hunts for anything that could be considered "communist", widespread fear and suspicion against Catholics. Corrupt police agencies in the cities and the mafia having their fingers in the economic activities in most urban areas

>>1466876
There it is, like clockwork.

>>1466876
>>1466882
I never said it was a bad thing.

I just said that the reason so many Americans like the 50s is because they want to put women and black people back in their place.

File: 1468416981848.jpg (195KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1920x1080px

I don't know my country was literally JUST

File: white pride.jpg (69KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x600px

>>1466896

Its literally the "everyone who isn't a white anglo saxon male needs to know their place" philosophy

i was born in le wrong generation xD lol i am so unique

>>1466893

why would I not actin my self interest? Non whites in white countries hate us, they are actively working to demographically usurp our countries.

Why would I support my enemies?

File: 11904667_1207771935949600_508923639383449412_n.jpg (28KB, 325x350px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 325x350px

>>1466934

>people who you treat like shit won't like you

who would have thought

File: image.png (195KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 500x379px

>>1466944

Are you just copying a script from your local antifa site?

>>1466934
I wish you brats would turn off the internet and get a hobby.

File: 1462132224730.jpg (51KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x480px

>>1466954

The internet is the only place where they can project an image of power, if you saw these people in real life you would laugh at them

>>1466944
The difference is he wants you to hate him because that justifies his beliefs about you, that is how racism works, they are fine with everyone hating each other.

>>1466954
>>1466958


I'm willing to wager I have a higher net worth and have seen more of the world than you have. White countries do not act in their self interest.

File: 1446527623387.jpg (23KB, 313x398px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 313x398px

>>1466972

awesome, post your tax return with a datestamp then

>>1466866
Less minorities in general
Less and more localized blacks
Minimal identity politics
Extremely strict immigration policy favoring Europeans
No civil rights act
Jim Crow
McCarthyism
Eisenhower
No GCA or subsequent anti-2A legislation (Brady bill, AWB, etc.)
Bigotry acceptable
Unquestioned WASP domination of society
American-made everything
No GMOs or Glyphosphate
Cheap land
Abundant game
Cheap milsurp
Less population, less population density and less suburbs
No White Flight

The list goes on. It wasn't perfect and it's certainly been romanticized to a considerable extent but like every period of time, it has people who wish they were living then instead of in the present.

>>1466977

I'm in an airport right now but my wealth comes from several thousand acres of farmland, t. Midwest

File: 1461366664237.jpg (42KB, 541x498px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 541x498px

>>1466984

So your a farmer with a high debt load

>>1466731
>literally virtue signalling

>>1466316

https://pulpcovers.com/

Check it out.

>>1466189
Because mass media discouraged the depiction of offensive language, nudity, or sexual themes

>>1466250
Definitely good for straight white dudes, but that was just a post-victory buzz

>>1466994

Nope, inheritance from a work friend who considered me his adopted son. Put it all in farmland.

>>1466984
Sounds like "I have a gf in Canada but I can't call her right now"

>several thousands acres
Sounds like someone was born into wealth

>>1466570

90s sucked because all i had was dial-up AOL.

Media

>>1466631
Really the 2010's are the 60's. The parallels are quite remarkable. Our 70's is right around the corner I believe, except I believe it will be even worse as manufacturing jobs are NEVER returning to the United States due to automation and cheap labour. There won't be a Regan to bring America back from the abyss this time

>>1466862
>MY OPINIONS ARE FACT!!!!!1111

In this case, it is not opinions, but facts

All that he mentioned in >>1466690 indeed did happen.

Or are you going to argue that divorce rates didn't increase? This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

>>1466840
Consumerism =/= materialism

That's like saying the 1950's was a revival of the 1920's materialism. It's retarded and ignores context

>>1466892
He said the peak for AMERICAN society. Papists, niggers, and lefties need not apply.

