How badly did the 60s ruin your country? US, pretty much JUST

>>1803667

This is an 18+ website.

>>1803670

Really fixes the errors of the transcript...

>>1803670

Really fixes the errors of the transcript...

File: Flag_of_Congo-Kinshasa_(1966-1971).svg.png (23KB, 744x496px)

23KB, 744x496px

>>1803667
It wasn't doing well before then either tbhq

>>1803667
The 60s made america great again. Fuck your conservative dystopia gramps

>>1803667
America was great until the great depression, and everyone fell for the progressive social policies meme.

>>1803667
60s ruined Canada desu. If the dumbfuck boomers didn't elect Trudeau Sr the country would have been able to naturally balkanize.

>>1804146
why do you consider that a positive?

>>1804160
Because the East can fuck off and die.
C A S C A D I A

>>1804036
>hippies
>proud promiscuity supported with The Pill
>drug culture
>a generation of liberal parents raising shit tier kids
>good

>>1803667
>society strongly promotes individualism and free thought
>opposes violence
>civil rights reforms
>somehow this is bad

>>1804036
>The 60s made america great again
IT AINT ME

>>1804025
As an African colony which are already pretty horrendous DRC during it's colony period was even more of a disaster.

File: 2Mai68_1.jpg (268KB, 867x1300px)

268KB, 867x1300px

May 1968 pretty much destroyed my country. Not that we were in a great shape before, but this was the killing blow. May 68'er still run this country, but thank God they're on the way out.

>>1803667
i hate boomers and everything to do with the 60's and 70's. They were dark times.

>>1804278
What did May 1968 do to France? It seems like it was a spectacular fizzle that achieved nothing, rather than a disruption in French history.

>>1804160
I'm not even a frog but Quebec should have seceded. It is nothing but an expensive burden, both sides would be better off with a divorce.

Also this>>1804189

>>1804036
Yeah if you like widespread poverty, drug use and violence then the 60s and the period that followed were downright fantastic.

File: 037.gif (45KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x600px

>>1804305
As far as immediate consequences go, you're right, it achieved little. There were the Grenelle agreements, which satisfied the workers, many far left groups (maoists, trotskyists, anarchists) were banned, the left was once again divided and got beaten when immediate elections were decided after the National Assembly was dissolved and there was an anti-leftist, pro de Gaulle reaction, though it wasn't enough to solidify his hold on power since he resigned a year later.

But it had a lasting impact on French society. Most of the prominent leftists, academics, artists, activists of the last third of the 20th century participated in this, and the anti-authoritarian, anti-militarist, globalist, anti-stalinist, postmodernist slogans influenced them quite a bit, while pretty much permanently fracturing the left (Communist party controlled by Moscow, far left and socialists against them). Honestly, like half of my professors were communists who kept rambling about how great Mai 68 was.The sexual revolution in France started there, though the pill was legalised just before. Feminism in France also pretty much started there, with abortion being legalised a few years later. Education began to change, became much more permissive, parents began to have a say in how schools were ran.

Basically, like most social movements of the 60's it had more of a slow, pervasive effect. Morals, patriotism, the family unit, traditions didn't die because some bored university students LARPed as revolutionaries, but politicians tried to appeal to them, and then these university students became parents, teachers, entertainers, or politicians, they influenced the next generation, undermining traditional values further.

Nowadays there is a pretty strong reaction against the values of May 68. The pendulum is swinging back, and in young right, far right, or even far left circles "68'ers" have become scapegoats, blamed for pretty much everything wrong.

>>1804214
>opposes violence
>unless it's violently taxing people for their pet programs, and endebting their children and grandchildren with a burden they will never be able to pay off

I pray every day that social security collapses. I don't even care if it's edgy, i want to see baby boomers starving in the streets.

>Italy
>Ruined in the Sixties

Ah ah, no.

>implying that the 60s were anything compared to the shitfest that was the 80s

El Salvador was pretty chill in the 60s. It was safe to actually travel at night by yourself. People could leave their shit outside without fear it'd get stolen and we had the golden age of our rock music scene. The 80s in El Salvador was our real JUST moment though.

File: 1966.jpg (181KB, 1024x971px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1024x971px

Hungary here. 1960's Hungary was actually pretty good. At least by Eastern Bloc standards. The standards of living were rising, unemployment was almost non-existant, lots of available state-financed sports activities from gyms to sailing and flying clubs, more and more consumer goods were available and there was some pretty good movies and music (Hungary had a surprisingly vibrant rock music scene back then).

2-3 years of compulsory military service though...

>>1803670
I'm pretty sure <18s think the world was a mess pre 1960

>>1805430

Not the fedoras who post here.

