You better look at the past of the UK and USA. How did they become so strong?

People had some values and ethics that differed (and made them exceptional) them from many others.

You don't have that nowadays. Now you have just politics led by money and power. Ethics is the last thing that matters in American democracy today (you can't even speak about ethics without someone feeling "offended").

What do you have now? Poor people who protest/vandalize and the rich who keep lobbying.

Since the majority do not see any interest in both options, they are the last to be heard in this country.

But does it need to be that way? What would happen if liberal societies were able to infuse their mores and education to everyone?

Democrats say that this is what exactly they are doing (they are teaching everyone to become a saint), but we have some doubts here. If they are teaching us what are models we are shown?

I don't see any models in this political culture. Nevertheless, other members are making a few things more clear to me.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Can you be less vague and give specific examples of things that we do, or don't do, that you think is problematic?

Replying to your three questions:

1) If marriage was assumed to aim at procreation I would be against the marriage of LGBT. But I don't see marriage in the US to symbolize procreation, so I cannot take a stand at all to your question.

2) Because I despised Hillary Clinton that has nothing to do with the way I view women. I'd gladly vote for Elizabeth Warren.

3) Black people should be treated like all other Americans, and be helped to get equal education, equal rights and equal jobs with everyone else.

What I don't see like a good thing are attacks on the history, the mores and the aesthetics of people (majorities), just because we have to stick to "correct/representative politics".

This is why from the beginning I was talking about models, nothing else.

What I don't see like a good thing are attacks on the history, the mores and the aesthetics of people (majorities), just because we have to stick to "correct/representative politics". — Eros1982

Again, I don't know what this means. Can you be specific? What is an actual example of a "more/aesthetics of the majority" that is being attacked by liberal social policies?

As it stands all I can read from this is that you want to be excused for being a bigot.

I think they may be asking more than saying. As in what kind of ‘model’ person should liberal people look to for inspiration? What kind of values are they to view as worthwhile?

Eg. To be married and have children, to be an independent woman, to be transgender and of some ethnic minority? Who are the guardians that should be admired when there is more and more attempts to literally rewrite history out of pure ignorance driven by nothing more than a political agenda to ‘appear’ to be doing ‘the right thing’.

Maybe that is kind of the point being made? That is the impression I have anyway. I think it is an interesting perspective to view the extremities of liberal views today to be engrossed in the removal of ‘role models’ be they currently living or long dead.

Thank you for the clarification.

You helped a lot with mentioning left extremism... that gave me some kind of perspective lol

Who are the guardians that should be admired when there is more and more attempts to literally rewrite history out of pure ignorance driven by nothing more than a political agenda to ‘appear’ to be doing ‘the right thing’. — I like sushi

What history is being rewritten?

As in what kind of ‘model’ person should liberal people look to for inspiration? What kind of values are they to view as worthwhile? — I like sushi

I've already made my views on role models clear.

But on this point, that's the question I'm trying to get answered. @Eros1982 appears to have a problem with liberal role models. So I want to know what he thinks are the "right" values, and which liberal values he thinks are wrong.

I guess we’ll have to wait for their reply.

Let say that the British are very proud of having conquered once upon a time the 1/7th of the world and Russians are proud for having conquered 1/11th of the world and so on.

They praise their generals, but now you have someone who claims that General X167, killed his cattle and burned his village. So, the latter claims that the statue of General X167 in Manchester should be removed for the atrocities he committed to his village and instead of the statue of General X167, we put in that place the statue of Preacher Y259, who lived in the destroyed village and raised 2000 cattle and gave food to 30 people.

Here we have a dilemma now: take like your model the courage, intelligence and skills of General X167 or take like your model the good heart of Preacher Y259?

This what we are talking about today and this kind of dilemmas are more visible in liberal societies, rather than in other societies where religions and tyrannies do not bother to ask you what model you prefer (they give it to you).

