Are there any good books on the 1960's?

[Anonymous No.21343234]

I want to learn about the massive cultural shift that happened during that decade.

[Anonymous No.21343241]

Frances Stoner Saunders

[Anonymous No.21343251]

>>21343234
Houellebecq's Atomized.

[Anonymous No.21343286]

Read Barry Miles !

[Anonymous No.21343304]

>>21343234
There was no massive cultural shift in the 60s this is a big meme. Women were not allowed to wear pants in school around 1971. The exception during the 60s was very cold or rainy days. The average woman got married at 22 in the 60s, and had at least 3 kids.

The 60s were a great time. Most people were married and far better of economically than they are. Simply compare purchasing power in the 60s with now. The largest cultural shift happened during the industrial revolution, followed maybe by world war one and world war two.

You can't blame integration and shit like that on the 60s, when the u.s desegrated the armed forces all the way back in 1948.

[Anonymous No.21343311]

>>21343234
highly recommend The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test

of course you should also read stuff by Kerouac/Ginsberg if you haven't, to get a feel for how the hippy culture evolved out of the 60s, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a really nice bookend to the whole thing ringing in the 70s. if you're interested in the whole era that is.

[Anonymous No.21343318]

>>21343311
evolved out of the 50s I mean. the beats and kerouac especially were like proto hippies. and then hunter s thompson, bukowski and the like kind of saw the tail end of it after they had sold out. but yeah as for the 60s itself really recommend that first book

[Anonymous No.21343329]

Vineland

[Anonymous No.21343399]

If you're interested in the 60's you need to start by reading a book about tyre 50's. If you were going to red tlotr trilogy you wouldn't start with the second book would you? So really you need to be asking if there is any good books on the 50s

[Anonymous No.21343424]

>>21343234
I thought Nixonland was pretty good. Though the author has a pretty obvious liberal bias it covers a lot of ground.

[Anonymous No.21343435]

>>21343304
probably the most brain dead contrarian take ive ever seen on this board. the sexual revolution was a fucking massive cultural movement and it began in the 60s

[Anonymous No.21343465]

>>21343435
>some random phrase made up by a bunch of retarded journalists is reality
You're the dead brain one pal.
Do you also think everyone was eating LSD and living in communes during the 60s? Lmao.
Do you think the average woman in the 20s a flapper, and the average man a mafioso?

[Anonymous No.21343486]

>>21343465
no? are you fucking retarded? a massive and influential cultural movement is still a massive and influential cultural movement regardless of whether or not literally every single human in existence participates in it.

i cant fucking believe there literally people as stupid as you. genuinely embarrassing. why would you even post this?

[Anonymous No.21343509]

>>21343486
The sexual revolution was not a 'massive and influential cultural' movement you fucking retard. I just explained how there could not be. Women married in the 60s at the YOUNGEST age in american history at 22.5, second to right after the second world war during the 50s. Most men worked a manufacturing job, most women in teaching, nursing or secretarial work. Nearly 2/3 of married women stayed at home.

>i cant fucking believe there literally people as stupid as you.
You are the dumb one whose idea of what the 60s were like comes from movies. Call your fucking gransparenrs right now and ask them what the era was like, moron.

[Anonymous No.21343513]

>>21343465
seems pretty well documented to me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution_in_1960s_United_States
id be interested in hearing your argument about how this movement didn't actually exist though

[Anonymous No.21343523]

>>21343509
>the fact that not literally 100% of people participated in it means it didnt exist!

holy fuck. this is literally the dumbest thing ive ever read here.

[Anonymous No.21343530]

>>21343509
>cultural changes didnt happen over night therefore there were no cultural changes

You actually thought this was a valid argument? Or are you trolling?

[Anonymous No.21343550]

>>21343311
Being an adult is realizing all those writers are pieces of shit and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test is a condemnation.
>>21343234
What the guy I just replied to suggested plus Slouching Towards Bethleham and The White Album by Joan Didion. Here are the eponymous essays:
>https://www.reachcambridge.com/wp-content/uploads/Friday-5th-August-Afternoon-Session-Oversharing-Joan-Didion-The-White-Album.pdf
>https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/06/didion/

[Anonymous No.21343559]

>>21343304
Teenage culture was practically invented in the late 50s and 60s. That itself is huge.

