Are we really more free today than we were in the 1950s and 1960s?

Depends what you mean by "free".

Most people are richer, so they can afford more shit, which is a form of freedom, however, the NSA also *literally* sees everything you do on the internet, or with your phone, and if you don't have any privacy it's hard to see how you are truly free.

>>1810490
>socially we face greater pressure to conform today than people did back then; men definitely, and women especially.
how so?

>>1810490

ahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


Loving v Virginia was a landmark case allowing interracial marriage. In 1967, which remained a taboo for a while after that. You can get a white collar job with a tattoo now, something unthinkable in my father's time. You actually have acceptable career but also non-career choices that is simply unthinkable in the 50s and 60s. You can openly parade around with anti-American sentiment and not be blacklisted as a pinko traitor. Have I made my point sufficiently, or should I go on about drugs, abortion, the role of religion in modern life?

File: d. alberdo gorgonzola.jpg (66KB, 604x561px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 604x561px

>50 years ago a white man could have racist opinions and stand up when he pees no problem
>today anykind of comment about it on social media lands him jailtime or standing up peeing has him beat up by angry gommunisd feminists
white men are the losers of this millenium

>>1810508
>today anykind of comment about it on social media lands him jailtime

Depends where you live.

>>1810501
Consumer culture, mass media culture, mass politics, and the growth of the working class and slow death of the middle class necessarily entail growing conformity over time, simply because people consume the same media and news and increasingly few candidates capable of appealing to the masses are viable for office.
I don't even know what 'nonconformist' life looks like, the arts and academia are populated by professional pseudo-non-conformists who comply with a very rigid code of behavior, as much as they may seem to be free spirits unbound by any real concerns of being like others, rock stars are conformists, saints are conformists, leftists are conformists, BLM and LGBTQ activists are conformists. Everyone conforms.

>>1810518
What, to you, would qualify as non-conforming?

I also fail to see how consumer culture and the growth of the working class imply conformity.

>>1810530
Non-conformity is a willed action free from social conditioning, without regard to the opinion of the many or of the social customs that the many perpetuate.

>>1810518
Consumer culture isn't any worse now in the US than it was in the 50s. That was the best decade for spending cash on stuff you didn't need.

>>1810501

>Don't agree with the LGBT community, you're automatically exposed and le anonymous gets your address
>Don't agree with Muslims and you're automatically exposed and beheaded
>Don't agree with Feminism and you're automatically exposed and le anonymous gets your address
>Don't agree with oppression of minorities and you're automatically exposed and mentioned in a news outlet

Of course the consequences are an exaggeration, but if you don't agree with the ideas of above, everybody thinks something is wrong with you.

>>1810550
That's mostly for public figures, the stakes are higher for them. Most people don't lose any skin off their backs for that. Maybe people will dislike you if you do it in public, but that's just the reasonable price you pay for voicing your opinions - 60 years back the opposite opinions would also get you blacklisted. As long as they don't commit violence against you, your loved ones or your property what can you complain about? You speak out against something, people who dislike your opinions speak out against you.

>>1810550
Well, there is nothing wrong with all of this ideas, why would you oppose them for the sake of being le edgy contrarian?

>>1810536
Is it possible? I have some political ideas that are associated with the left and some of the right, is that non-conforming?
Whatever it is, it does make me uneasy to talk about. I personally dislike the (far) right more as what is considered (far) left, but have a feeling that the left would hate me.

So I only talk ideology on the internet, preferably anonymous.

>>1810558

>Most people don't lose any skin off their backs for that.

Well, how do you know that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLOEmHmEIwA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g67z_xBe07Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxJKmuoBmE

>>1810570
Are you me?

Anyway, we can still intervene in the issues we are confortable expressing ourselves on, and laying the foundations for safer opportunities for expressing our most unorthodox views. I know that's how I'm operating.

>>1810550
I come from a rural part of my country and LGBT and muslim acceptance, plus feminism is hardly the mainstream there. Similar stuff with minorities.

I happen to agree with some - not all - of feminism, as example. That makes you a social pariah amongst male peers.

At the same time I disagree with changing your gender, which most likely make me a social pariah amongst feminists.

See what I mean?

>>1810508
Also there's the dragons that rape us every day
You know, as long we're making shit up

File: Bane, really.jpg (109KB, 569x802px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 569x802px

>>1810518
>Consumer culture, mass media culture,
You think the 50s WEREN'T filled with consumer and mass media culture?

