Neo-Victorianism and the New Prudery - What has come before has come again

[Vlad the Inhaler]

Let me say that I categorically support women becoming completely 19th century, old school prude, proper, frigid, and extremely repressed. That way, all the stuff we do with our clothes off becomes that much more degenerate, unholy and depraved. And *that's* why it kicks major ass.

It's like this incomprehensible new trend to use the word "cuck" as some sort of pejorative. If you are doing this, you're probably 14 years old and haven't yet figured out how sex can be both a team and a spectator sport.

 

[Slap47]

Is this generally really a problem? With youtube and some other sites, it's because many advertisers generally don't want to be associated with people ass fucking each other. Google, despite its reputation, is a rather incompetent company on everything that isn't its search algorithm and they're not good at controlling where advertisements show, and they don't want to really host videos that eat their bandwidth and don't make them money. Tumblr recently got bashed for child porn being hosted on their site so they need to do a PR stunt over it and they know they're too incompetent to filter it so a blanket ban is necessary. Reddit still has a ton of porn subreddits and there's little chance of them being shut down. There's still a lot of boomers around and sexual revolution never completely won.

The Communist Party of France went out of their way to ban sex-doll brothels because they exploited women.

"Family-friendly" is just their way of getting the right wingers to side with them. Sex-negativity is the dominant strain of thought in feminism. As far as they're concerned sexual fantasy is dangerous, sex work is inherently exploitation and men must be controlled.

 

[millais]

I must admit I am a little disappointed to come into a thread about "Neo-Victorianism" and no one is shitting on steampunk enthusiasts. Ban fat cosplayers in corsets!

 

[Slap47]

I must admit I am a little disappointed to come into a thread about "Neo-Victorianism" and no one is shitting on steampunk enthusiasts. Ban fat cosplayers in corsets!

Victorian steampunk or whatever has always been bad.

The whole point of that century is efficiency and they spit on that idea with their nonsense designs. Worse, games and films with the ugly style completely disregard the themes of the era and make it harder for actual stories from the period to be taken seriously.

 

[millais]

Victorian steampunk or whatever has always been bad.

The whole point of that century is efficiency and they spit on that idea with their nonsense designs. Worse, games and films with the ugly style completely disregard the themes of the era and make it harder for actual stories from the period to be taken seriously.

let's not pretend the Victorian era itself was all that great. The air pollution and public sanitation in the urban centers of UK was probably on par with modern day China, and the average working class people didn't have indoor plumbing until after WW2

 

[Slap47]

let's not pretend the Victorian era itself was all that great. The air pollution and public sanitation in the urban centers of UK was probably on par with modern day China, and the average working class people didn't have indoor plumbing until after WW2

And steampunk never represents this.

Class, pollution, colonialism, sexism, modern weapons, mass production... so many ideas and themes wasted.

 

[AnOminous]

And steampunk never represents this.

Class, pollution, colonialism, sexism, modern weapons, mass production... so many ideas and themes wasted.

The Difference Engine was about all that shit.

 

[Snuckening]

You're wrong as tabula rasa, while completely discredited, is still implicitly viewed as gospel among the left, who want to create a New Socialist Man and cling to their oppression narrative on why there are disparities between different groups. Tabula rasa is alive and well in places like sociology and anthropology. They may not explicitly state it and may deny believing in it, but good luck finding a leftist that won't attribute a difference in population to any other than nurture or oppression.

Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate, while not a very well-argued book and he misrepresents behaviorists and overstates his case as he typically does, has become more relevant since he wrote it due to the political climate. I thought tabula rasa was on its way out then but due to society taking a hard swing left it's back.

Yeah, tabula rasa underlies buttloads of the most rctarded beliefs of sjwism; all that "[x] is just a social construct" shit- which is the foudation of the idea that you can just switch 'genders' (actually sexes) on a whim, or that any statistical disparity between sexes, or between racial groups, can only be caused by cultural beliefs (cultural beliefs that are completely arbitrary and formed in a vaccuum, and never reflect any underlying biological reality).

Even just questioning that assumption of tabula rasa, and suggesting the possibility that inherent differences between the sexes, or between racial groups (even just in terms of group-wide averages- accepting that individuals in those groups vary wildly) is pretty much taboo in many circles these days, even though the data isnt even in doubt about the fact these differences exist.

And its not just the left/sjws- More and more MRAs and anti-feminists are copying the feminist playbook (and not always deliberately- often it's just their genuine belief, assuming, say, that the massive diffence in male vs female violent crime rate must prove that the courts/cops have an anti-male bias (and have no relationship at all to the proven fact that testosterone is causally linked with aggression, or the fact that women have other ways to get money than violent crime, etc).

That tabula rasa stuff is getting baked into people's heads, to the point where its an unspoken, unquestioned assumption that they arent even aware theyre making.

