all4naija:
Hahaha... That would be a 2 minutes read for anybody. You are very hesitant in your approach to read something you think is long to read. Somebody like you would enjoy adult movies a lot.

kingston277: "The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see."
-- Winston Churchill

It has always been intuitively obvious to me that the past and the future cannot be severed from each other. Back when I was a young, naive liberal, it never occurred to me that I should despise the old simply because it is old; when I grew older, wiser, and more "conservative," I never felt that the new is bad, simply because it is new. The only problem, for me, has been to understand how "tradition" and "progress" came to be considered contrasting rather than complementary opposites, and to articulate the reasons why this contrast is unnecessary, and even dangerous.

At first glance, it seems that "conservatism" and "progressivism" are equally self-evident, yet equally vacuous. Who will deny that good things ought to be preserved, and that evils ought to be abolished? It makes no sense to distinguish between "progressives" and "conservatives" without indicating what kind of progress, or conservation of what. It makes no sense to want to change everything all at once, or to preserve everything forever.

Although conservatives rarely if ever want "to preserve everything forever," conservatism emerged historically as a defensive reaction against people who did want "to change everything all at once." The political Left is defined, first and foremost, by its desire to tear down the existing society and build some preconceived utopia on the ruins. No wonder the Right has habitually regarded the future as a menace.

The irony is that it's the utopians, from Plato on down to the feminists and environmentalists, who believe that society is, or can be, eternally fixed and inalterable. The utopian, exactly like the caricatured conservative, intends to "stand athwart history yelling Stop!" -- once he has recast society on his own design. Utopians underestimate the complexity and dynamism of the world, and overestimate the power of a simple and static order. Society is too complex, unpredictable, and deeply rooted to be designed or recreated by anyone.

carefreewannabe:

You know nothing about me.

all4naija: I am just saying it. Not that I know a damn thing about you.

carefreewannabe:

The post was long and I was about to leave the house and I do NOT enjoy adult movies. I have seen quite a few.

all4naija: It took me about 2 to 3 minutes to read though. I indulge myself in it them in a very rare occasion.

carefreewannabe:

LOL

all4naija: Hahaha... Most girls would say they don't watch those kind of movies. I don't know if they are pretending or something.

carefreewannabe:

The movies were made for men and not for women, this is why many or maybe even most women do not enjoy these movies. The movies do not match female fantasies.

all4naija:
That is meant to be a joke, I guess! Maybe most women can't stand them in the front of men. What do I know about women? Well, it is up for them to explain their fantasy is like.

I think the women fantasize about intimacy as much as the men do.

carefreewannabe:


@bold
Probably yes but in a different way.

They do not have the fantasy of being a woman with extra big boobs who is being banged hard from behind by ugly men. This is just an example of what these movies show. And this is not what most women dream of.

all4naija:
You are very funny. Men neither fantasize in the manner as well you touched on. You are wrong to think that is what adult movies are all about. There are different kind of approaches, genres and styles. You haven't really seen a good one though. I like to watch it when it involves familiar faces in a very rare occasion.

carefreewannabe:

It was just an example. I know there are other examples too but fact is that most of them do not meet an average woman's taste.

The way some female porn stars behave in these movies is either funny or terrifying. Seeing other women behaving like this, is not a turn on.

all4naija:
Are you speaking for average woman or just yourself? I doubt the average woman would turn away from a good intimacy. Indeed, most of them have complained of satisfaction from their male counterparts. Come on, we know women are more into the game better than men do.

carefreewannabe:

I was talking about movies.

all4naija: Yes, but with regard to gender idea about them. You failed to convince me women are not equally worse than men. I think women secretly indulge in them for gratification.

carefreewannabe:

I think women also watch these movies but I still believe that these movies were rather made for men.

all4naija: I believe they are made for both genders. Women fantasize about size and gratification so much that many have to see how they are before any encounter. There is even main-society believe on the bigger the size the better the satisfaction,etc.

carefreewannabe:

It is not that simple. Female s. e. x. uality is more complex. It is no enough for a woman to see a big joystick to become excited.

all4naija: I didn't say that either. I know women s*xuality is complex but there is truth to how many would respond to a bigger size.

carefreewannabe:

I just want to say in advance that it is NOT about me so what I will say is what I heard from some other women.