>>1467056

How is increased divorced rates a bad thing? Perhaps it sheds light on the failure of Hollywood style romanticism and that women are no longer socially obliged to remain with a partner they are unhappy with due to increased economic opportunities

>>1467086
You didn't argue at the time that this was a good or bad thing. You argued that his view of the 50's was wrong. When the changes he mentioned happened.

>>1467093

It is still wrong because it ignores alot of problems that existed in the 50's for a nostalgic version that didn't really exist. Bear in mind that in the so called great age of the nuclear family, the number one health issue among children was malnutrition (today it is the opposite in obesity) and rates of child molestation were higher than they are today. Hell if you look at old porno, one of the more common themes was literally incest. That says alot of 50's society.

>>1467107
All the points he mentioned were correct.

You should have said "yes, they were less likely to divorce, but malnutrition was higher and...", instead you pretended that what he said was wrong, when it isn't.

File: suncafe.jpg (237KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1280x1280px

The civil rights movement didn't spring out of nowhere. The 40s and 50s saw one of the most drastic socioeconomic changes in history which gave black people in the south much needed political support from the majority white population.

If you were an uneducated white person in the north during the great depression you could go for years without hearing about the plight of the black man, even if you did you would likely be misinformed and your own crushing poverty would be a more immediate concern. Now imagine you went through ww2 and returned to America's post war boom, you have a steady job and started reading the newspaper every day, you learn about all the things happening in the south and having fought alongside negro battalions against literal nazis your view of the world has changed, you develop a disdain for the KKK and other nonsense and it affects the way you vote. What you were doing was good, you are giving a shit about something beyond your front doorstep.

HOWEVER

According to liberals humans are essentially good and good people are to be taken for granted, all that has happened is you have gone from being a bad person to a tolerable person (still a privileged "Other" of course). If everything before the revolution was just terrible that makes them look better by contrast. Us good, them bad. This is why they hate the 50s and fail to see the value in its good wholesome optimistic attitude even though it is the sole reason they were allowed any power.

File: thejediarevil.jpg (135KB, 992x951px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 992x951px

>>1467114

He points out raw data then injects his own interpretation of said data as fact. Yes divorce rates were lower but so were job opportunities for women. If you believe that widespread discrimination of 50% of the population is a good thing then sure, the 50's were great from a certain point of view

The only thing that was inherently good about the 1950s was the aesthetic style, and even then I think that really peaked in the early-to-mid 1960s.

Big square cars > big curvy cars.

>>1467125
He pointed raw data. You disagreed with the raw data.

>>1467133

No i didn't, learn to read >>1467086

File: image.jpg (58KB, 380x380px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 380x380px

>>1467015
>Taking pride in wealth given to you by others

>>1466979
>No civil rights act
>Jim Crow
>McCarthyism
>Bigotry acceptable
>No GMOs
>with your powers combined, I make a "comfy" society

You're a crazy person.

>>1467143
see >>1466714

>>1467152

not me fuckhead

>>1467125
Well when you put it that way, there seems to be an inverse correlation between economic reliance on men and divorce rates.

It can be speculated from this; that they're up because when women can work, they literally "Don't need no man." And when they can't, they're basically press ganged into mothering for a family.

Which is good, it can be further speculated that relationships lately are more based in personal choice between men and women. This is good for both genders in a sense, because it's an opportunity to observe how we present ourselves to each other, and how that's changing.

And working off of this speculation, it also does well to describe the lingering male entitlement that's often spoken about in feminism. Cultural jet-lag, in a sense. It fits nicely with the posted graphs of happiness in women, to say that our culture is accelerating much faster in some areas than our society at large is.

>>1467145
Maybe to you.

File: 2rg2f6c.jpg (113KB, 716x960px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 716x960px

>>1467047

>There won't be a Regan to bring America back from the abyss this time

>Le Great Man history

>mindless republican selfjacking

First of all the 70s where just a short phase of transition between one phase of imperial dominance to another. Vietnam and the general cultural and economic situation (oil embargo etc.) weakened the USA to the level where they still were superior but not as massive as they were used to. In the 80s microelectronics and the likes started really booming, the center of this development was in the USA and they quickly got back to the undisputed top position.