 

[Stock Image Photographer]

That tabula rasa stuff is getting baked into people's heads, to the point where its an unspoken, unquestioned assumption that they arent even aware theyre making.

I think the reason that people roll with the assumption of tabula rasa is because the the logical conclusions of natural, unchangeable, biological differences can be terrifying. For example, the link you mentioned between testosterone and aggression. If we know that to be true, and we know that aggression is linked to violent crime, then people will want to do something about it. A particularly extreme solution to this problem might be mandating that all males above a certain age take testosterone blockers, or something else equally authoritarian. In broad strokes, people are scared of the society forcing change on them, so they assume tabula rasa and try to force change on society.

 

[queerape]

I think the reason that people roll with the assumption of tabula rasa is because the the logical conclusions of natural, unchangeable, biological differences can be terrifying. For example, the link you mentioned between testosterone and aggression. If we know that to be true, and we know that aggression is linked to violent crime, then people will want to do something about it. A particularly extreme solution to this problem might be mandating that all males above a certain age take testosterone blockers, or something else equally authoritarian. In broad strokes, people are scared of the society forcing change on them, so they assume tabula rasa and try to force change on society.

There's the worry that having certain inborn traits as opposed to a tabula rasa could be used to justify dangerous policies. Under tabula rasa, every one is equal IQ at birth, but if there isn't tabula rasa, it becomes possible to say or prove that, for example, blacks have a lower IQ from birth. Then, one can use that to argue black people are inferior and need to be restricted. This potential is maybe why liberals are afraid of approaching nature and assume tabula rasa- no one likes what the possibility of inborn inferiority may invite.

 

[AnOminous]

A particularly extreme solution to this problem might be mandating that all males above a certain age take testosterone blockers, or something else equally authoritarian.

Good luck to a bunch of low-T soy boys forcing the people with the testosterone to do anything they don't want to do.

 

[Secret Asshole]

I didn't mean to let this thread linger without responding to it, but the holidays and all that plus getting sick....well, you know. I realized I might have left people with the assumption that tabula rasa was an 'old' concept. It is the literal and figurative basis for the root of the vast majority of social sciences, boutique subjects and scum academia we see now.

I wish I could fucking find the article, but there was an article that discussed how prevalent tabula rasa is in the social science to the point where that social scientists objectively fear anything else.

Ever wonder why there's this endless, really shitty marketing to consumers? Well....they don't consider biology. Tabula Rasa is endemic in marketing:

In most instances, marketing scholars have largely ignored that consumers are biological beings and have instead assumed that consumers are strictly socialized into their preferences, desires, and choices (see also Saad, 2008).

Consumers are apparently born with empty minds that are subsequently filled with advertising messages, media images, Hollywood stereotypes, pornographic plotlines, sexual song lyrics, etc.

Why is the blank slate view of the human mind so pervasive in the social sciences? I propose that it caters to one of the most important of all human quests, the endless pursuit for hope (see chapter 8 of The Consuming Instinct titled “Marketing Hope by Selling Lies”). In the 1994 classic film The Shawshank Redemption, Andy Dufresne [in a letter to his friend Red] (played by Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman respectively): “Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.” It is hopeful to believe that serial killers are not born evil but rather something in their environment must have shaped their diabolic penchants. It is hopeful to believe that all humans are born with equal intelligencepotentiality. It is hopeful to believe that beauty is a social construction, and as such all individuals, free of those pesky media images, might be perceived as equally beautiful.

Regrettably, as hopeful as this worldview might be, it is erroneous. It is such fatuous reasoning that led one of my marketing colleagues to proclaim to me at the recent Association for Consumer Research conference held in Vancouver that evolutionary theory has no actionable value. I should rush off and advise all of my colleagues in the evolutionary sciences that we are all wasting our time, as an understanding our evolved and biological-based human nature apparently has no “practical value”! This is the type of resistance that I’ve been facing for the past 15 years in my quest to Darwinize the field of consumer behavior albeit this is becoming an increasingly indefensible position to hold.

This is the article in Psychology today, which was written six years ago: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/201210/the-mind-blank-slate-hopeful-wrong

Unfortunately, I can say she failed.

This is the absolute basis for EVERYTHING that is preached by the authoritarian left. We need censorship because our minds our empty. We need it to be hidden. I want to stress, this is an old concept, but it is very much the foundation for soft science. You have to remember, neuroscience as a field is basically coming into its own. Its about 15 years old, and tabula rasa dominated before hand. The problem is behavioral genetics, neurology, biochemistry and neurochemistry have blown it a new asshole. Herein lies the problem: the social sciences are terrified of biology. In biology, you have to prove relationships.

There are tons of articles about Tabula Rasa and the absolute denial of humanity.

