Judgment/Condemnation: Good or Bad? Discuss.

[The Reno Kid]

It seems to me that one of the things that really separates us from the golden era (besides time) is that we seem to go through all sorts of contortions to avoid condemning behavior that would have horrified our forebears. My question is, is this a good thing, a bad thing, a mixed bag?

Would we as a society be better off with a generally agreed-upon set of ideas as to what constitutes acceptable behavior? Or are we better off allowing individuals to decide what is best for them, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks?

 

[Pilgrim]

It seems to me that one of the things that really separates us from the golden era (besides time) is that we seem to go through all sorts of contortions to avoid condemning behavior that would have horrified our forebears. My question is, is this a good thing, a bad thing, a mixed bag?

A very mixed bag. What horrifies people with Focus on the Family (or the) NAACP (or the) ACLU is sometimes behavior I condone, or even encourage. I don't want them to judge me, nor do I wish to have the authority to judge them.

Would we as a society be better off with a generally agreed-upon set of ideas as to what constitutes acceptable behavior? Or are we better off allowing individuals to decide what is best for them, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks?

We actually have that set of ideas; it's called laws. The set of laws in each country - and internationally - defines what constitutes accepted behavior. Variability from place to place is part of the human condition.

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

It seems to me that one of the things that really separates us from the golden era (besides time) is that we seem to go through all sorts of contortions to avoid condemning behavior that would have horrified our forebears. My question is, is this a good thing, a bad thing, a mixed bag?

Would we as a society be better off with a generally agreed-upon set of ideas as to what constitutes acceptable behavior? Or are we better off allowing individuals to decide what is best for them, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks?

There's nothing wrong with judging someone as long as you are willing to accept that sometimes your judgements will be wrong.

As for a "generally agreed-upon set of ideas as to what constitutes acceptable behavior", it will never happen, because the ideas will never be agreed upon universally enough to have any meaning (assuming you are talking about morals and not government/law), unless the idea is something like "do what you like as long as it doesn't negatively affect my life". That doesn't really help eliminate poor manners, sloppy dressing, flip flops, piercings or whatever it is that bothers you.

 

[Cousin Hepcat]

It seems to me that one of the things that really separates us from the golden era (besides time) is that we seem to go through all sorts of contortions to avoid condemning behavior that would have horrified our forebears. My question is, is this a good thing, a bad thing, a mixed bag?

Would we as a society be better off with a generally agreed-upon set of ideas as to what constitutes acceptable behavior? Or are we better off allowing individuals to decide what is best for them, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks?

I'd say it totally depends on whether you're interfering with others' lives. But then that's probably due to the neighborhood where I grew up: everyone was pretty accepting of "different" people. Stomp on someone's new shoes though and you better know how to FIGHT or RUN lol

Just being wierd or different, I say live & let live... obnoxiously rude behavior going on now that wouldn't have been allowed "back in the day", cast my vote for "that's a bad thing".

What horrifies people with ... (or the) NAACP (or the)... is sometimes behavior I condone, or even encourage. I don't want them to judge me, nor do I wish to have the authority to judge them.

I'd argue they serve a purpose more along the lines of our government's Checks and Balances system, but maybe that's just me.

Is it time to go home yet...

Swing High,
- Cousin Hepcat

 

[otterhound]

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...
John 8:7

 

[Feraud]

It seems to me that one of the things that really separates us from the golden era (besides time) is that we seem to go through all sorts of contortions to avoid condemning behavior that would have horrified our forebears. My question is, is this a good thing, a bad thing, a mixed bag?

Would we as a society be better off with a generally agreed-upon set of ideas as to what constitutes acceptable behavior? Or are we better off allowing individuals to decide what is best for them, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks?

I do not see a large separation between today and the Golden Era. We are as judgemental today as anyone else in past history. Our society is apparently more permissive but we are extremely judgemental.
Regarding the "rule of society", we appear to be fluid enough to flow with the times. What was desired one hundred years ago might not be wanted today.
It is a tough call when trying to establish strict moral values.

 

[pablocham]

This is ridiculous!!! What about all the behaviors that the majority of "Golden Agers" looked the other way at, or actively condoned? We can start with racism and sexism. Lynch mobs, Segregation, Anti-miscegenation laws, and the rest. They took lots of pictures at lynch mobs and used them as postcards. You would think that the pictures would be pretty good evidence for finding the murderous thugs at fault, but that doesn't seem to have happened all that often.

Then there is sexism. Women couldn't go to the best colleges and when they got their degrees they often couldn't get hired. Sandra Day O'Conner was at the top of her class at Stanford Law and she couldn't get a job! And that was in the 1950s!

Those are probably the more well known things, but there are quite a few other areas where people of that time were more "permissive." I can think of many areas of law that have come into being in just the last 30 years. In that time there has been a restructuring of laws regarding date rape, spousal abuse, and child abuse. In the "Golden Age" those crimes were either non-existent or seldom enforced. When they were enforced they were misdemeanors that carried few consequences.

Also, I suspect that the incidence of enforcement and prosecutions for such formerly ignored crimes as those and also for child sexual abuse has risen greatly since the Golden Age.

 

[Shimmy Sally]

Abusive spouses, negligent parents, addictive personalities, bad manners, terrible drivers, sloppy dressers all existed in eras past. There had been so much racism, misogyny, division of social classes and just general walls up between us. We might have discovered a cure for cancer by now if that previous racism and misogyny hadn't held so many intelligent minds back from further education. Society is more accepting, open and tolerant, less repressed now. That is a good thing as long as the basic golden rule is in place. In fact, I think we still have a long way to go. At least these days if someone has a problem they can get help to hopefully make the situation better, rather than hiding it and feeling ashamed as everything gets worse.

 

[pablocham]

I would rather live in a world without lynch mobs and segregation, and where women can do what they want to do. If that means having to deal with slobs and noise and people who don't take care of their front lawns or whatever this thread is talking about, then I think that is a relatively cheap price to pay.

 

[Paisley]

I think we are now in an era where norms of behavior are in a state of upheaval, so much so that some men are reluctant to pay a woman a compliment, and woman have to read books like He's Just Not that Into You.

"Whatever happened to 'You look lovely' and 'May I have this dance'?" said Mr. Costanza. The dance had some problems, but everybody knew how to do it.

 

[Lauren]

It's called media sensorship.

Now things are broadcast all over, so who can blame our culture for what we are like? We have 24/7 noise telling us how to act- and usually they're trying to "break down some bar" or another- sometimes ones that are better off where they are (like violence, language, nudity, morality) in favour of being broad minded (show whatever, be whatever, think whatever). There were people that did this in the past as well- it just wasn't talked about as much.

 

[Shimmy Sally]

I would rather live in a world without lynch mobs and segregation, and where women can do what they want to do. If that means having to deal with slobs and noise and people who don't take care of their front lawns or whatever this thread is talking about, then I think that is a relatively cheap price to pay.

AMEN!