Do societies progress, or simply change from one side of the spectrum to another? Will the west ever go back to hating gays?
There's no biological imperative to hate them anymore.
>inb4 they spread AIDS
Yeah, among themselves. So if you hate gays you should actually ENCOURAGE fag behavior so they wipe each other out.
>>497208
Why do they need to hate gays?
Societies progress over the course of centuries, not decades or years where cultures can shift slightly. The "spectrum" is far wider than 'right: conservative', 'left: liberal'
Also 25 year rule and
>>>/pol/
You would get more replies there desu
Gays are such a small part of the population that it would seem petty to hate them.
Gays haven't been publically hated for most of history. The roots of modern conservativism lie in 50-60s, not in some ancient hatred. Sure, they were legally and socially ostracized. But open hatred? No. Same thing as the mentally ill before Victorianism, the disabled before eugenical thinking etc.
Somewhere ~700 years ago people started switching from feudalism to capitalism, and ~50 years ago capitalism expanded into imperialism. When the majority of people find capitalism repugnant we'll probably find a new society to progress towards.
>>497270
Go to North Korea if you like commie "progress" so much.
>>497270
Go back to your grave.
ITT: everyone missing OP's point question
No. It's just change. Progress is defined by humans, so what is seen as progress changes.
>>497270
>and ~50 years ago capitalism expanded into imperialism
>>497282
/thread
>>497208
>Do societies progress
Scientifically speaking, they progress unless something big like the collapse of the Roman Empire or the Mongols or some shit happens. Socially speaking, societies will inevitably progress because whatever is 'progress' is defined post-facto. For example, Muslim conquests and the subsequent adoption of Islam + Sharia Law and its associate curtails on women's rights were regarded as progress by the conquerors, aka moving society in the right direction, whereas nowadays we would think it regressive. Similarly, during the Cold War the USA and friends saw a country becoming communist as slipping backwards into anarchy and despotism while the Soviets and friends definitely saw that as progress, both politically and socially. For a more modern perspective, conservatives and liberals are actually both 'progressives' in that they want progress, they're just trying to progress towards very different goals. Liberals have one set of criteria and conservatives have quite another, and when one makes progress towards what they think is the ideal, the other sees it as regression. It's that simple.
However, the whole concept of 'it's 2016 cum on step it up ur 2 slo' is fucking ridiculous because it's a deterministic view of history as one long slog of inevitable progress towards a certain point which is, of course, defined by whoever's saying it. It's retarded and John Oliver can go suck a dick.
>Will the west ever go back to hating gays?
I can see it happening as part of a greater cultural backlash.
Progression and regression are worthless terms when discussing subjective factors like morality. It's not like technology where you can stratify based on objective standards. The wording implies that there's a true moral spectrum that exists beyond humanity on which ethics can be measured, which isn't true.
The "spectrum" as it's presented in contemporary politics (left vs. right) is artificial. A true politic would be based on a single stance (for liberty, for equality, for security, etc.) with opinions on individual issues evolving from said stance. No political parties or "wings" work this way as their agendas are hodgepodges of unrelated stances and are internally inconsistent.
>>497208
Progress is relative
I MEAN COME ON
>>497248
I don't think it's that easy. There are differences between cultures. Disabled people were locked away in towers and boxes in European middle ages.
I've realized that there is no such thing as societal progress. There's no objective good or bad society. There's only societal change, in one way or the other.
>>497332
Enlighten me, how do you go about measuring technological progress objectively? Is it when the technology becomes stronger? In relation to what? Is it when people grow stronger because of technology?
>>497428
Old Phone - Hard to use, heavy, low battery, limited usability
New Phone - Small and lightweight, long battery, lots of different functions
>>497437
If ease of use is progress. Then what is the technology progressing towards? Complete ease of use? No input needed? Then humans aren't needed... Progress for the technology, maybe not for the humans. Smaller and more lightweight could be progress, up to a point, where the tech becomes too small or too lightweight to use. Better batteries i guess could be progress, but there are more factors to it than battery time, like what chemicals the battery is made of, how it's charged, and how it's recycled when it can't be used any longer (as examples). Different functions aren't progress for a phone, the purpose of a phone is to make calls. That function was perfected long ago and no progress has been made. More functions makes the phone into something else, which might be progress from another viewpoint than "a phone".
No, we just change. We used to hate gays, now we hate white people.
>>497282
Agreed
Well now the west is degenerate as fuck compared to the great times pre-world war 2. So I reckon after another big happening happens we should go back to how we naturally should be.
>>497486
Danke maymay
>>497490
>the great times
>pre-world war 2
societal progress is a myth, possibly inspired by communist utopianism and the industrial/technological age
>>497490
> pre-ww2
the 20s were easily the most "degenerate" decade in the 20th century
>>500473
>the industrial/technological age
plus there is no notion progress in science either.
>>497208
Progressivism is a meme coined by Enlightenment-era philosophers who believed Reason will lead the humanity into a new era where everything will be perfect because people will abandon old dogmas that chained them. Unfortunately, as we see, such thinking only produced new dogmas instead.
Progressivism often changed its goals and purposes, especially in the XIX and XX century, we can see it from the age of Victorian-era imperialism to the very cores of Marxist teachings. It still exists today in the modern post-Cold war neo-liberal capitalist society.
>>497270
Imperialism definitely became a thing somewhere around 1860's, although it existed on a smaller scale before.
Westerners are preoccupied with silly social issues and those are the terms in which they measure progress. At least the actual communists in the 19th century demanded tangible and fundamental changes to the structure of society and its governance instead of seeking out new identities to liberate over the internet under the watchful eyes of capitalism and liberal democracy. The rest of the world and the leaders are concerned with the emerging multipolarity, continentalism, demographics and other geopolitical issues that are flaring up and which will actually define our future.
