Does Modern Society Unfairly Portray the 1950s?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BearingCross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
It’s relevant.

“That was a disgusting act on the part of the store owner. The guy could have been unable to work due to mental illness: not all ailments are visible to the naked eye.”
Click to expand...
And that disproves my point…how?
 
A hard working small business owner or a welfare recipient? Perhaps back then the former were respected more than the latter. I’m not sure this is the case anymore.
 
It’s not uncommon in the US. You can go on welfare, have a house and a color TV and do nothing all day. I saw this.
 
SadPotato said:
That was a disgusting act on the part of the store owner. The guy could have been unable to work due to mental illness: not all ailments are visible to the naked eye.
Click to expand...
First of all, if you have ever lived somewhere small, you know it is possible to know because, well, people talk about themselves. If someone says bluntly told their neighbors or relatives that they sought out public assistance not because they needed it, but because they could, well, they can’t blame other people for believing their story. The store owner only refused to be complicit…he told the person to cash their check somewhere else. It is possible that this was not a matter of judging someone unfairly, but instead taking them at their word and admonishing them for abusing the trust of others.
 
I was in the grocery store one day and a stranger approached me for no reason. He admitted he was using the government to get by. He shouldn’t have but he did. Now he had a shopping cart with food and ended by saying he was off the dole and back to work. Trust me. I did not look like a priest but it appears he needed to confess to someone.
 
If you’d lie about yourself to somebody and then judge them for believing you, you would be one special piece of work.

After all, there is some circumstance under which those who are objecting would actually admonish someone who was cheating the government or an employer, right? If we were doing that and telling other people about it, would we really want someone to let it go by and say, “oh, I’d never judge!” No, I think that being asked to take a good hard look at what we were doing by those we had told about what we were doing could do us some good. Yes, it ought to be done charitably, but no, people who are openly gaming the system should not just be ignored as if that were the best thing for them.
 
Last edited:
Did @edwest211 say he didn’t do that? He said the guy confessed to him; he didn’t say he’d given the guy a penance or denied absolution or something.
 
Last edited:
Back to the topic of the 1950s: Isn’t there a middle ground between making people feel they are shameful people on one hand and letting them feel that there is nothing they can do that is a shameful action? We have to admit, there is a lot of contemporary culture that is literally shameless. There is brazen lying, there is brazen cheating, there is brazen theft, there is brazen adultery, brazen sex outside marriage, brazen blasphemy, brazen licentiousness, brazen greed, and the list goes on, as if it were all excusable because hey, we’re only human–and who is anyone to judge, acting like they’re all saints or something?

Do we really think that it is good when the only real societal taboo is to say out loud that there ought to be some societal taboos? Should people really be lead to feel that nothing about their morality ought to be anybody else’s business, that they deserve to be treated as if they were praiseworthy whether they have acted in a way that merits any praise or not?
 
Last edited:
It wasn’t until the 1960s that the sexual revolution occurred, class division skyrocketed, drug use was normalized, Bible readings and prayer were prohibited in schools, the nuclear family entered its death throes, New Left ideals flooded college campuses and the youth, and society otherwise began to experience social degradation… So yes, the aggressive, nihilistic society we live in today isn’t particularly fond of the “backwards” 1950s (or the decades before it), and will happily slander it.

I never lived in the '50s (far from it), however I can see why mainstream society detests it so much; it may have had its fair share of problems, however it was a period of stable families, clearly defined gender roles, economic prosperity, strong work ethic, Christianity was on the rise, etc., which is all quite attractive in comparison to the divisive mess we’re living in today. I’m not sure how any Christian could say with a straight face that society is better off today.
 
Well I’m skeptical when I see someone pulling into a handicapped spot and then get right out of the car and walk better and faster than I can. In my building there is someone with a handicapped spot right near the common door while at the same time has a dog that is walked 3 or 4 times a day down 2 flights of steps from the apartment to outside, then completely around the building and up and down the block a few times and back up the steps to the apartment.
 