>>1810573
Because I only hear about that stuff happening somewhere I'm never at, to someone that I never know and there isn't hard data that convinces me that these anecdotes are representative of common problems the generality of people have.

Mostly I only hear about that level of harassment from Americans, but they are also more bellicose about just most everything.

You can find examples for the inverse of any of the cases you listed, but these aren't even very good:

First example is meme politics. He got so much media atention because that's what he set out to get. (lol at the albino, he actually looks stylish tho)

The second one was baited, see the smile, see the chase, see the image that was picked for it's shock value.

The third one was settled cordially and it actually made me feel better.

>>1810536
How do you tell who is free from social conditioning? How do you tell who is doing something because they want to and who is doing it because they were conditioned?

I think to some extent you are going to be drawing arbitrary lines based on personal feelings rather than any objective criterion.

>>1810550
>>Don't agree with the LGBT community, you're automatically exposed and le anonymous gets your address
There are politicians who make a career of being anti-LGBT, not to mention the church and the other institutions which are deeply embedded into society.

>>Don't agree with Muslims and you're automatically exposed and beheaded
If you live in Saudi Arabia this might be a concern

>>Don't agree with Feminism and you're automatically exposed and le anonymous gets your address
Hating feminism is in vogue nowadays

>>Don't agree with oppression of minorities and you're automatically exposed and mentioned in a news outlet
Are you sure you didn't mean something else?

File: 7134e178b6be723948c3a8387155a30591baca7d3c3831b00cc6a5ce4f34c811.gif (1MB, 186x238px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 186x238px

ITT
We is white boysz victimz and shiet

>>1810630
That's not what I said, it's clear I accused you of over reliance on anecdotes, and you didn't adress any of my points.

If you want to converse with me post something substancial. If you just want to charge at windmills, I won't indulge you further.

>>1810601
Not her, but don't you think it progressed? Also, we did not have social media back then.

File: White-Washbrilloweb.jpg (62KB, 429x367px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 429x367px

>>1810657
Not him, but consumer culture is no stronger. Maybe because purchasing power isn't that great, people are less optimistic about the market.

About the media, it's more of a two-way street nowadays. Back then most people were just consumers of news and entertainment. They didn't divulge their own information like we do today. So I would consider that an improvement, if democracy was to be considered a good thing.

>>1810490
Guns are a useful objective measure of freedom and no one in the Western world is as free by that reckoning as in 1950.

>>1810695
This fucking guy.

>>1810657
We didn't have social media, no, but that just meant we didn't give any feedback. As a country the US inhaled TV and radio and movies like nothing else.

As for the consumer culture part, when do you think the term was coined?

>>1810490
Welcome to Babby's first contrarian thought based on selection bias

>>1810667
>but consumer culture is no stronger.
I mean it more in the sense that advertising has become better. I imagine that the so called "commodity frontier" has progressed too.
>As for the consumer culture part, when do you think the term was coined?
Dunno, but fucking Plato already complained about some sort of consumerism.

>>1810490
>Racial minorities obviously are

The darkies are in indentured servitude to those that feed and house them and have made them completely dependent on their whims and unceremoniously execute them when they make the wrong choice.

Nice freedom you got there.
Hey, at least you can sit on the front of the bus!

>>1810812
>The darkies are in indentured servitude to those that feed and house them

so they should just be fed and housed for free? wouldn't that make the feeders and housers indentured servants to the darkies? i'm confused...

>>1810570
>Is it possible?
It's possible to conform to one culture as opposed to another, making a conscious choice to conform as a Christian and not a Muslim, or a Jew and not a Muslim, or a Japanese and not a Chinese, or something along those lines. Globalization is accompanied by a monoculture, which imposes a particular universal set of business practices, social customs, acceptable opinions, etc. in a way unheard of in the past, outside of particular pseudo-world-systems like the Roman Mediterranean or Han China, which didn't qualify as global entities in the way that the modern market does.
>I have some political ideas that are associated with the left and some of the right, is that non-conforming?
Why would that be non-conforming?
>Whatever it is, it does make me uneasy to talk about. I personally dislike the (far) right more as what is considered (far) left, but have a feeling that the left would hate me.
I don't even understand why you're talking about this.
>>1810549
Consumer culture as opposed to producer culture; since the 50's American industrial jobs have fled the country. Have you not heard of China's industrialization and liberalization, or outsourcing?