There are women who like it big but there are also women who don't.

all4naija:
It is okay. Aren't you a lady old enough to talk about your s*xuality? I pointed to the same thing in my previous post about women choice. The same can be said about men preference only that men sometimes allow their lust take over their reasoning. I am not in the group of those though.

carefreewannabe:

I am a lady old enough but I do not talk about my s. xuality on a public forum.

all4naija:
The quoted part above is the part that captured my attention the most. The moment we ignore progress from a perspective of moving humanity forward and brazing for the future the moment we start dying away gradually. That means the past or tradition we are so much ingrained in will gradually be useless to the time.

Karl Jahn: Now, "progress" must have a particular direction, which is itself a matter of debate. There are different kinds of "progressives": nowadays, there are liberals and libertarians. Liberals want to "progress" towards an all-powerful government; libertarians want to "progress" towards anarchy. The good news is that "progress" is indeterminate: we are free to decide for ourselves what it means -- what we want to progress towards. We can re-examine the idea of "progress" and redefine it as the continuation and enlargement of our inherited culture, rather than its contradiction and destruction.

Karl Jahn: On the other hand, tradition and order are needed to consolidate and preserve past accomplishments. Innovations are only enduring when integrated into an established order. No matter how desirable any reform may be, the preservation of social order and the rule of law must always have greater priority. Given this basic stability and continuity, one may effect gradual and prudent reforms, as necessary.

all4naija: There are a lot of things I disagree with in the write-up. I think the writer is from the age past and have no idea of the workings of the modern world that much would be required as necessity to get beyond earth we are so much imprisoned to.

all4naija: The opinion is so much on the morality of society than the progress based on acquisition and looking to the future.

There is lot missing in this whole idea the writer presented.

Thank you.

RandomAfricanAm: That sh*t is sad man. sad
The worse part is that they feel like they are being "realistic" "responsible" "progressive" or my personal favorite "civilized"(even though they completely miss the keyword *civil*) Automation & mechanization does not equal civilization; Automized & mechanized barbarians are still practicing barbarism. Simply put mechanized barbarism is still barbarism.

Neutral Example: When the tent dwelling, spear chucking, horse riding Mongolians sacked and overran china they were barbarians being barbarous. When the mansion/castle dwelling, rifle/cannon shooting, galleon/wagon riding Europeans sacked and overran china they were also barbarians being barbarous.

Self haters conveniently skip that and other episodes in world history nor do they dare say they the fact that china was overrun by a pack of tent dwellers on horse back means that they should stop city planning, administrative practices, civil engineering projects, etc. and accept the superior tent dwelling "civilization" that was obviously justified by chinas round defeat and occupation by Mongolians. Nor do they say that the Japanese should give up their Shinto tree, rock, etc spirits and become "civilized"(or in self hater language "industrialized", "mechanized", & "automized" ...which is what they really mean when they say "civilized"wink

As concerns my ideas surrounding African spirituality I suggest you checkout my reply on the second page of...
https://www.nairaland.com/1554976/whats-literal-translation-north-south/1


As I like to say...
1. Freedom is a necessity but not enough. Choices are predicated on what you know at the time of calculating a decision. If I control what you know I control the range of your possible choices.
2. Knowledge is a necessity but not enough. Knowledge derives it's usefulness from being processed when calculating a decision. The smaller the range of process you are capable of carrying out the less you can do with what you know.
3. Processing(intelligence) is a necessity but not enough. There are a series of Processes done in executing a plan. If you have no plan your interests are subject to those who do have a plan. Be that in using your ability to process knowledge to further their plans(not yours) or simply by your interests being displaced in the execution of their plans.
4. Plans are a necessity but not enough. Plans are simply a means to accomplishing a goal. If you have no goals in life your interests are subject to those who do have a goal. Be that in using your ability to plan and/or process knowledge to further their goals(not yours) or simply by your interests being displaced in the execution of their goals.
5. There are more but I can successfully reply without stating the rest


While I commend the Self haters for wanting better for themselves and Africa as a whole.