Tabula Rasa is just the claim that people gain knowledge about the world through sensory data, i.e. empirical means. Technically it isn’t contradictory against a view of innate behavior. Locke wasn’t concerned with behavior, he was concerned with epistemology. He made this claim as a specific rebutal towards the rationalists of his era because they made claims such as reason being the only way to obtain certain knowledge.
I understand how people can make the connection to Tabula Rasa, but it’s just not as significant or arguably as present as some are making it out to be.
I’ll go another step to say that it’s a straw man to say that post-modernists don’t believe in innate behavior. They’re stupid but not that stupid. Certain behavioral inclinations innate to a gender is what they mean to contest, and they believe that social context can
be used as a better or more valid explanation for the behavior observed.

I don't think you understand. Its not a straw man. They literally seperate out instincts, like the thumb sucking instinct as something completely different. They absolutely do not believe in innate behavior. Dr. John Money, the monster who made gender as a basis for a social construct, believed that we are born gender neutral no matter our chromosomes and possessed no innate behaviors. He believed you could take a baby of any gender, do a sex change, and raise it as the opposite gender and it would work. I'll give you a hint, it didn't. His subjects killed themselves.

You really underestimate how prevalent tabula rasa is and its foundations in the soft sciences.

From 2014: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01212/full

There can be no doubt there is serious resistance to evolutionary psychology (EP) as a theoretical paradigm from both within the field (e.g., social psychology) and in other disciplines (e.g., social sciences). Numerous researchers (Harris, 2003; Eastwick et al., 2014) appear to have made it their objective to show how predictions made and studies conducted by evolutionary psychologists are flawed (and even outright sexist).

From 2018: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-57934-001

Quizzing the social psychologists on their views of evolutionary theory, Buss and von Hippel found that they overwhelmingly accepted the principles of Darwinian evolution and also that it applied to humans, but when it came to whether evolutionary theory applies to human psychology and behaviour, the sample was split, with many social psychologists rejecting this notion.

Digging deeper into the survey results, there was no evidence that the social psychologists were averse to evolutionary psychology for religious reasons, but many did reject the idea that humans might be inherently violent (in certain situations) or that some people are widely considered more physically attractive than others due to universal evolved standards of attractiveness – perhaps, Buss and von Hippel suggested, this is because “they dislike the implications regarding the dark side of human nature.”

I think I've made my point. Just look at everything we see now. It can all be traced back to this. Why do we need diversity? Because if we don't show it, people won't become accustomed to diversity and become racist. Why do we need to hide attractive women? Because all men will believe all women will look like that. Why do girls in videogames need to be ugly and 'realistic'? Because boys and girls will think that's what women are.

Everything leads back to tabula rasa. Why don't we dump it? Because then social scientists would have to deal with this horrifying fact: We're all human. Not some weird object permanence machine where if something disappears we stop wanting or doing it.

let's not pretend the Victorian era itself was all that great. The air pollution and public sanitation in the urban centers of UK was probably on par with modern day China, and the average working class people didn't have indoor plumbing until after WW2

That and the chimney sweeps developed scrotal cancer.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Everything leads back to tabula rasa. Why don't we dump it?

Because all of contemporary Western culture is built on Enlightenment ideas of egalitarianism, which in turn rely on tabula rasa. "All men are created equal" could be argued away if you threw it out, and we'd backslide into tyranny and feudalism.
That's the fear, in short.

 

[Secret Asshole]

Because all of contemporary Western culture is built on Enlightenment ideas of egalitarianism, which in turn rely on tabula rasa. "All men are created equal" could be argued away if you threw it out, and we'd backslide into tyranny and feudalism.
That's the fear, in short.

Sure, there's the fear that we'll go back to Social Darwinism and Racial Science. The problem is that you're getting philosophy vs. science. Modern day scientific ethics takes care of that. Ethical rules have become more and more stringent since the 1960s. The protection we have now, the peer review process, plenty of things to prevent that.

And all men aren't created equal. Its an ideal, not a reality. Some men are born rich and make sure to crush and divide all other men. Some men are born cruel and violent, and there's not a fucking thing you can do to change that. That's just reality. Its an ideal we strive for.

Tabula Rasa, biologically, does not exist. Each of our neurons is plotted and planned out by our genes. Our brains are structured by male or female androgens and are not gender neutral. We have preset patterns imbued onto us. We have neuro-plasticity in that we can shift our neuronal structure, but plastic will still retain a basic shape. We cannot reform it. If your brain structure dictates you will get schizophrenia, you will get schizophrenia and no amount of nurture will prevent that.

Same with standards of beauty. Beautiful people are typically symmetrical. Look at everything beautiful. See how its symmetrical? That's how nature is, right down to the structure of molecules. You think you're going to change that by hiding beautiful women? No.