[Anonymous No.21343560]

>>21343523
>strawman
He said it wasn't as big as you think, retard.

[Anonymous No.21343579]

>>21343513
>muh wikipedia
Did you even read the fucking article? Most of it isn't even talking about the 60s.
There were 'sexual freedom' agitators in the fucking victorian era, yet no one goes around about 'muh massive social shift' due to people like Victoria Woodhull.

The reason I am 'arguing' this is the FACT that the nuclear family was still the OVERWHELMING majority during this time, and the clause that the 60s was when MUH DEGENERACY began is the most banal and least intelligent talking point made on the internet. The average person in the 60s was far better cultured, educated, wealthier, and well mannered than the average person today, and in fact most of history. There are far better periods in history to point at and call a cultural shift. A 'shift' woukd imply a completely different change in values, which there was not at decade. If you want to point out where the cultural change waa, look to the birth of Jesus, or the industrial revolution, or the great war. The 'cultural shift'of the 60s was infinitesimal, in fact it did not even exist. It's a myth.
>>21343523
OMG EVERYONE IN THE 1920S WAS A FLAPPER AND A MAFIOSO OMGGGGG
>>21343530
There was no cultural change.
>>21343559
Teenagers became a consumer demographic, but companies at the time (and still today) pander to the 13-23 crowd the same as they always did.

[Anonymous No.21343619]

>>21343579
>Did you even read the fucking article? Most of it isn't even talking about the 60s.
its literally almost all talking about the 60s and 70s and literally says "date: 1960s–1970s" and everything not talking about the 60s and 70s is talking about the build up to that watershed era of cultural change

>he reason I am 'arguing' this is the FACT that the nuclear family was still the OVERWHELMING majority during this time

completely pointless statement. the fact that the cultural movement didnt happen overnight is completely meaningless to the discussion

>that the 60s was when MUH DEGENERACY began

no one is saying degeneracy didnt exist before

>A 'shift' woukd imply a completely different change in values

so the sexual revolution is a perfect example

[Anonymous No.21343622]

>>21343560
not a strawman, look here >>21343579

>OMG EVERYONE IN THE 1920S WAS A FLAPPER AND A MAFIOSO OMGGGGG

[Anonymous No.21343628]

>>21343579
>There was no cultural change.

ok, lets see your proof that there was no cultural shift in the 1960s and the introduction of birth control. we're waiting

[Anonymous No.21343636]

>>21343622
>elaborate argument relating to social norms and overperception
>SO YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE 100% OF PEOPLE WEREN'T INVOLVED IT DIDN'T EXIST?!
That's literally a strawman and you're literally retrarded.

[Anonymous No.21343644]

>>21343636
hes literally arguing that the movement didnt exist because not 100% of people participated. that is quite literally what he argues word for word. sorry bud, but you are objectively incorrect. in fact his statement is the only strawman here, ironically enough

[Anonymous No.21343648]

>>21343579
refute the contents of the Wikipedia article then. go ahead

[Anonymous No.21343656]

>>21343579
The sexual revolution in the 1960s United States was a social and cultural movement that resulted in liberalized attitudes toward sex and morality. In the 1960s, social norms were changing as sex became more widely discussed in society. Erotic media, such as films, magazines, and books, became more popular and gained widespread attention across the country. These changes reveal that sex was entering the public domain, and sex rates, especially among young people, could no longer be ignored.