>>1810849
Everyone is an indentured servant of the state.

>>1810895
Everyone does not wholly rely on the state to directly keep them alive.

>>1810895
but the state isn't feeding or housing me... now i'm even more confused!

>>1810901
Everyone not involved in the violent overthrow of the state is involved in the life of the state, which relies upon them for its substantial existence.
>>1810912
The state is preventing people from breaking into your house and robbing or murdering you. It is using the money you earn at work to house and feed others and to exert force around the world in the form of taxation, which is a perfectly legal and legitimate practice. If you stop paying taxes, you will be punished (inb4 jokes about Donald Drumpf).

>>1810919
cops only show up after the fact. i would say the main thing preventing people from breaking into my house and robbing/murdering me is the fact that the people who live near me don't want to do those things.

also my mossberg.

>>1810490
>Are we really more free today than we were in the 1950s and 1960s?

It depends on what you mean by free. Are you legally allowed to do more stuff than you were in the 1950's? Generally, yes.

But in some other ways, we are as unfree as ever, if not more, in some ways. And I'm not talking about SJWs trying to silence others. People are very materialistic, very hedonistic. Is someone that needs alcohol to function truly free? Is the person that places sex above everything else free? They are all slaves.
They think they are free, but take away their cause of desire and you will see who owns them.

>Racial minorities obviously are, but what about the majority?

I don't know how racial minorities lived in the 1950's, but right now, I don't think they are particularly free. They are huge slaves for material possessions and for sex.

Remember this quote?

>“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood,” said Harris. “You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”

>>1810490
>septum piercing
>hicky
>tattoo on visible area before covered area is tattooed
This is how normies disguise themselves

>>1810958
>i would say the main thing preventing people from breaking into my house and robbing/murdering me is the fact that the people who live near me don't want to do those things.
And the fact that you live in a legitimate state has nothing to do with their current status w/r/t following the moral law? You're being obtuse, and I can only presume that it's on purpose--the state threatens criminals with the use of force as a means of deterrence. Their arrival after the fact doesn't prevent them from arresting a thief or murderer post facto. You have the right to bear arms in the US, which means you may be able to defend yourself, but if you kill a robber the police will nonetheless be involved in the process at some point because the rule of law is maintained by a system that exerts force on every level from city streets to prisons to ocean trade routes.
>by (sic) mossberg
How about you make an argument instead of telling me to read another book by a Jewish theorist?

>>1810985
niqqa fucc school lmao

>>1810873
>Why would that be non-conforming?
Because those who consider themselves left will tend to conform to left ideas and those on the right to right ideas
But I suppose you are right in a way since there are enough political parties that blend ideas from the left and right.
>I don't even understand why you're talking about this.
Then you must have autism. It is how I feel, if you consider that inappropriate for this topic, ok. It is distressing to not being able to state your beliefs.

OP is speaking from his feelings too, since he did not cite anything that backs up this feeling.

>>1810988
not everyone thinks crime is cool m8 a lot of people would not commit violent crimes even if there was no state to enforce a deterrent

a mossberg is a 12ga btw

>>1810490
We're definitely more free now than ever.

>weh weh people get mad at me if my morals are different from theirs!

This has always been the case, if anything it was worse back then.

>>1810992
>Because those who consider themselves left will tend to conform to left ideas and those on the right to right ideas
Eh, that's a generalization. A lot of right-wingers don't buy into things like race realism or nationalism. Politics is a matter of people who agree with each other conforming with each other to form a consensus among governing bodies. In a country with almost 400 million people, this requires mass communication and mass media technology. All of your left- and right-wing opinions are in conformity with either the mainstream or the fringe. I doubt that you're a groundbreaking political theorist.
>Then you must have autism.
I'm sorry that you think that holding a particular political viewpoint constitutes nonconformism. Politics is entirely about conformity to a viewpoint and the enacting of desired policies.
>It is how I feel, if you consider that inappropriate for this topic, ok. It is distressing to not being able to state your beliefs.
It just seemed not to have anything to do with the conversation. I'm trying to make a claim, if you just want to vent about your feelings go to tumblr or /r9k/ or something. Speaking of /r9k/, it's a community of "nonconforming" individuals conforming in a way that spatially disconnected individuals never could prior to the advent of the Internet. See what I mean? Conformity is on the rise.