What is happening is a fundamental denial of humanity. Tabula Rasa denies it. It assumes we can all be these perfect creatures if we just had the right society. This is patently untrue. Some of us are just broken. Some things are just written into us. We will still rape, still murder, still kill, still be xenophobic if all those things are censored in our culture. Because that's what humanity is: imperfect, unfair and in some cases, immutable. When you try to control reality, when you deny humanity and human desires and truths, that's where you get Victorianism and Authoritarianism. Do you think progressives treat men, women, minorities and LGBT as human, or different species living together that can't understand each other? We know where this leads to.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Sure, there's the fear that we'll go back to Social Darwinism and Racial Science. The problem is that you're getting philosophy vs. science. Modern day scientific ethics takes care of that. Ethical rules have become more and more stringent since the 1960s. The protection we have now, the peer review process, plenty of things to prevent that.

And all men aren't created equal. Its an ideal, not a reality. Some men are born rich and make sure to crush and divide all other men. Some men are born cruel and violent, and there's not a fucking thing you can do to change that. That's just reality. Its an ideal we strive for.

Tabula Rasa, biologically, does not exist. Each of our neurons is plotted and planned out by our genes. Our brains are structured by male or female androgens and are not gender neutral. We have preset patterns imbued onto us. We have neuro-plasticity in that we can shift our neuronal structure, but plastic will still retain a basic shape. We cannot reform it. If your brain structure dictates you will get schizophrenia, you will get schizophrenia and no amount of nurture will prevent that.

Same with standards of beauty. Beautiful people are typically symmetrical. Look at everything beautiful. See how its symmetrical? That's how nature is, right down to the structure of molecules. You think you're going to change that by hiding beautiful women? No.

What is happening is a fundamental denial of humanity. Tabula Rasa denies it. It assumes we can all be these perfect creatures if we just had the right society. This is patently untrue. Some of us are just broken. Some things are just written into us. We will still rape, still murder, still kill, still be xenophobic if all those things are censored in our culture. Because that's what humanity is: imperfect, unfair and in some cases, immutable. When you try to control reality, when you deny humanity and human desires and truths, that's where you get Victorianism and Authoritarianism. Do you think progressives treat men, women, minorities and LGBT as human, or different species living together that can't understand each other? We know where this leads to.

I'm not saying I personally believe that: you asked a question, and I tried to answer that.
Personally, I believe we won't see the fading of the ideal of equality or tabula rasa (that is, trying to treat everyone equally regardless of background) in American society, at least, anytime soon. It's so deeply embedded into the memeplex of America that nothing short of a total collapse and restructuring of society could get rid of it within the next couple centuries, at least.

 

[Positron]

And all men aren't created equal. Its an ideal, not a reality.

"All human beings are created equal in whatever way you assess" is a hypothesis to be proven (and has been proven repeatedly to be false), not an axiom to be declared by fiat.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

"All human beings are created equal in whatever way you assess" is a hypothesis to be proven (and has been proven repeatedly to be false), not an axiom to be declared by fiat.

The ideal is "no man should be treated as inherently greater or more worthy than any other by circumstances of birth alone", and was a reaction to the massive amount of corruption in the feudal system at the time (things like primae nocta and droit de prélassement were mostly exaggeration, but the flaws in the feudal system were clear at the time of writing). And while it is true that we'd probably all be better off if the "best" people ruled as semi-divine overlords and the rest of us as meek and humble serfs, good luck devising a system that can do that, sustain itself, and doesn't rely on the idea that all humans are rational and perfect agents.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: "Egalitarianism is the worst social philosophy besides all the others."

 

[ICametoLurk]

Literally all it is is that people who make money wanna sell shit to 99% of the rest of the World that believes in Stone Age level shit.

 

[Terrorist]

I like how you frame it in terms of cycles, instead of the more common "analysis" where eeeevil SJW cat lady stereotypes are going beyond the pale of any censorship ever seen before by taking away gamer cummies, because they're just that evil or jewish or whatever. Restricting speech by whatever means (law, social ostracism, etc.) is a tool used pretty universally by dominant groups to enforce control, not something unique to liberals/leftists at all.

If kf existed in the 60s, where hippies and shit were the BRAVE FREE SPEECH WARRIORS, there would be a thread on Kennedy Derangement Syndrome (papist man bad) and a john birch society subforum. Maybe in 40 years or so somebody will post about the neo-neo-victorianism of the people who want to make ben shapiro height jokes and kneeling for the national anthem into hate crimes.

Idk about capitalism as a way out though. "Get woke, go broke" isn't really true most of the time, except for companies who made being woke their primary thing. Starbucks, Nike, etc. are still going strong. People think corporations are primarily beholden to the average consumer, but if anything it's the other way around. And as always I'm skeptical of the Gen Zyklon hypothesis. Still, great stuff.