I question...
1.The range of knowledge they have at there disposal when coming to their stated positions
2.The range of processes they were able to employ on that knowledge.(Which led to their inability to make historically consistent positions)
3.The extent to which their self hate surrounding colonization impedes absorption, development, & execution of new knowledge and processes.

all4naija: Lol... The same part the writer makes blatant error based on his view using it to see the others on the same foot!

carefreewannabe:

This paragraph contains subjective judgement. When the author of the article was young and naive, he was liberal but when he grew older and wiser, he became more "conservative".

I couldn't agree more but people will argue what to preserve and what to change.

In which country and in which age?

It was wrong to claim that progressivism is based on the belief of a future utopia and it is likewise wrong to claim that feminists and environmentalists believe in utopias.

I will stop here because it is obvious that there are too many wrong assumptions in the basis of the article, which disqualifies the rest of it.

carefreewannabe:

This paragraph contains subjective judgement. When the author of the article was young and naive, he was liberal but when he grew older and wiser, he became more "conservative".

I couldn't agree more but people will argue what to preserve and what to change.

In which country and in which age?

It was wrong to claim that progressivism is based on the belief of a future utopia and it is likewise wrong to claim that feminists and environmentalists believe in utopias.

I will stop here because it is obvious that there are too many wrong assumptions in the basis of the article, which disqualifies the rest of it.

carefreewannabe:

This paragraph contains subjective judgement. When the author of the article was young and naive, he was liberal but when he grew older and wiser, he became more "conservative".

I couldn't agree more but people will argue what to preserve and what to change.

In which country and in which age?

It was wrong to claim that progressivism is based on the belief of a future utopia and it is likewise wrong to claim that feminists and environmentalists believe in utopias.

I will stop here because it is obvious that there are too many wrong assumptions in the basis of the article, which disqualifies the rest of it.

kingston277:
If you were more educated on the social situation of where he resides, you'd know that he is paraphrasing his society who placed his personal beliefs at the time under those labels, like placing ideas in boxes where he says they don't fit, hence the quotes. Where he lives, liberalism is viewed as "naive" while conservatism is considered "wise". Why does he tell us he was against the traditional liberal beliefs of the old being bad when he was young/"liberal" and the new being bad when he was older/"conservative" if he is opinionated? You seriously can't deduce that your quote and his said perceptions of old and new contradict each other, signaling that he can't possibly view one as more "wise" than the other?



That still doesn't change the fact that the given society must choose where they want to progress to.
e.g Why do you want to preserve/change this practice? Is there goal you have set for your society?



Check the politics section if you're having trouble.



Sorry to say, but he is correct. Many people with agendas are obviously attempting to "progress" society to something which in most eyes of humans with agendas happens to be a utopia. Think about the major religions for a second, are they not trying to "progress" to a global utopia?


This post is full of so much hypocrisy that I am truly worried that you might become what you claim to fear. So he paraphrases the collective views of the society he lives in and you are bashing him for being subjective, while he states a well known fact that conservatives are typically against change while liberals want a rapid, dynamic society? The entire purpose of his article is to balance those views to show that they are complementary rather than polar opposites, in NL speak, tradition and progress. If you are seeing a social diagnosis as judgment, especially when the writer intends to eliminate conflict between the two ideals, then something is wrong with your credibility, not his. So I suggest you review the article and then post.