Is it more dangerous to abandon shared values or to impose them?

[imontheloose]

A society divided by beliefs may avoid conflict by tolerating everything, but at what cost? Is the slow erosion of shared values more destructive than the danger of enforcing a common standard? Which breaks a civilisation faster: fragmentation, or authoritarianism?

I personally think imposing values rooted in your own blood is duty, not tyranny. The real danger is a society too weak to draw lines, too afraid to stand for itself. It's true that this is subjective. Yet nature still enforces it. History is written in lineage, sacrifice, and soul. No civilisation ever died from valuing its blood too much, rather forgetting how much it mattered.

Spoiler

@wishIwasSalludon @Jason Voorhees @DR. NICKGA @Gargantuan @Hernan

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

A society which has abandoned shared values has never been achieved

Whether it would be good or bad is speculative

as for the latter, technically all societies impose values

If you say that for example you think that sub 80 iq people should be sterelized

You will be faced with punishment, because inherent value of humans is a valued in the west

 

[imontheloose]

A society which has abandoned shared values has never been achieved

Whether it would be good or bad is speculative

as for the latter, technically all societies impose values

If you say that for example you think that sub 80 iq people should be sterelized

You will be faced with punishment, because inherent value of humans is a valued in the west

You're right. All societies impose values. But the question is whose values are being imposed, and what kind of future they produce. The West imposes liberal humanism (every life has equal worth, regardless of consequence, contribution, or coherence with civilisational health), not neutrality. When you punish someone for saying the unfit shouldn't reproduce, you're defending an ideology that treats all differences as sacred, even when it leads to collapse. Complete moral sedation.

Shared values aren't enough, they must be values that sustain strength, order, and continuity. Otherwise, they're just noise before the fall.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

may avoid conflict by tolerating everything, but at what cost?

It would be the opposite

There would be more conflict

Max Stirner in the unique and its property talks about how from the very moment we’re born we fight to establish ourselves in this world

Imagine how much more fierce this fight would be with everyone believing different and being different things

 

[imontheloose]

It would be the opposite

There would be more conflict

Max Stirner in the unique and its property talks about how from the very moment we’re born we fight to establish ourselves in this world

Imagine how much more fierce this fight would be with everyone believing different and being different things

Stirner only saw the ego, and that's why his world is one of endless struggle without meaning. Yes, individuals clash. But when a people share blood, history, and values, conflict doesn't vanish. The opposite, a society of atomised uniques is not peace. It's civil war in slow-mo.

Tolerating everything leads not to harmony, rather to rot. True order requires a unifying will, not a marketplace of ego, but a people of a shared soul.