>>1811004
>not everyone thinks crime is cool m8 a lot of people would not commit violent crimes even if there was no state to enforce a deterr
A lot of people commit crimes even with a police state shooting black men in the streets. This makes no sense, a plurality of people behaving morally doesn't preclude a violent minority overpowering that plurality.
>X is a gun
Noted.

>>1811030
the point is that people behaving morally is what keeps me safe not the state.

in what circumstances do you believe it is appropriate for a cop to apply lethal force?

>>1811048
>the point is that people behaving morally is what keeps me safe not the state.
It's not either/or at all.
>in what circumstances do you believe it is appropriate for a cop to apply lethal force?
If he or she feels that his or her life is threatened, I see no reason to prevent them from using whatever force is necessary to protect themselves at the expense of the kind of person who would endanger the life of a legitimate agent of a legitimate state enforcing the law.

>>1811055
sure it is, the "state" is just an abstract concept whereas individual human beings behaving morally is ultimately what creates safety.

so if a criminal refuses to cooperate and is too strong to be physically overpowered the cops should just let them go?

>>1811024
>you think that holding a particular political viewpoint constitutes nonconformism.
You state that it is, so what does consitute as nonconformism then?
>if you just want to vent about your feelings
It was more an observation and expressing myself, not at all venting. So, do you think that beliefs are rationally choosen and have nothing to do with emotions?
Part of the reason we conform because we fear exclusion and want to be accepted.

And sure, even the fringe works like that.

>>1811072
>the "state" is just an abstract concept
So what?
>whereas individual human beings behaving morally is ultimately what creates safety.
But not all humans are moral. Something has to be done about the immoral ones to allow the moral ones to live moral lives. It's absurd to expect individuals to band together and enforce the moral law without also conceiving of a state.
>so if a criminal refuses to cooperate and is too strong to be physically overpowered the cops should just let them go?
In some cases, it may be necessary. If there's absolutely no other evident way to subdue them and they're sufficiently dangerous, they should shoot them. What does this have to do with anything, though?
>>1811077
>You state that it is, so what does consitute as nonconformism then?
I literally already did this.
>So, do you think that beliefs are rationally choosen and have nothing to do with emotions?
No, I don't really think this dichotomy even exists. Both play a major role in the formation and expression of belief.
>Part of the reason we conform because we fear exclusion and want to be accepted.
So?

>>1810490
If by "pressure" you mean that since the ever connected social media environment makes you more aware of what other people think and you misinterpret the extremist opinions that people shout around on the internet as zeitgeist, you feel the need to give more of a shit about something you shouldn't, then sure, I guess.

But the only reason today appears to have any more social pressure or less freedom is because people can more easily communicate. You still don't have to conform, it's not hard, but you're going to have to deal with more people than just your watering whole calling you weird. That's it. That's literally the only difference in terms of social pressure between today and pre-internet.

Sure, maybe you won't be a very successful celebrity if you run around spouting out inane bullshit like you might have gotten away with a few decades ago, but you have always had to watch what you say around people. The only difference is now more people see and hear what you say, and everyone has the opportunity to make themselves feel better by attacking people they don't agree with.

This is literally no different than it's ever been, you're just more aware of it.

And, again, you can always just do you and not conform. It's not difficult. Just stop caring what other people think about you unless it affects your capability to live a lifestyle you want. And if you want to be popular, perhaps consider killing yourself for valuing something so utterly meaningless.

>>1811098
>You still don't have to conform, it's not hard, but you're going to have to deal with more people than just your watering whole calling you weird. That's it. That's literally the only difference in terms of social pressure between today and pre-internet.
That's highly significant. You're downplaying the impact of these technologies quite a bit.

>>1811096
>I literally already did this.
Where?

>>1811096
i guess my main point is that feeling safe in one's community is something that predates the state by a long time and that it's naive to say that the state is what keeps us safe.

as for the questions about lethal force, i was just curious what you thought.

have a good one.

>>1811115
>>1810536
>>1810873

>>1811121
>i guess my main point is that feeling safe in one's community is something that predates the state by a long time and that it's naive to say that the state is what keeps us safe.

