#declinism

[activitesparanormales]

Mémoires du Futur / Terres Occidentales

Rise and fall of the Western Empire

david hauguel 2023

[fuddlyduddly]

I love when trans people look back on their earlier art, its always so interesting

[saul-tortellini]

[apollos-boyfriend]

“it’s a good thing that the minecraft movie isn’t about the intense loneliness of minecraft’s world and finding growth and hope in a post-apocalyptic society because it’s for children” Have You Ever Spoken To A Child

[carnivorescarnival]

It's been interesting to sit down and analyze what's actually happening in this post. To preface this, I don't believe anyone here is acting with any sort of mal-intent. However, the core argument here is worth examining for its reliance on deeply concerning rhetoric. It appears to hinge on many assumptions, and it expects its audience to take the concepts it relies on for granted in order to engage with it further. I wanted to examine it more closely.

First, OP identifies the apparent decline of social etiquette as the culprit behind the "floundering" of the "the younger generations." (Notably, this post does not make any attempt to define said "floundering" or offer examples of how it manifests. For the purposes of the post in question, the existence of this "floundering" is supposed to be self-evident. I still do not quite know what OP is referring to, and I suspect the claim does not hold up to scrutiny.) In asserting that "we haven't replaced [social scripts] with any more sincere or easier new script," the disappearance (or at least obsolescence) of all social scripts is taken for granted. This assertion goes unquestioned despite the irrefutable fact that "easier new script[s]" absolutely exist. Perhaps they do not take the form of instructional manuals which are overly concerned with the placement of forks on the dinner table, but such scripts do very much still exist.

For example, Tumblr's overall "culture" has its own rules of engagement. These have not remained stagnant over its lifetime. They have changed significantly since I began using this site over 13 years ago. In fact, the Internet as a whole has its own ever-evolving code of conduct—and although this code is mostly unwritten and informal, its existence is perhaps best proven by the fact that social punishments are meted out to those who fail to abide by the "rules" (examples of these punishments include ridicule and/or ostracization in response to "transgressions" like using an emoji in the wrong context, or failing to understand a joke). As is the case in "real life," online social norms frequently transform and evolve. While it was once considered taboo to reveal your name online, it is now considered fairly normal—and in some contexts, even expected. My personal feelings on Internet safety and privacy aside, this point is to illustrate that we cannot conflate the evolution of norms with the absence of them.

The first user to respond cites other responses that do not, in their opinion, adhere to the spirit of the post - then goes on to use "ghosting" as an example of a modern social interaction which has essentially "replaced" what is characterized as a social script ("it was at least something to say"). I'm not here to speculate about the countless reasons one might have for ghosting—that's not the point of this post. What I'm here to say is that it is useless to judge the act of ghosting by its adherence (or lack of adherence) to "politeness." Ghosting constitutes its own social script. It is not an action with a singular motivation behind it. Rather, it is its own method of communication, and one that our reliance on technology has not only proliferated, but in certain cases rendered necessary. Politeness is culturally constructed and thus subjective; to one person, ghosting may be the ultimate social taboo, while to another, it may be vital for assuring their own safety. In a situation where further interaction may be met with the escalation of unwanted advances, can we really say that ghosting would be rendered obsolete if only society would agree to relearn a "script" sufficient to replace it?

A few comments down, one user seems to believe that the answer to that question is a resounding yes. This comment seems to value adherence to etiquette over all else—even at the expense of one's own boundaries. Repeatedly saying, "Thank you, but I gave my final answer"—as this response recommends—asks the target of the boundary-pushing behavior to make their boundaries malleable for the sake of upholding some arbitrary sense of politeness, "no matter how many times they [the boundary-pushing person] come back." It is interesting that in this example, the obligation to respond with politeness does not end after the first breach of boundaries. Rather, politeness (here, synonymous with "supplying a courteous response") is demanded of the recipient at all times, while the one who is characterized as "rude" for breaking boundaries is actually exempted from this scrutiny on account of their rudeness! In my opinion, once the "social contract" has been breached by the person breaking those boundaries, then I am no longer under any obligation to continue corresponding with them. My obligation to etiquette—if indeed I had one—should be considered fulfilled. There's also something to be said about the characterization of younger generations as inherently more rude and "pushy" than older ones, which is manifestly untrue, but it sure does serve as a rhetorical device that upholds the original argument's appeal to a romanticized vision of ~the good old days~. There is surely nothing suspect about an argument which appeals to an idealized vision of an evergreen past while simultaneously asserting that the youth of today are suffering from a lack of moral guidance.