>>1805433
Bernout detected

>>1804736
Were we even ruined in the 70s? Apart from the terrorist attacks, the economy was doing good.

>The 60's is bad because the idyllic 50's eventually came crashing because it was unsupportable

>>1805467
>baby boomers smoking reefer and doing drugs while listening to the rolling Stones with some civil rights movements thrown in meant the 50s was unsupportable

>>1804279
Check that edge, sonny.

>>1804329
Quebec would probably fare worse, and in any case they have no real right to the northern half of Quebec. It would split Canada (the Maritimes from the rest), and leave the rump portion open to even stronger influence from American interests, and Canada could then forget about enforcing any arctic claims.

Quebec is Canada, even if they are a pesky bunch of loudmouths.

>>1804731
oh great, a libertarian...

>>1805467
>thinking the 50s were idyllic
They were not at all. Post-war, movies and media and shit wanted to try to focus on happier themes as a type of escapism.

>>1803667
Literally the exact same thing that happened in the U.S happened in my country in the 60s. Women got birth control, abortion was legalized, people smoked pot and took LSD and listened to Uriah Heep and Led Zeppelin.

This was also the time that most European countries and my own turned into Social-Democratic dictatorships.

>>1804146
Trudeau is the retard who made Quebecois nationalism go mainstream tho

>>1804214
There's a time when violence is needed and pulling out of a war that's already going on is being mentally cucked to oblivion. It's like quitting the football game at half time because you aren't winning by 50 and the ref is being a meanie.

>>1805505
>This was also the time that most European countries and my own turned into Social-Democratic dictatorships
Kek, the 60s was when most Social Democratic parties started to decline in Europe

>>1805529
did you seriously just say kek ... go back to /pol/

>>1805529
>the 60s was when most Social Democratic parties started to decline in Europe

lol no

File: SPD_Mitgliederentwicklung.svg.png (51KB, 900x630px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 900x630px

>>1805534
Well it was really more the 70s, but it's true. Pic related is membership in the SPD. 60s and 70s was also when Social Democrats lost power in most Scandinavian countries for the first time in like forever

>>1805540
Not him but don't you see the massive fucking spike in the early 60s on your own picture? And then it doesn't decrease until the 90s.

>>1805540
>60s and 70s was also when Social Democrats lost power in most Scandinavian countries for the first time in like forever

What do you mean by "lost power"?

In my country, even despite the fact that there is a so-called right-wing government in place today(Norway), their platform is essentially that of a social-democratic platform from the 60s.

When I said the countries turned into Social-Democratic dictatorships, I was talking about cultural and political hegemony, because even the parties that claim to be right-wing, accept shit that was considered leftist just a generation ago(welfare statism, maternal leave, affirmative action, mass immigration et.al).

So, yeah, you're correct that the parties themselves might not be in direct power, but they won the culture war, and now control everything, down to the opinions of the pleb masses who scream for more immigration and call anyone who even has mild skepticism for racist imperialists.

>>1805555
>Well it was really more the 70s
Can you read?

>>1805558
But on economic issues the Social Democratic parties are now to the right of even the most conservative parties in the 40s-60s

File: picture.png (50KB, 900x630px)

50KB, 900x630px

>>1805561
Look at that picture again. It gets a spike in the 60s and doesn't really decline until the 90s.

>>1805572
The peak is in the mid 70s, and then it declines literally every year thereafter with the exception of one small blip in the early 90s

>>1805563
>But on economic issues the Social Democratic parties are now to the right of even the most conservative parties in the 40s-60s

Stop trolling.

>>1805572
You can see that only in the 90s it gets down to pre-60s level

>>1803667
In Canada, at least here, it wasn't much of a change. i live on an island. Women still wore dresses up until the 80s.

>>1805589
When the population of the country is much higher. Also German unification happened in 1990, which probably explains the brief blip in that year as some Ossis joined. The fact that membership now is the lowest it's ever been shows clearly that we are not living in a "Social-Democratic dictatorship" or whatever /pol/ autism this argument was originally about

>>1805599
>"Social-Democratic dictatorship" or whatever /pol/ autism this argument was originally about

Even Merkel is *literally* a social-democrat by any sensible definition.

>>1805603
>biggest pusher of austerity in Europe
>social-democrat
Pick one and only one

>>1805610
>biggest pusher of austerity in Europe

OF course she's the biggest pusher of austerity in Europe. She knows that Germany has to pay for it; which is money she wants to give to the 1.3 million refugees instead through welfare.

>>1805613
You realize social democracy is an economic ideology, and has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, right?

Like all neoliberals, Merkel likes immigration because it drives down labour costs, not because they like paying welfare (what a laughable notion)

>>1805635
>economy has nothing to do with immigration

Okay champ.