I'm not saying that "only" the state keeps us safe, and I feel like you're implying that I am. As to your other statement, no, in our society in America it doesn't predate the state. The frontier was full of Native Americans, whom we fought for land after buying it from France after the War of Independence. Not to mention things like King Philip's War and the original Jamestown colony. Force must be used to secure the land on which you're living your supposedly moral life in your supposedly moral town. I know that in my comfy moral hometown there was a murder over the summer, and state police have been driving around town all the time. If they catch the murderer, what should they do with him? Not take him to prison, or shoot him if he puts up a fight? If the townspeople round him up and kill him, aren't they the actuality of the state instituting a form of frontier justice on a criminal? Wouldn't the state then investigate the incident to see who took a life, and whether or not it was justified, and if he should be held accountable?
The state is the political body, legal structure and entity exerting legitimate force that structures your life in a fundamental way. It may be possible to drive across a country on privately built roads, but the roads you actually use to drive to actual places were mostly made by the state. You may not see the US military's entirety every day, but that's only because it has the infrastructure to be dispersed around the globe, fighting wars and projecting power.
You're naive to think that your hometown is a safe place where people live moral lives without any connection to the state's ability to provide basic infrastructure and fund the defense of the nation from its enemies.

>>1811154
the state is composed of individual human beings. the "state" can do nothing in and of itself because it is merely an idea. individual humans (some of whom work in service of the idea of the state) are ultimately who make the roads and enforce the law. dont call me naive when you cant separate the abstract from the concrete.

>>1810558
>That's mostly for public figures

So we must pressure our public figures to bow to public pressure?

And that statement isn't even true. Make an off-colour joke, look at a a woman or express sexual interest and you could be fired.

We're in a almost ironic social state where the people mocking conservatism as puritanical are themselves the creators of a degenerate Puritanism complete with modern day witch trials.

>>1811177
Forests are just concepts, there Are only trees, whatever faggoy

File: mad.jpg (89KB, 500x346px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 500x346px

>>1811232

>>1810502
well yeaaaaaa ,but I can't say black people are dumb in front of my mom, it really hurts my feefees

>>1811154
Oh that was you.
I got confused as your initial reply doesn't fit your second.
You said in another reply that the fringe doesn't apply yet here you say:
>without regard to the opinion of the many or of the social customs that the many perpetuate.
>many
The fringe is a minority no? Or do you consider that to be another many or just a reaction to the many (i.e. thus with regard)?

And I do find it hard to believe to act free from any social conditioning and without any regard to the opinion of the many.

Additionally, I do not think you are being specific enough. You seemingly exclude ideology from nonconformity, so what does it include? You act based upon your beliefs.

Good luck anyway with this thread, I'm out of it.

>>1811253
Minorities are still groups. Individuals are not minorities, they are individuals. Only individuals can fail to conform to one or another set of norms.
>And I do find it hard to believe to act free from any social conditioning and without any regard to the opinion of the many.
It's possible not to act Chinese and not to care what the Chinese think of you and to do so without coercion. No more is needed.

>>1811228

> Fired for making an off-colour joke

This was always the case. It was just that before, your boss was making the joke with you. Now, your boss is the share holders, and they have different requirements.

My great uncle got fired from driving a dump truck when his boss found out he voted Goldwater after said boss made it clear he expected his employees to vote Democrat. A truck driver in a semi-rural area wasn't going to get a lawyer, and the boss new it.

I'll take not getting to make off colour jokes in exchange for not having to deal with that shit.

>>1810573

>black kid getting death threats for supporting trump
>an albino black is representing BLM

WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE

>>1812287
>an albino black is representing BLM
I didn't even catch that. Amazing.

>>1811228
>So we must pressure our public figures to bow to public pressure?
"Should" doesn't matter. Their livelihood hinges on being popular so it's to be expected that they'll be suffer from expressing unpopular opinions.

>And that statement isn't even true. Make an off-colour joke, look at a a woman or express sexual interest and you could be fired.
If you make people around you unconfortable, it would be in those people's interest to have you removed. This is common sense. If you leer like a creep at a women, she might retaliate the way you would if a buff homosexual leered like a creep at you.

>We're in a almost ironic social state where the people mocking conservatism as puritanical are themselves the creators of a degenerate Puritanism complete with modern day witch trials.
Yeah, people who commit to sides tend to think in terms of "us vs. them". Rather than seeking understanding, or mutual acceptance, people tend to limit themselves to supression of the other. This isn't new. Always was, always will be - but it could be kept at a low with the adequate civil education emphasizing dialogue, compromise and tolerance.

>>1810490
>ask about degrees of being free
>doesn't provide a definition for what freedom entails