Last edited:
This raises the issue of the ‘fully autonomous’ individual, beholden to no one. No God, gods, Church, no parents after 18. Just an almost perfect being, made of things borrowed from here and there. The fact is, none of that is true. In reading about people who try to live this way, they in fact pick and choose examples from early or recent history as their templates.

And in the late 1960s, I heard about artists wanting their freedom. What kind of freedom? “Breaking down barriers (in good taste), smashing (sexual) taboos and finally, ‘they drew as they pleased.’” This had its most lethal effects in TV and movies starting in the late 1960s and proliferating gradually in the 1970s and accelerating further through the '80s and '90s. Today there are at least two generations that have a highly distorted view of reality and how to respond in relationships and how to behave.

Praiseworthy needs to be the primary standard. The “leave me alone, I’ll do what I want” person usually ends up in a bad place, but finding others who share this view, and youthful energy, can keep the illusion going for a while.

That attitude was best summed up by a message posted on another forum: “I no longer want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again.” That’s what some wanted for decades. They were wrong then and and they are wrong now.
 
Last edited:
Drug use was not normalized. Not everybody jumped on the bandwagon. The nuclear family and the Church were under heavy, coordinated attack. Things are changing now because the radicals and anarchists broke things that didn’t need breaking and exposed people to harmful things. The damage is done. People are turning their backs on the present. They know what they have to do now.
 
I don’t have to know the medical history. If one can walk a dog 20 minutes 4 times a day yet can’t walk an extra 30 to 40 feet from a car into a building I will be skeptical and feel like they are taking advantage of the system.
 
Last edited:
No it’s common sense. There is no need for a special handicapped spot when one is able to walk all around town. To deny this common sense is ludicrous. I’m not talking about you on a bus. I’m talking about a parking spot. We can’t be skeptical? We have to be naive about everything? The fact is people do take advantage of the system. If you can’t see this then I’m through discussing it.
 
There is a man in my town who owns a van with a handicapped sticker on it. He’s perfectly healthy, no disabilities, walks his dog around town. He also parks his van in handicapped parking spaces.

He gets away with it.

Why?

Because when he does park in a handicapped spot, it’s because his elderly mother is with him and he has to have room to unload the wheelchair for his mother to ride in.

He may not be disabled but he has someone with him who needs the handicapped accommodation.

I am sure he’s not the only one.

So people who are healthy may still need to park in handicapped spaces because their passengers might need the accommodation it affords,
 
Last edited:
Yes, I was sitting on the train one day and a young blind woman got on. She appeared abled bodied and indicated she didn’t want a seat. A fellow behind me, not hearing this, touched my shoulder and loudly said “aren’t you going to give her a seat?” I’m fine with someone advocating in a general sense - “will someone give her a seat?” - but not picking on a random person who happens to be sitting. My dad has MS and wouldn’t be able to stand on the train for long periods, yet outwardly he looks completely able. I could be in the same boat for all strangers know.
 
Sarcelle said:
There is a man in my town who owns a van with a handicapped sticker on it. He’s perfectly healthy, no disabilities, walks his dog around town. He also parks his van in handicapped parking spaces…
Click to expand...
Just to clarify: It is not OK in most places to use a parking spot set aside for the disabled unless you are actually picking up or dropping off the person who was issued the permit. Having said that, it is not always possible to see the disability that makes it medically advisable for a person to need to avoid walking farther than necessary.
 
Speaking of the 1950s, my avatar’s namesake:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
edwest211 said:
Drug use was not normalized. Not everybody jumped on the bandwagon. The nuclear family and the Church were under heavy, coordinated attack.
Click to expand...
Not everybody’s nuclear family was/is as idyllic as yours. Also, if the “reefer madness” propaganda is any indication, the attitude a lot of people had toward marijuana in particular was nothing short of backwards.

A lot of societal upheavals happened because they needed to.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top