>>1805640
hint: it is possible to be a social democrat, and oppose immigration

>>1805640
not an argument

>>1805518
>sunk cost fallacy

>>1805655
>low T cuckold spotted

>>1805650
>it is possible to be a social democrat, and oppose immigration

I never said it isn't possible, but it isn't what's actually occurring.

>>1804643
>far right groups, "68'ers" have become scapegoats, blamed for pretty much everything wrong.

Like you?

>>1805575
You originally claimed the 60's and there aren't enough data points to say it peaked in 1975.

>>1805673
Okay, but your entire argument is that Merkel is a social democrat because she supports immigration, as if supporting immigration is THE essential tenet of social democratic ideology

>>1805666
>/pol/ "logic"

>>1805687
>start a war
>pull out mid fight because some Moscow-supported hippies are protesting

It was a total cuckout and I'm not even American. Shoulda finished the job.

>>1805685
>You originally claimed the 60's
I said 70s, learn to read.

>there aren't enough data points to say it peaked in 1975
You can't prove the exact year decisively, but the fact that it declines at each successive point after that with the exception of one in 1990 right after unification is strongly suggestive

>>1805692
>I said 70s, learn to read.
See >>1805529

Dumbfuck can't even remember his own posts

>>1805694
Not the same guy

>>1805686
No, but I think welcoming immigration is a huge part of being a social democrat, and if you're actually skeptical about immigration and still calling yourself a social-democrat I'm not sure I would believe you were being sincere.

Also, my "entire argument" wasn't that Merkel is a social-democrat because of immigration, my argument was that social democracy is the political hegemony of Europe, and that any resistance to it, gets met with accusations of racism, imperialism, or Nazism, or all three at the same time.

>>1805531
Kek is a old world of warcraft meme, it basicly means lol

>>1805714
>but I think welcoming immigration is a huge part of being a social democrat
But it's not. Most socdems happen to support immigration, but it's extraneous to the ideology.

>the political hegemony of Europe, and that any resistance to it, gets met with accusations of racism, imperialism, or Nazism, or all three at the same time.
And you have failed utterly to prove this

>>1805734
>And you have failed utterly to prove this

And the only thing you're proving is that you don't even follow the news, or the current state of politics in your own country.

Germany has *literally* employed a former *STASI* member as their main leader in a fight against "hate speech".

Do yourself a favor and Google "Nicht Egal" and check who the leader of that thing is.

>>1805753
I'm still not hearing an argument

>>1805766
And neither do I from you.

>>1805769
That's because I haven't claimed anything, other than that you are wrong. The burden of proof is on you

>>1805782
>That's because I haven't claimed anything

Of course you have. Being pro-immigration is a part of being a social-democrat. The fact that you refuse to accept this just shows that you're retarded, but seeing as you're German being retarded is quite normal.

>>1805801
>Being pro-immigration is a part of being a social-democrat
>I never said it isn't possible [to be a social democrat and oppose immigration]
You contradicted yourself.

You've failed to put together a single coherent argument for your position, instead just constantly moving the goal posts. We're done here.

>>1805824
I didn't contradict myself at all, if you actually read my comment properly.

>"and if you're actually skeptical about immigration and still calling yourself a social-democrat I'm not sure I would believe you were being sincere."

>"I AM NOT SURE I WOULD BELIEVE YOU WERE BEING SINCERE"

Not only are you a common retarded Kraut, but you can't even read either.

>>1805690
>Double downing on your mistakes
Personal advise from me to you senpai, don't invest. People like you always throw good money after bad

>>1805835
He is right senpai, you had no arguement

Norway
There were overall improvements in living standards and societ, but you can also see parts of the decline that's still ongoing. In 1960, car ownership was allowed for everyone, before that you had to ask the government for special permission to own a car. There were many changes like this that were less good. The decline of the labour party policies.

File: IMG_2978.jpg (232KB, 1224x1445px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1224x1445px

>>1805508

>>1804214
>society strongly promotes individualism and free thought
Society strongly imposes conformity under the veil of free thought, so long as that free thought leads you to the same conclusion as 99% of the rest of society's publicly confessed free thought. Free thought pretty much begins and ends at what particular brand of soda you like. "oh you're free to say what you want, as long as you're prepared to deal with the consequences." Consequences automatically make something not free. Everything we say in public to people who can see our faces has a cost, sometimes a very significant cost.
>opposes violence
Society variously opposes and supports violence against any particular groups.
>civil rights reforms
Ostensibly, but many issues are just going in circles.
>somehow this is bad
Well a titanic amount of people seem to think so, all for conflicting reasons. It's literally impossible for you to claim one particular thing is or isn't bad without claiming the corollary that many other people seek is or isn't bad as well.