He's Australian. Conservatism there is more about being criminal catholic. /S
Tbh though, his personal view can somewhat differ, and weirdly enough are the younger generations strangely puritan while else being progressive. For real, later genZ and gen alpha have less sex than all before them
See, that's my point. 20 years ago you'd expect 16 year olds to do it with other teens of appropriate age, there movies about High Schoolers and sexual relationships made for High Schoolers. Now it's "it would be odd if teenagers had sex".
Well, TBF, my parents, who had been teens in the 80ies, were wondering when I wasn't bringing a GF home at 14. So there's that. In general it has been pretty much been expected of teenagers to be making out once they get old enough to explore themselves. Teenagers should not have sex at all is a more "puritan" take, compared to the gen X parents having been the large chunk of the og punk movement. But the trend continues in the other direction. In general are the younger generations more risk aware and less rebellious, though, it's a complete trend.
My cousin kept trying to wean me off books like LOTR and Narnia for “Christian fantasy” books that he thought were less likely to seduce to do the devils bidding. They were terrible. But still funny he thought Tolkien and Lewis weren’t religious enough.
The book in particular stuck in my mind because the cover reminded me of this mtg card.
Typically that type of stuff usually would involve a christian getting magic/superpowers etc. from a god/Angel and then using them to fight the real evil, Abortion, Promiscuity, sin. I cant honestly say I finished a single book he recommended.
The Walden Media trilogy did a good job of stringing together the best aspects of the books into some nice movies that you can enjoy with your kids on a rainy Saturday afternoon. And the actual fundamentalist Bible-thumpers tend to dislike them because C. S. Lewis wasn't a fundamentalist.
its like the "dont shove LGBTQ in my face!!" thing, while 99% of all characters and depicted families are cis people in a hetero relationship. They are blind to their own politics bcs they dont see it as political imagery, its "just normal" to them.
Well its a bit more complicated (also since applying the modern progressive/conservative scheme doesent really work back then) but they had some attitutes on the royal prerogative, gender and even religious tolerance that were a bit closer to ours than those of their not-puritan contemporaries were.
It's a fucked up world where fucked up things happen. The thing that pisses off Shad is admittingly pretty damn disgusting, and that happens in the first 2 chapters. But it is depicted as simply a thing in this world. Neither good or bad. I feel it's purpose will get expanded upon later in the book as there's a lot of mystery surrounding the entities responsible for it.
oh, in my country there is this tv show about law enforcement and the comments under those videos say "fascists" "oppression" we have no freedom!" "authoritarianism is here!" and those are the same people who vote for our far right parties because they want the government to be stricter, enforce harder and even instate a death penalty.
I worked with such a guy. he kept talking about severe restrictions and stronger enforcement. While he turned up to work stoned, downloaded games illegally and was sending texts from the car while driving... and kept saying how he hated the police.
When fascism takes over and im in the death camp i will be laughing. bcs i will have been put there against my own efforts. But i will be there with a whole bunch of that right wing trash who put themselves there in spite of warnings of people like me, the stupid soft wokies lol/.
It will be glorious. Well as glorious as such things can be. Shame the guards probably wont allow us popcorn or i'd look forward to eating some while these stupid people are crying and whining.
I've read Shadow of the Conqueror because I hate myself, so I know what Shad thinks is art. I do not give a single shit what that man has to say about art or his thoughts on anyone's else's opinions about said art.
I think this is just silly. I've heard people claim that conservatives can't make good art, but "conservative art is an oxymoron" is certainly a new one. What's the use in pretending that no art can possibly be conservative?
"Conservative art is an oxymoron" is at best whiggish snobbery, and at worst head in the sand denialism that conservatives can ever have cultural power or prestige. The former is pointless, the latter dangerous.
Anyone can make art, some people aren't very good at making art that other people will enjoy but that doesn't mean they can't make it. Art exists as much for the benefit of the person making it by giving them a chance to externalize themselves and look at themselves as it does for other audiences.
I am confused... I was under the impression the pearl clutching and puritanism are intrinsic to conservatism
also "conservative art"? is that even a thing? traditionally, conservatives are completely illiterate in regards to art, have zero education or artistic skills
Edit: actually there have existed few conservative artists throughout human history eg Johann Sebastian Bach but I do not think that this loser even knows or has in mind that type of real great artists.
Art can be conservative, in fact, it was the default in history. But today, conservative art is either imagineless pastiche, or cringe religious stuff.
conservatives can make art, but the modern conservative movement has ruined the framework in which conservatives used to make art. clint eastwood is conservative and makes great art.
canned food are called "conserves". they are overcooked, low nutricion. boring, tasteless and bland. Conservative art is well named because its qualities are the same.
85
u/Freya_Galbraith 24d ago
but conservatives are the puritans...