Reagan was actually shit desu. His econmic policy was the equivalent of an athlet taking a bump of crystal meth before the race. Ofc your performance is going to drastically spike in the short term but in the long term...
He transitioned the political culture to the mindless appeal to emotion and charisma you have today. We are happy he didn´t start armageddon with his over the top unnecessary provocations towards the SU and he ruined the picture of the USA in the world (iran-contra, financing muhadjedins, saddam etc.)

50s:
Are you all retarded? The 50s where the high point of conformism and mindless consumerism. If you wee different (gay, other political agenda etc.) black, jewish, female, riddled with ptsd or whatever the whole era was a living hell. All you outcasts on this indonesian tapestry board woukd have been in the out-group you mongs. People that listen to beyonce and read buzzfeed would have been the in-group at the time.

>>1467162
Absolutely to me - and in my experience, the majority of the people I have known in my life, of all backgrounds, would find the notion that a time in which open displays of prejudice and poor treatment of others en masse was not a "comfy" period.

>>1467107
>Hell if you look at old porno, one of the more common themes was literally incest. That says alot of 50's society.

This is true today, I'd say, too. And I wouldn't read too much into 50s porn as indicative of how people actually behave, do you perform the same kind of mass psychoanalysis of today's porn?

>>1467158
This is a cute theory, but likely wrong.

They were both caused by the same thing, a culture shift.

>>1467182
Some of today's sexual paraphilia have pretty obvious links to environment though: for example furries and Disney movies.

>>1467169
>If you wee different (gay, other political agenda etc.) black, jewish, female, riddled with ptsd or whatever the whole era was a living hell.
Which is why everyone here is calling it the high point of AMERICAN society. Gays, blacks, and other minorities weren't apart of American society back then and they still aren't now, why do you think identity politics is on the rise? At least in the 50s Americans had some semblance of power over all of the disparaged minority groups. Nowadays those groups are actively using identity politics to reverse the power dynamic.

>>1467184
And this culture shift was in no way affected by the changes to law achieved by the civil rights movement? I mean I'm not gonna say that they're mutually exclusive. Culture shapes law, which shapes culture as the rest of us adjust and whatnot.

Why is it likely wrong that women are more likely to pursue independent life, or divorce, on account of having more opportunities to support themselves while doing so?

File: 20ihqxj.jpg (55KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 615x409px

>>1467198
Everyone i don´t like isn´t part of society. Ok manchild.

Seriously SJWs and identity politics are toxic but just saying LE Negro isn´t part of society is no less toxic.

File: 1469509380869.jpg (84KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1280x720px

>>1467198

>people don't like being under the thumb of a group that doesn't have their best interest in mind

well no shit

>>1467206
Right wing social justice is still social justice and right wing identity politics is still identity politics.

Horseshoe effect never forget.

>>1467198
This is an absolute crock. You're defining American society through such a narrow lens. Gays, blacks, Hispanics, whatever - they were all part of American society. What you seem to be referring to is upper/upper middle class East Coast WASP. While certainly politically necessary and influential in the course of this country's history, it's a fallacy to define that group as existing as the singular entity in an "American society". I would refer to the military as a particularly good example as to how there was a larger, more comprehensive American social fabric - which included blacks, Hispanics, whites, and gays inbetween all those.

>>1467198
Posts like this reminds me that in the end, /pol/ is still terribly racist and just as bad as SJW

File: 16m7e4n.jpg (60KB, 1140x641px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1140x641px

>>1467218
True. Both sides covenienty ignore this though.

>>1467198
>Implying women and gays aren't American

OK retard.

>>1467206

Modern identity politics are a symptom of failed economic policies that have plagued the united states. The outsourcing of jobs along with the idea that anything that isn't a white collar office job is beneath someone led to an environment where you have large numbers of young people being pushed though higher education and coming out the other end with low job prospects and little life experience outside theoretical ivory tower idealism. Studies show that most people become more conservative when they enter the workforce and become the breadwinners of a household, sadly that is no longer the case for most millennials

>>1467169
>The 50s where the high point of conformism and mindless consumerism. If you wee different (gay, other political agenda etc.) black, jewish, female, riddled with ptsd or whatever the whole era was a living hell.