When it comes to the topic of formal etiquette within the context of history, there is no reading of works such as Emily Post's that is sufficiently critical. That is to say, no matter how egalitarian it claims to be, the concept of etiquette that Post and others put forth cannot be separated from the implication that a person's worth depends on their ability to follow these moral edicts. Etiquette is not merely a neutral social script (if indeed such a thing can ever be neutral); its ultimate purpose is, and has always been to "better society"—a purpose which can only be realized through strict adherence to a specific set of established social customs. (No points for guessing who establishes these customs, or who might benefit from perpetuating them. Why does this definition of "bettering society" rely so heavily on constructed social rules and customs? Should one's capacity for kindness be judged by their ability to act according to rigid instructions? Who stands to gain when how "considerate" someone is, is defined by how well they adhere to social norms constructed and upheld by the upper classes?)

Any sort of comfort that one might derive from the existence of "basic etiquette" has always been a side effect to its primary purpose: to uphold and reinforce class divisions. There is a fundamental difference between expressing a preference for more structure and guidance within the context of social interactions, and turning that need for guidance into a moral imperative—the apparent absence of which becomes the scapegoat on which to pin all the presumed failings of today's youth.

When we claim that the end goal of etiquette is the alleviation of awkwardness and discomfort, whose comfort is being prioritized?

I feel like in the rush of “throw out etiquette who cares what fork you use or who gets introduced first” we actually lost a lot of social scripts that the younger generations are floundering without.

[snaxle]

btw if a trans man decides that they want to get pregnant and you're not normal about this and start spewing a bunch of transphobic shit i show up at your house and beat you to death with a baseball bat

[tippenfunkaport]

there is something so darkly comical about tumblr potentially outliving twitter

tumblr, which is held together with duct tape and madness, run by three raccoons in blood stained Yahoo! hats and a handful of crabs, its only discernible source of income the sale of shoelaces from an inside joke so inside no one knows the original source anymore and fake blue checkmarks... that website still lives on

truly the cockroach of social media and I love it for that

[gaskarth]

some of my favorite haus of decline comics

[blessyouhawkeye]

it's been years and it's still genuinely crazy to me that the first two seasons of stranger things had this throughline where all the bad things that were happening in hawkins were directly caused by the us government and that they were excusing the awful things they were doing to their own citizens (children!) through cold war/red scare reactionism. and then in season three there was a secret russian base under the town mall.

[divineandmajesticinone]

Lucy Liu as Alex in CHARLIE'S ANGELS (2000)

[perplexingly]

I took the text from Frankenstein: A New Musical

[circleheads-art-world]

A sheet expressing your rosy retrospection biases

[chloesimaginationthings]

The Aftons tried to kill Mike for being eepy in the FNAF movie

[plague-parade]

i feel like we dont talk enough about how distressing and disturbing memory loss issues are. forgetting what you were talking about halfway through a sentence, putting something down and instantly forgetting where you put it. having to reread one paragraph over and over again because by the time youve moved onto the next sentence you dont remember what the one before it said. always doubting if your memories of things are real, not being able to remember important life events.

its so incredibly scary, it feels like your mind is constantly playing tricks on you and you start to doubt whats real and what isnt.

“i forgot” is treated like a lazy excuse when it’s genuinely such a big issue for so many people.

[harmonic-psyche]

Oh thank god someone else said it. You're exactly right, @chamerionwrites, and I'm really glad you described in such detail why that word "degeneracy" is such a massive red flag. Sometime I should post my own essay on the awful, bloody history of what that word means: so-called “social degeneration theory” is the foundation of eugenics, “scientific racism,” and fascist declinism.

Possibly The most surprising thing I have discovered on the internet is the number of people who will unironically refer to others as "degenerates" without expecting anyone reading this to immediately assume that they are a straight-up fascist