To answer your last question: I cannot be sure what is right and wrong, I just wonder how a liberal/electoral minded society can tell what is good and bad (ugly and acceptable), when everything it wonders about is representing and non offending ALL voters (in ALL possible ways).

Here we have a dilemma now: take like your model the courage, intelligence and skills of General X167 or take like your model the good heart of Preacher Y259? — Eros1982

Why would you need a statue of someone to have them as your role model? This is just about not wanting to publicly glorify someone who committed an atrocity, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you want a public display of someone with courage and intelligence and skill then find someone else who exemplifies those qualities and who isn’t a mass-murderer.

Or just stop needing role models.

Okay, I see.

My previous answer had to do with your question on what I meant with rewriting history.

Now let me give you one more example:

My (fictional) country is located in an island where 50% of the territory belongs to us, and the 50% to the other nation. We have been in 400 years war with our neighboring nation (for religions, ignorance and all kinds of stupidity) and we are sure that the neighboring country does not give up attacking us. We are sure also that in the middle of the ocean none will come to our help.

Due to our religious differences and beliefs, in my country we tend to be more liberal in mores than in the neighboring nation. But that has a cost for us. We are being reduced in numbers. The neighbors have become 700k, we have become 600k. If we keep up with these numbers we are sure that 40 years from now our neighbors will be 900k, and we 400k.

We are afraid that these numbers mean capitulation for us and most probably another way of life. Are we not justified in wanting to promote models like having a few kids, being more courageous, handling guns, and so on?

So, in this extreme example I don't think it very good to erase all models whereas at the same time we might be praising our way of life. If we stop having models, we better renounce our way of life and accept whatever our neighbors will decide for us.

I hope this puts some perspective in the need for role models.

We are afraid that these numbers mean capitulation for us and most probably another way of life. Are we not justified in wanting to promote models like having a few kids, being more courageous, handling guns, and so on?

So, in this extreme model I don't think it very good to erase all models whereas at the same time we praise our way of life. If we stop having models, we better renounce our way of life and accept whatever our neighbors will decide for us.

I hope these puts some perspective in the need for role models. — Eros1982

You don’t need role models for this. Just promote the virtues of having children, fighting for your country, etc.

One of the most sensible and effective ways to do this would be by example though. Can we really do away with people we look up to and if we can what effect would this have?

If you have rational basis for your position, it seems that you are either unable or unwilling to articulate what it is.

From what I can tell having sifted through many of your posts, you are concerned about the left with regard to "traditional values". Isn't that what you're concerned about rather than the left "standing for a lack of role models"?

The problem with "traditional values" in the US is that there has been and continues to be a tradition of bigotry. Bigotry against racial minorities, women, the LGBT community, etc. Having long-standing bigotry has had a deleterious effect on society. The left seems to be trying to eradicate that bigotry and remediate those long-term effects. You seem to perceive this as an attack on all "traditional values". The aphorism "A house divided cannot stand" has much wisdom in it. Bigotry divides. It should be eradicated and its long-term effects remediated.

I will be frank with you. When I first came to this country 15 years ago, I landed in NYC and I was impressed with all that diversity... it felt like being home from the first day in the USA, since you have all the communities of the world in NYC and you can choose to belong wherever you want. That was a beautiful feeling, very exceptional.

But when I see USA now, I see a society that is investing in its divisions (or maybe my vistas are biased). It is hard to see how all these peoples and cultures can agree on other things but money and power. It seems to me that money and power keep things going on in this country today (it has not been like this always, the Puritans brought here their culture that did not survive or it survived only partially... this country once open a time had a demos with its own ethics, then it turned into something else, something much bigger).

Now, imagine a whole world becoming like the USA.... all communities, cultures and religions infused in one place and everyone fighting for himself and showing his power and wealth in order to make himself heard or even dominate others. (Is there any other way to succeed in a country with so many diversities in mores, beliefs, values and aesthetics? It is not this the way politics work in the USA... show your power in order to succeed?)