While the 50s is certainly overly romanticized by some, this portrayal is just as inaccurate (except for communists, they were definitely blacklisted, and maybe gays too, although there was an active gay subculture). The TV and movie portrayals were products of a new mass media phenomenon that presented an ideal life that no one actually lived except for in a few fleeting moments. There was crime, subversion, deviance, etc., but it just didn't show up on TV or other forms of media like you see now. There was a thin veneer of order concealing the reality of a country that, on the whole, was fairly chaotic with many different patterns of life.

Realistically, we might be more conformist now with the prominence of social media and the concomitant collapse of privacy.

>>1467206
Are you denying the fact that gays and minority groups have their own culture and customs and vote in blocs?

>>1467207
Did I ever say the opposite?

>>1467218
>>1467229
Right wing identity politics are inherently reactionary though. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, I suppose. The left started using identity politics, but it's so successful that the right needs to match it in some way, or else be swept to the side.

>>1467226
>He said something I disagree with, better call him a racist /pol/ SJW buzzword

>>1467232
>AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG LALALALA

>>1467218
I have a simple question for you:

>What people call "moderate" politics today was radically leftist politics 50 or 100 years ago.
>Likewise, "moderate" politics 50 or 100 years ago would be unthinkably right-wing today.
>As such, people who call themselves "moderate" today are more leftist than they imagine.

What do you make of that?

>>1467202
>And this culture shift was in no way affected by the changes to law

It started before that.

And the issue is different values.

My grandmother would never divorce. What she valued in life was seeing her kids and grandkids becoming good adults. Would go to Church every weekend and participate in the community.

Now, take my aunt, for example. Hard working woman. But very materialistic. Divorced her husband in parts because he didn't make money. Richer than my grandmother ever was.

And they are both stereotypical among their age groups (at least in my city).

>>1467260
>>AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG LALALALA
Well I'm sorry but if you don't think women were a part of American society in the 50's you are indeed a retard and nothing can be done to help you. That isn't an ad hominem, it's me looking at your argument, recognizing that it is idiotic, and correctly identifying you as a retard. There's a subtle difference.

>>1467205
No point in arguing. The 90s was the best decade in America. Period.

>>1467272
>Well I'm sorry but if you don't think women were a part of American society in the 50's you are indeed a retard and nothing can be done to help you.
I didn't say that anywhere, this is shit bait bud 2/10 nice try

>>1467269

The difference is that your grandmother literally had nothing else to value, your grandmother could not compete with men for work and support herself in her era nor could she really hope to remarry as a divorced woman was seen as damaged goods

Now your aunt on the other hand, I don't know the particulars of the situation but the number one main source of conflict in any marriage is finances according to studies. If her husband was a deadbeat who can't pull his weight then it isn't a mystery as to why your aunt left him. Romantic love does eventually fizzle out and day to day life takes over in every marriage

>>1467279
Not>>1467272
- Yeah, but you agreed to that point in reference to Jews, women, blacks, etc - responding that blacks, Hispanics, and based on what you were quoting - women as well, were not in fact part of American society.

>>1467191
That's a fair point, but that's only because those characters didn't exist then. Some porn now is very strange in its specific fetishes, but I imagine that's always been true (styles of dress, work environments, etc.); maybe pornography in the 1920s had bizarre plots where men had sex with female bootleggers in exchange for alcohol.

However, we still have family members, as we always have, and incest has always been a strong taboo.

>>1467295
If you read my post, I said
>Gays, blacks, and other minorities
Women are not a minority...

File: Audrey Hepburn, 1950s (46).jpg (74KB, 794x1058px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 794x1058px

50s girls are cute but I always wonder if they're shaved down south.

