Seeing as I have lowered the tone a little bit recently, I feel the need to raise the level of discussion here in GD away from the narcissistic ramblings of attention-seeking photo-whoring, on a scale not far from that of the supposed Whore of Babylon, to something more befitting of us (as we all, well I say "we all" when really I mean about 60% of us, of which 20% of said 60% will have lost interest about....now) are intelligent people.

Hence, I propose the following discussion on Society:

What are your views on the current state of society at present, relative to old, or perhaps relative to nothing? Do you feel society is in a good or bad place right now?

Are you aware that ever since the human consciousness began we have always said "things were better in the past" purely because our childhood memories are more distant and naïve relative to our current ones? Indeed, "things" were often not better in the past, or at the very least, difficult to prove that they were better.

Do you believe forces such as religion have an active role to play, or are slowly diminishing into nothing? Is this a good or bad thing?

Good God.

"Society"? Is this a Cleese bit? Bless your youthful ass.

INSATIABLE said:

No, it's AS-Level Theology.

How do you view society?

Is it a collective mutual agreement between humans to co-exist, for instance?
[Edited 9/19/07 15:17pm]

Society is in a bad state at the moment ...
Society, as it is now, is a cold, unfaithful beeyotch

american society? western society as a whole? this is too broad.

evenstar3 said:

Your society. Your culture in your country.

One4All4Ever said:

Examples, please baby.

People are animals with the drive to survive. We're selfish creatures with capabilities for incredible evil, it's no secret. Unfortunately, in the Western world the line between wants and needs is so blurred/removed that most of us exist in the reality that money is the only way we'll achieve happiness. "Society" can be abstracted to appear fantastic and dreadful, because it's both and everything in between.

My personal view is that humans will never achieve a further intellectually evolved state (than current) until we can successfully take care of each other. I'm talking about hunger/housing, waste/ecology, and civil rights/equal education. Basic needs of which the western governments have a stranglehold. We may be evolving faster than ever before, but we're devolving at the same time when you and I are lying peaceful under warm duvets at night while bombs and starvation are the nightmare of our neighbors.


Memory, for the most part, has a way of erasing trauma and/or hardship. For example, I look back on being 18 as an absolutely blissful state, but I know for a fact that I was miserable then. Seven years later, all I recollect are the good things. How easy life was. When I was 18, I reminisced about the joys of being thirteen.


For simple-minded individuals, religion seems a necessity. Certain people cannot sleep at night let alone cope during the day unless they're soothed by the time-tested skydwelling beard-bearing angry King Triton (http://prince.org/msg/105/245370) whose ancient striptures determine how we should walk, talk, fuck, eat, and treat one another; others, such as myself, cannot operate unless I'm free of primitive human-written doctrine. Religion is an active role in the wealthy, the conservative, and the mentally weak.

INSATIABLE said:

wow..you sure are a judgemental fuck

mdiver said:

Excuse me, Phil? Wow. We're not friends anymore because I have an opinion? Did I say I hated anyone?

Guess we're not allowed to answer Ben's religion question.

INSATIABLE said:

simply your comment "simple minded people".....wow....blew me away,

INSATIABLE said:

This is the kind of post I'm looking for. Thank you.

I'll sort of not dwell on your last two point because, safe to say, I agree with them and don't feel any need to discuss them further.

However, your first point I believe is interesting (the point on society). I do believe that previously constructed moral boundaries no longer exist and, as a result, freedom of speech carries much greater weight these days because people will do, and say, things that would have previously been thought of as unsayable - even on 8am breakfast TV! As a result, there is some confusion, in my opinion, amongst individuals in society as to where they stand, and thus groups form, and thus we get "emo" kids and chavs - they're all searching for an identity in a society that currently loves to put people in boxes (therapists, psychologists, shrinks - all of them telling you who, and what, you are, and for what reason).

I thouroughly agreed with you on this:

You said:

Good insight - I agree. In fact I'd go as far as to say that society as a construct might not even exist any more. In the very least, our definition of society, in my opinion, is out-dated. Notions of class, for example, have blurred yet at the same time are being exaggerated. For example, nearly everyone in Britain at the moment falls under this disgusting "Middle Class" barrier, because it's "nice" - you're neither a rich cunt, nor a poor bastard - you're halfway in between, and everyone likes someone who's halfway in between. Whereas they aren't - there are so many different people falling under this "middle class" bracket that there could be another 4 classes in there. My main point though is that I hate the class system created by the Victorians as it divided society and fragmented it, leaving it to develop into what it is today - this blurred amalgam of wants and needs, as you say.

mdiver said:

You're right. It was callous. It was generalizing. Would it make you feel better if I inserted "most"? Ben asked for our opinions.

And was your response not childish and hurtful?