Would that kind of world look diverse to you anymore or would it look everywhere like Brazil or some poorly managed US city where communities isolate and protect themselves from "invaders"?

It is okay in diverse countries like USA or Brazil all diversities to be accepted, but I wouldn't call it a bad thing if UK, Ireland, Denmark, Kenya, Iceland, Egypt, Namibia, Israel or whichever country believes to inherit a nation, a history and a culture, to decide one day that diversity be kept under control through democratic means (without punishing anyone, but through having immigration quota and making sure that everyone who enters and lives in that country accept some standards and models or at least be educated towards those standards and models).

I don't see anything bad with this last option.

If extreme leftists try to make many countries in the world look like USA and Brazil then they will be killing diversity, will not protect it at all.

Ethics and culture can do a better job with societies than power and money. It is true that in the USA everyone, on the left or on the right, does speak about ethics and culture, but in reality we are not seeing that.... we are just seeing poor people protesting in the streets and vandalizing cities and rich people lobbying for their causes. With so many differences and disparities it has become a little difficult to speak about culture, models, ethics and similar things.

If other countries can invent other ways in order to remain democratic but at the same time to reduce diversities and disparities, I don't see anything wrong with that.... especially if these things are achieved through a common culture, social services and good elementary education.

diversity be kept under control through democratic means (without punishing anyone, but through having immigration quota and making sure that everyone who enters and lives in that country accept some standards and models or at least be educated towards those standards and models).

I don't see anything bad with this last option. — Eros1982

So what exactly would this reeducation look like? If you’re saying that it would be established through democratic means, how would that work? If it’s just a brochure that’s handed out at immigration centers and maternity wards, what sort of things would be written on it?

Just a quota, like we can't afford more than 20% of population to belong to other languages, nationalities and religions... and we have a policy that these people learn lets say Danish within five years and become fully integrated Danes within twenty years. If that does not happen no more green cards here :)

We do that because we know that there are only lets say five millions Danes in the world and we were told that we are a brave hard working nation that lived in this land the last 4000 years and we love to keep it going on like that.

I can't tell you if this is practical in a post-modern world hit by a climate crisis, but I don't see anything wrong if 5 million Danes want to protect their tradition and culture in a world where you have 1.4 billion Chinese, 330 millions Americans, 200 millions Indonesians, etc.

Should we call Danes supremacists just because some of them think it very special to be a Dane?

They will need their own models I guess in order to survive in a world where big nations and religions are dominating the small ones.

Should we call Danes supremacists just because some of them think it very special to be a Dane? — Eros1982

There is nothing like a Dane
Nothing in the world
There is nothing you can name
That is anything like a Dane.

I do believe that a beautiful world is a world filled with many small nations.

A world where 8 billions have only five languages and two or three religions would be the ugliest of all. I wish I never see such a world in my lifetime.

Why are you lumping Brasil and the US together? They share little in common other than Brasil having a much more tarnished history in terms of slavery.

Note: Every country has quotas and standards for immigrants.

I just put them together since they look diverse and both are losing to different degrees their social cohesion. Brazil is governed by a white minority. US is more inclusive and fair, but with the racial make up turning whites into a minority (30 years from now, according to US Census Bureau) I won't be surprised if we look like Brazil also... with the wealth and power accumulated at the hands of a white minority.

Nothing bad with quotas. But more work is needed with inclusion, egalitarianism and primary education (role models). US is probably failing in these directions and it makes me wonder sometimes if the reason of these failures are multiculturalism and turbo-capitalism.

I can't claim, however, that I know the answers. I just see some problems here.

primary education (role models) — Eros1982

You talk a lot about models but won’t say what good models are. If you don’t know what good models are then how can you know what bad are, or whether or not it might be better to lose models entirely.

So what makes a good model?

I don't know.... but imagine how difficult must be for children growing up in a world where their cereals boxes have the image of a woman looking like a boy and dressing like a man (I am not inventing it, check Cheerio Ellen Boxes).