>>1466876
this desu
Not my people, not my problem

>>1467276
This. Booming economy, government hadn't yet gone batshit like they did after 9/11, harmless presidents, not very much upheaval, internet was still in its infancy without many of the negative effects of social media, fairly diverse cultural scene in various media (except movies, kind of sucked there).

>>1467312
Addressing the realest concern here: what is it that makes racial and sexual minority groups not part of a greater American society? They exist within the same culture, for all intents and purposes, and participate in the same civic structure. They pay taxes, both state and federal, send their kids to schools, use the same roads and ideally, live towards the same ends in pursuing a happy life.

>>1467321
That's how I feel about the US's declining white birthrates.

>>1467320
No

>>1467292
>The difference is that your grandmother literally had nothing else to value, your grandmother could not compete with men for work and support herself in her era nor could she really hope to remarry as a divorced woman was seen as damaged goods

She didn't have the same mind you do. She had different values than you or my aunt did. Are you an economics student?

Do you think that the average Spartan warrior had the same values and wanted the same things as a hipster tech worker? Spartan Warrior wanted comfort and money?

>>1467320

Have you seen naked Demi Moore from the 80's? Women didn't really start shaving until the advent of mainstream pornography where having a cleanly shaved vag was used for visual effect

>>1467171
It was pretty comfy as long as you were on the giving end and not the taking end.

>>1467341
That's still fairly fucked given the reality of rampant injustice and extrajudicial punishment of large groups of an entire race. That's deeply disconcerting to me.

>>1467334
Jesus she's so fucking bushy. Can't she groom it a little? Like wax it or something goddamn.

>>1467331
>She didn't have the same mind you do. She had different values than you or my aunt did. Are you an economics student?

This is a fair point. The large majority of women worked during WWII and during the Great Depression (if they could even get a job then), so the idea that they would no longer have to work when marries because their husband would be paid enough to support a family as part of the new middle-class Fair Deal seemed like an exciting new prospect.

Many women of course soured on this with time; it got boring to stay at home with kids and only talking to other mothers in the supermarket or bank.

>>1467370

WWII was different as you had a large portion of young working age men get shipped off to war. many women lost their jobs post WWII when the men came home and the weapons factories shut down

>>1467236
That is certainly not untrue but excluding any ehtnic and orientation you don´t like from society is still not justifiable or practicable.

>>1467247
Intresting argument but in the essence wrong. Gays have a subculture in Teheran so what ? In the 50s less behaviour was seen as acceptable and the social sanctions were more drastic (commite of unamerican activities etc.).

>>1467260
>Are you denying the fact that gays and minority groups have their own culture and customs and vote in blocs?

Certainly they share a common culture but to say they vote in bloc is exxagarated. American political system benefits this and milo and ben carson are a living example that opposition exists. Also: So what, even if they do they are still part of society.


>Right wing identity politics are inherently reactionary though. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, I suppose. The left started using identity politics, but it's so successful that the right needs to match it in some way, or else be swept to the side.

No. Its the same toxic and non-liberal mindset that leads to this. If you don´t value equality of opportunity and meriocratic social mobility you are just going to parrot the narrative of your ethnic/political group that benefits you the most.

>>1467268


>What people call "moderate" politics today was radically leftist politics 50 or 100 years ago.
>Likewise, "moderate" politics 50 or 100 years ago would be unthinkably right-wing today.
>As such, people who call themselves "moderate" today are more leftist than they imagine.

Big fucking whoop. 2000 years ago there was godlike tyrant. How leftist where the fucking romans with their senate. On the other hand these dirty leftists in the middle ages actually had common used agrarian space.

>>1467384
*4000 years ago there was godlike tyrant in egypt

Sorry brainfart.

>>1467370
>Many women of course soured on this with time; it got boring to stay at home with kids and only talking to other mothers in the supermarket or bank.

You don't need work to spend your time.
My Grandma was much happier than my aunt.

>>1467379
Yes, but women also had the expectation that they would need only need to do that as long as the war was going on; there was a reason it was called the home front.

