Rebellion vs. confromism

**Adrian II** · 11-09-2005, 14:16

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

Im with Idaho on this. Reflex reactionism is far more dangerous than testing the borders of the establishment. The beautiful thing about life is that yesterday's revolutionaries are todays upholders of the establishment. Its the circle that moves society forward.

I would say 'it's the circle that moves society'. I am not so sure about the 'forward'. In fact, you might want to shorten it even further: 'it's the circle that moves'.
Yep, that about sums it

up.

**_Martyr_** · 11-09-2005, 14:25

Well, by definition, it is forward, whether or not that corresponds with your or my expectations of what forward (ie better, positive advancement) is another matter, and entirely subjective, but ever forward it moves, just as time.

**Adrian II** · 11-09-2005, 14:30

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

Well, by definition, it is forward (..)

I hate to say it, but by definition circles do not move at all. And societies moving in circles by definition do not move forward either.
Which is, by definition, nit-picking, I know, I know.

**Byzantine Prince** · 11-09-2005, 14:34

The only place the decapitated youth culture of today can rebel is playing SOCOM and forgetting to jump around to avoid the bullets, or using a certain map bug to kill everyone.

Yes it's cynical, but it's a sad state of affairs.

**Togakure** · 11-09-2005, 18:37

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

The only place the decapitated youth culture of today can rebel is playing SOCOM and forgetting to jump around to avoid the bullets, or using a certain map bug to kill everyone.

Yes it's cynical, but it's a sad state of affairs.

On the contrary--it gives us an outlet for thoughts/feelings/behaviors that would otherwise be "unacceptable" to society at large. It doesn't prevent us from rebelling in other contexts--you, for example, "rebel" here regularly, by expressing opinions contrary to the "mainstream," (sometimes, doing so in a manner that is also "rebellious"). I think this (the first part) is great--provided it is done with respect for others and their "right" to express their thoughts/feelings (addressing the second part).

"Rebellion" is a natural part of the human growth cycle. The source, degree, and context of a particular rebellious behavior is determinant in whether it is "acceptable" or not. Those who make this judgment vary, also dependent on context.

The old-school Japanese way of thinking proposes that all forms of rebellion against "legitimate" authority are tantamount to "treason,"--unless, of course, you "win." While the "... all forms ...tantamount to treason ..." part is a bit antiquated for today, the basic gist of this outlook is still valid.

Confromism (sic) can be viewed from a variety of different angles. Consider my comments about blending and restoration of harmony in the "Stand up for your Beleifs (sic)" thread, and the insightful comments of other patrons on the same.

**Big King Sanctaphrax** · 11-09-2005, 20:26

Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is pointless-anyone who believes something simply because their parents believes the opposite needs to seriously review their belief system as a whole-just as would someone who bends the knee to authority simply because they are authority figures.

Questioning society's beliefs and values, and challenging assumptions is, on the other hand, an extremely valuable activity, which is in no way the exclusive preserve of the young.

Ever since the 1950s, youth culture and the generation gap has been grwoing steadily and juvenile delinquincy with it.

Oh yes, those mods and rockers were really well behaved. There are many other examples too-people have been scaremongering about criminality amongst youth for most of known history.

**King Henry V** · 11-09-2005, 21:36

I said since the 1950s, that means including it and beyond.

**_Martyr_** · 11-09-2005, 14:39

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I hate to say it, but by definition circles do not move at all. And societies moving in circles by definition do not move forward either.
Which is, by definition, nit-picking, I know, I know.

No, circles are, as you allude to, circular...

But cycles (which is what I was alluding to with circle) move forward. Even, though it may seem that the same or similar thing happens every generation, the world has been ever changed by the previous cycle. Thus the ever forward motion.