INSATIABLE said:

It would make me feel better if you thought first, if that is your opinion so be it....you are entitled, that is life...and your right....i dont have to agree.....

mdiver said:

We're all judgemental, really. Do you not ever walk past a disabled person and thing "poor person " or see some fat bastard at a bus stop stuffing more cholesterol into his arteries and think "fat bastard!"?

Saying it and thinking it are obviously different things, but I think we all judge in some way or another.

That said, I think calling all religious people simple-minded and/or weak is a tad harsh. I don't like religion as a construct, and am not religious, but I have met incredibly intelligent religious people who do not let the dogma and bullshit cloud their judgement, but rather incorporate it into their lives in a very normal manner. That said, hardcore cambridge theology intellectuals aren't your run-of-the-mill Christians/Muslims/Jews that you meet in every day walks of life who can often (particularly as the media portray them) come across as blind idiots.

Spookymuffin said:

Phil/Ben, you're both totally right.

I made the fatal mistake of assuming you all would understand that I mean religious zealots and those "in charge" who capitalize on religion as to be delusional. It was crass on a general discussion forum and I apologize. I am obviously anti-religion (pro-God, btw), but should have been much clearer.

Also, so you know, I'm at work and typing on a tiny minimized org in a very rushed state.

I believe the society I live in has gotten to such a good place (meaning that we are in such a position of privilege, not having to struggle to survive) that we are in one of the worst times ever in terms of personal conduct. Or society has become self destructive like the spoiled rich kid we are.

INSATIABLE said:

It's alright - you didn't grind my gears until Phil pointed it out. I was on your wavelength; I stereotype massively too.

Spookymuffin said:

Ugh. I make the constant mistake of assuming the entire world is on my wavelength when I'm talking--which is so NOT the case.

God, I'm a crass bitch. I was raised by a truck driving single dad, so there.

NDRU said:

I also think that comfort, security and boredom create needs and wants that seem important which would never have previously existed, and even would have been treated as trivial.

I would love to have seen something like the iPhone released in 1950s America when the government was running the family planning, good, moral Christian campaign. Views on value and such were much more traditional.

NDRU said:

once we all stop interacting face to face do we cease to become a society?

INSATIABLE said:

we all do that when we type

INSATIABLE said:

No need to excuse yourself - all over now. Let's get back on topic (never thought I'd hear myself say that)!

Spookymuffin said:

you fucking hypocrite!

ZombieKitten said:

I believe not - I would say that the GD could be seen as a microcosmic society; albeit without currency or trade (could bootlegs be that?). We all put up with each other; you guys put up with me being an arrogant dick, and I put up with the prozac-driven judgemental cunts who orgnote me with abuse - as such, we are a tolerant society, I would say.

mdiver said:

exactly!

Spookymuffin said:

We've got such primal urges to pigeonhole this and classify that--everything must be "understood" and put in its place so we're capable of forming "informed opinions" and definitions for the masses. It's as if we're all skipping on lilypads on a lake--you're either this, or you're that: too afraid to dive in and recreate or "make it new", like the modernists (I won't get into that. Actually, will I get into that?). Though every new idea must stand atop of its predecessor to exist from birth, we're not in a "society" (UGH) which allows new thought, contrary to "our" beliefs that this is a revolutionary time. We're actually in quite the conservative way of life at current. More on this later though, as it's almost time for me to go.

I said:

You said:

Tons of feedback on this. Again, dreaded LABELS! Ah, Kierkegaard. But you'll have to wait until tomorrow, as I won't get home til late. It's my stepsister's 21st birthday, so it's going to be a long night.

INSATIABLE said:

I'm seeing fucking Prince tomorrow night.

I believe, and have always believed, that labels are ridiculous. Regardless of any religious message, what separate us as Humans from Frogs and Dung Beetles is the fact that we are all individual and capable of deep, sentient thought. In attempting to understand and box up everyone like we do "lesser" animals that are not so complex, we attempt to lower ourselves to their level. Doing this, and being labelled, stifles the creativity of our individual leaving us in our current social climate (at least in Britain) of unfriendly, quiet depression with only consumerism and alcohol (wonder why we have a "binge-drinking" (hate that term) culture?).


/spellingedit.
[Edited 9/19/07 16:24pm]

Spookymuffin said:

You better know that the US is right up there with you with personal debt, people living on credit, and severe alcoholism (if not surpassing you by the sheer difference in population comparison alone). Our media, our voices, and our styles might be notably different, but we'll always be fraternal twins in that we're superpowers with governments and private corporations bent on keeping us occupied by selling us mundane thought wrapped up in shiny packaging and huge vehicles/televisions which amuse us enough to take us away from arranging a progressive, collective thought. Our houses may be smashed closer than ever before, but our ancestors were never as alienated from each other as we are. Class structure, the economy, the "news", it's all shit I'm afraid I can't talk about tonight. Is this for a paper? When is it due? And have fun with the delusional midget tomorrow, consumer whore.