>>1467326
>They exist within the same culture, for all intents and purposes
For all intents and purposes they don't. You're crazy if you think some upper middle class white boy from a Pennsylvania or New York suburb experiences the same culture as a black person from the heart of Detroit or Camden.

>and participate in the same civic structure.
How they participate in the civic structure is extremely different. White traditionally don't vote in blocs the same way that minority groups like blacks or gays do.

>send their kids to schools
There's a stark difference between an inner city school and a suburban primarily white school.

>use the same roads
Assuming they live in the same place, which they don't. Neighborhoods are still very much segregated across racial lines all across the country.

>>1467384
>Intresting argument but in the essence wrong. Gays have a subculture in Teheran so what ? In the 50s less behaviour was seen as acceptable and the social sanctions were more drastic (commite of unamerican activities etc.).

Could you explain why diverse subcultures existing underneath a surface mainstream that practically no one lived means that I am wrong? The Tehran comparison is weak, they weren't hanging gay people in public. That doesn't mean things were better for gay people in the 50s than they would be 20 years later or today, but sexuality in general was a pretty private thing in the 50s, so you could live as a gay man in specific spaces. J. Edgar Hoover had a booth at the Kentucky Derby in what was widely known to be the gay section; you just couldn't be clearly and openly gay without some social scorn (which does suck, let's be honest, because then you can't be open about having a romantic partner).

As for HUAC, yes, communists were probably the one group who were actually persecuted by the government. But they just went underground, too, there were many people in various subcultures like the beatniks who were sympathetic to the Soviet Union or, later, Cuba. People quickly tired of McCarthy too, as they realized he was trying to angle power for himself by concocting the notion that communists had infiltrated the government. I would note that the government today clearly takes a negative eye of some views and you might get put on a watchlist (although reading comments by FBI and DOJ officials, it sounds like they want to do more...), but you won't be prosecuted just for membership in a political group.

>>1467260
>>He said something I disagree with, better call him a racist /pol/ SJW buzzword
It is literal racism to deny every non white bloc as a fellow American. Don't be coy about it

>>1466189
The Pill.

I swear to fucking God.

This is literally Hollywood propaganda to encourage nostalgiafaggotry among Baby Boomers and sell a sanitized version of their childhood back to them.

I get why somebody would appreciate the aesthetics, and one could even argue that there are a few things we could stand to emulate from that era, but one shouldn't idolize the past like that.

>>1467464
>by concocting the notion that communists had infiltrated the government
>concocting

McCarthy was right nine times out of ten in his accusations.

>>1467384
>That is certainly not untrue but excluding any ehtnic and orientation you don´t like from society is still not justifiable
Why not?

>or practicable.
It's practiced all over the goddamn world and has been throughout the course of recorded history and probably longer.

>>1467321
Except unless you aren't American, they are.

>>1467015
My net worth totals at $5 million. The categories vary from wise stock (my personal decisions) to real estate (just one house but a fine one) to an art collection. The only one I inherited was the art, which came from my grandmother. Even those paintings only add up to $1 million. Can you top that? The fact that you got your wealth from inheritance just goes to show "white privilege" in action. You'd have to be trolling, stupid, or ignorant to brag about being rich from inheritance while still arguing some sort of natural superiority.

>>1467937

Its actually a proven psychological fact that people tend to think of the past in a favorable view while overlooking the unplesant elements. You can see this in married people who wish they were single despite never getting laid in their youth or people who wish they could live a more carefree life and not remembering how much it sucks to be broke and eating ramen

It wasn't. Read the JFK bio "JFK: Reckless Youth". It's fucking fantastic.

>>1466266
What are you talking about? From WW2 up until the Great Society upwards of 20-25% of American families were living in poverty. It was the sequel to the Gilded Age.

>>1468149
>My net worth totals at $5 million
>"white privilege" in action
at least I am less likely to be racially discriminated against when applying for a job washing dishes

1950s were the last decade before Baby Boomers could shit up everything like the entitled twats they are.