>in /his/ >not being reactionary master race /leftypol

>>2129486
Isn't reactionary meant to be an insult?
Why would anyone self define as "opposing progress"?
How is progress not good by the definition of the word?
Why would you not want to advance?

>>2129530
You can progress and advance yourself down a hill and off a cliff

>>2129530
Sort of. But only commies use it as a pejorative. Most people use it to identify themselves.

>>2129486
Even if you are a reactionary, you must realise how shit Nick II was.

>>2129530
There's no such thing as progress or advancement in historical terms. There's no end state or goal that humanity is inexorably marching towards.

>>2129768
>There's no end state or goal that humanity is inexorably marching towards.

There is, its called knowledge and understanding.
We have, for the past 15000 years at least, tried our hardest to learn more and collectively know more, and be able to do more.

>>2129486
Does being a reactionary mean you have to support a retard tsar?

>>2129768

That's a very unpopular opinion, except among historians themselves, since the end of history is a corollary of almost all ideologies, progress signifying the process to attain it.

File: 1460311270193.jpg (37KB, 402x475px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 402x475px

>>2129745

>Loses war to a country that was literally a 3rd world country 50 years ago

>Thinks its good to declare war on the most elite army in the world

>Confused when things goes poorly so takes control over army

>Confused when army revolts after starving and having no bullets

How shit tier do you have to be to fuck this up?

File: 1474762501877.jpg (11KB, 239x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 239x300px

Long live the emperor desu lads

>>2129530
Humans don't advance. Only technology does.

File: laughing_higeoyaji.jpg (27KB, 225x350px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 225x350px

Reactionaries are fucking faggots.

You can appreciate a historical period without overly romanticizing it and deluding yourself times were somehow "better". It's even more cringe-worthy than watching nostalgiafags harp about the 90s, especially because the reactionaries are harping about how great a certain time period was, despite never even having lived in it and being separated from it by at least half a century, if not much more.

Even worse, people have not particularly changed.

>"hurr, I read a nice romantic poem once, that means everything was much better back then!"

Fucking faggots.

>>2129825
This is semantics. Technology (collective knowledge in general) is the tool we use to measure human advancement.

>>2129825

Except when humans use technology to enhance themselves.

Gene therapy and what not,

>>2129864
>Is the tool that I use
FTFY

>>2129870
The tool that everyone except yourself uses.

>>2129864
No it's not semantics. No technology that currently exist can change a human being away from what he essentially is; namely a primate mammal ape.

And it's highly unlikely that this will ever happen.

>>2129862
I don't know how, but you managed to be even more pessimistic and jaded than a reactionary. How have you not killed yourself?

>>2129876
This is about individuals, not about collective humanity.
Nobody is talking about our kidneys getting bigger, we are talking about our civilization getting more sophisticated.

>there are people who dream about being subservient to a single man's whims and desires

How fucking stupid are you people? Can't we at least get some fascists or neo-cons instead of this garbage?

>>2129885
Yeah, but what is considered sophistication is a matter of perspective.

Some people consider it sophisticated for a culture to be able to have writing, and others consider a culture to be able to create hydrogen bombs sophisticated.

These things are both a form of technology, and yet one of them produces life-giving literary art, and the other has only a destructive purpose.

So which one is it?

File: daddy_walrushappy.gif (17KB, 185x307px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 185x307px

>>2129880
How was my post pessimistic?

Sure, I can appreciate a certain time period. That doesn't mean I idealize it as a Golden Age: I recognize that throughout all of human history, without exception, there have been good times, as well as terrible times. Some have enjoyed themselves or ridden on the wave of artistry and high culture of their time, and others have suffered and labored in miserable conditions, or died in wars or for some other reason.

There is no Golden Age. Some periods may have been relatively more prosperous, others relatively more dark, but never has any period been ideal in any sense of the word, so to picture an age where things were "just right" (according to reactionaries) is idiotic.

>>2129896
Nobody would compare writing to nuclear power and say writing is more sophisticated, you are talking nonsense.
There is an obvious trend for civilization to get more sophisticated over time. We know more, and can do more, and expect more.

>>2129876

Are you that dense?

Imagine its 1916. Now imagine its 1945.

One of those eras had bi planes and the other had jet engines and nuclear weapons.

Really, we could be totally frakensteining it up right now but illegal to do clones in the west.

China not so much.

>>2129904
>Nobody would compare writing to nuclear power and say writing is more sophisticated, you are talking nonsense.

Okay, so imagine a future then where technology is so powerful that even an individual can cause harm on a massive scale?

This is true already, terrorists can kill 130 people in a theatre in downtown Paris before police are able to do anything.

Now quintuple that power, and imagine the "sophistication" of the future.

>>2129904
That seems dumb to me anon. How do you quantify sophistication?

It's apples and oranges, or more like apples and spaghetti, it's two totally different realms of our culture that you're comparing.

>There is an obvious trend for civilization to get more sophisticated over time.
The technology we used gets more advanced, sure, but that's a pretty bad yardstick to measure advancement. Humans aren't defined by the tools we use.

>>2129929
When you use previous knowledge to build further knowledge, that is sophistication.
From radio, to phones, to iPhones, is a growth in sophistication.

>>2129923
You are going for muh feels here, but better ways to kill each other is also sophistication.
Again, you are misusing the word.

>>2129783
how can knowledge and understanding be an end if we already possess it
are you saying achieving greater knowledge and understand ad infinitum is the goal?
that seems to have no end

>>2129936
>You are going for muh feels here

No, no I'm not. I'm just giving you a hint that there's no reason to be optimistic about the future, given our history.

>>2129486
Good luck putting the genie back in the bottle. Personally, I think futility and impotence are very becoming on you.

>>2129864
Sure, there may be some sort of advancement?
But towards what? What is truly the end goal of humanity?
You can't say humans advance if you cannot specifically point out to what it is exactly we are advancing towards.

>>2129530
it's the left-wing version of SJW

>>2129530

It's our word, we're taking it back.
2 and 3: Is a tumor progressing to IV stage good?
Because we're not advancing in postive ways.

>>2129486
Majority of right wing people on 4chan are only that because of sjws on the internet.

>>2129530
It may be an insult to some but by and large it's an apt descriptor
Most people I know who are "reactionary" are because they are /reacting/ to some perceived change they don't like. Various liberal movements in the US have been really ramping the /racial/ rhetoric and /identity/ politics as of late, so surprise surprise, many /REACT/ by acknowledging their white /racial identity/

>>2129792
Check out this Whig faggot

File: CXIIgLSWsAAvI4U.png (267KB, 600x456px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 600x456px

TIRED: universal suffrage was a mistake
WOKE: mass literacy was a mistake