Then you have all these history books where cultures and kingdoms that used different models, gods, values, etc., clash with each other and one side dominates or exterminates the other side.... as Arabs did with Persians/Sasanindes and Byzantines, Sparta with Athens, and so on.

It is hard to say that only population, geography and military skills had the final word on all these conflicts. It is hard to argue also that history will not repeat itself and the "weak" will not be exterminated or subjugated to the "stronger".

People may say that we need to be free, no responsibilities, no duties, no education, and so on... but that's just a game with words or simple carelessness. For as long as there will be human beings and civilizations there will be some kind of dominance, labor division, responsibilities, values, models and so on. If we forget those in this or that country that does not mean all the countries will get rid of the models which make them stronger in one or another way.

So your concern is that people will not be as white? Not quite sure how that ties into cultural traditions at all tbh.

Personally I am expecting the very idea of ‘nation’ and ‘patriotism’ to slowly erode into the next century. I think we’re entering something similar to what Nietzsche talked about with “God is dead” but we’re now facing “The Nation is dead” problem … it is just that many cannot see it yet and those that can have no idea what will happen once it takes a firm hold.

No problem with colors. But I don't see the reason why all liberal countries should follow the examples of US, UK, Germany, or France.

If these four countries turn one day brown or Muslim, that's the last thing I care about. They thought it wise to set their foot everywhere and conquer other nations and cultures, so it is their turn to accept all those peoples they wanted to conquer.

My only problem are liberal politics (that you named "extreme left" politics). They seem to confuse people and to not have answers on what is ethically and aesthetically good.

But you might be right in assuming that a new and very different world will be born and whatever we took for granted (pertaining to tradition, values, ethics, aesthetics, intelligence, and so on) we better forget it and just look forward.

Maybe that's an answer. But I do believe that even in a new world we will be forced to accept some models. It is a big question what kind of models those will be.

By the way, have you heard people and intellectuals complain about Japan? Japan is one of the "most democratic" countries in the world, but at the same time women there "do not aspire" to do same things with men, immigrants do not feel welcome at all, and marrying people from other races is not encouraged by anyone. All these things seem to happen in Japan because of their "culture" and this is why no think-tanks complain about Japan.

Professors of the Freedom House are more disturbed with West Virginian poor folk who voted for Trump than with Japan. This is why Freedom House gives Japan 15 more points than US in democratic politics (Freedom House never complains about 6 billions USD spent in electoral campaigns every 4 years, they complain just for poor folk who do not want to change their way of life).

I don't know.... but imagine how difficult must be for children growing up in a world where their cereals boxes have the image of a woman looking like a boy and dressing like a man (I am not inventing it, check Cheerio Ellen Boxes). — Eros1982

So you are clearly prejudiced against gay people. Who else are you prejudiced against?

So you were going through all these questions and conversation just to come up with this conclusion?

If you have good eyes you can discern the feminine and masculine features in both men and women.

In all ancient cultures these features (like strength in men or fertility in women) were exposed in all their artworks (with a very few exceptions in Ancient Greece, Rome, China and maybe India). I am talking here about artworks starting from 40.000 years ago till 30 years ago.

The last 30 years some leftists seem to be arguing that humans have been very wrong in the last 40.000 years for exposing fertility in women and strength in men. Okay, history will show who is wrong and who is right.

I don't know what prejudices you were talking about. I believe in my own eyes. I can see feminine features in men and masculine features in women. The way I grew up enabled me to discern these features. If my kids will not be able to see that 30 years from now, that means they will grow up with other models.

Ellen is famously gay and you think she’s a bad model, therefore I conclude that you must be prejudiced against gay people.

Incidentally…

In all ancient cultures… — Eros1982

Again you appeal to tradition for legitimacy and this expresses a conservative slant. I don’t think that you are being honest in this topic.

Since we are in the Philosophy Forum, I'm sharing this link with you:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

By the way, nice ceramic (but not a good model at all, the boy seems much younger than his molester).