With the introduction of the pill and second-wave feminism, women gained more control over their bodies and sexuality during the 1960s. Women could engage in sex without the risk of pregnancy. At the same time, many women involved in the feminist movement questioned the traditional gender and sex roles ascribed to them. Women's liberation movements sought to free women from social and moral confines]

Developments in the gay rights movement occurred during the same period, such as public demonstrations and protests to challenge discrimination against sexuality. Some activists began celebrating homosexuality, but the movement did not really take off until the Stonewall riots of 1969


ok, now its your turn to refute everything i just pointed out

[Anonymous No.21343717]

>>21343619
>its literally almost all talking about the 60s and 70s and literally says "date: 1960s–1970s" and everything not talking about the 60s and 70s is talking about the build up to that watershed era of cultural change
It's mostly talking about what lead to it and the the values after 'sexual revolution'.
>completely pointless statement
>the reality of the life of that time is a completely pointless statement.
Yeah okay.
>the fact that the cultural movement didnt happen overnight is completely meaningless to the discussion
You just admitted in your last paragraph that the 'cultural movement' didn't even come from the 60s.
>no one is saying degeneracy didnt exist before
No but your are saying there was some 'massive cultural shift' when there wasn't.
>so the sexual revolution is a perfect example
No there wasn't, there was no change in values. Morality was largly the same. In fact morality has largly been the same since the time of the industrial revolution.
>>21343622
Excspt that is what you are saying in regards to the 60s.
>>21343644
I'm arguing there was no cultural shift. This is like saying there was a massive cultural shift in the 70s because of NAMBLA.
A 'movement' would imply some sort of poltical organization. Which if there was one you would have already listed one and it's members. Jacobins were a movement. Nazis were a movement. BLM is a movement. A bunch of fucking hippies fucking eachother in the woods is not a 'movement'.
>>21343648
There is nothing to refute, no claim is made in the wikipedia article. It only discusses events and attitudes.
>>21343656
>These changes reveal that sex was entering the public domain, and sex rates, especially among young people, could no longer be ignored.
Before 1910 in america you can visit a brothel and fuck anyone you want by paying for it. Pornography was only made illegal in the 1930s. Erotic media was most definitely available in the u.s in the 19th century. So I have no idea about what 'shift' you are talking about. If you want to talk about shift in sexual moores you want to look at feminism, which as I said was directly a product of the industrial revolution.
>Women could engage in sex without the risk of pregnancy. At the same time, many women involved in the feminist movement questioned the traditional gender and sex roles ascribed to them. Women's liberation movements sought to free women from social and moral confines]
All of this already began in the last century. Not in the 1960s.
>Developments in the gay rights movement occurred during the same period, such as public demonstrations and protests to challenge discrimination against sexuality. Some activists began celebrating homosexuality, but the movement did not really take off until the Stonewall riots of 1969
Homosexuality was already tolerated in the aristocracy during tbe 18th century.

So far you have not described any change of values that did not already exist before.

[Anonymous No.21343747]

>>21343644
>hes literally arguing that the movement didnt exist because not 100% of people participated.
No, that's a strawman. You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.21343756]

>>21343550
>Being an adult is realizing all those writers are pieces of shit and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test is a condemnation.
i'm the guy who recced that, I don't necessarily disagree. Kerouac and ilk are not good role models. But they are very important for understanding the attitude of the time.

I see 50s On the Road -> 60s Kool-Aid Test -> 70s Fear & Loathing as a kind of trilogy, as another guy in this thread was saying

[Anonymous No.21343776]

>>21343717
The sixties are almost completely analogous to the twenties in terms of culture. Especially in music and dress, and certainly in social moores. In most of the western world the two decades were a time of general prosperity and YOUTH.

If these two decades are so similar, why is that the 60s are known for being a 'cultural revolution'? And the twenties glossed over?

[Anonymous No.21343852]

>>21343776
>why is that the 60s are known for being a 'cultural revolution'? And the twenties glossed over?
im bot reading this conversation, but how is this true at all? I think in most circles the 20s are considered a pretty major period of upheaval. the roaring 20s and all. That era gets plenty if attention for effectively laying the ground work for ww2

[Anonymous No.21343871]

>>21343852
Were the 1920s really a shift in values? I don't know anyone who argues that they were.

[Anonymous No.21344033]

>>21343717
>Excspt that is what you are saying in regards to the 60s.
so you were just projecting all along and you're the one straw manning. got it

[Anonymous No.21344034]

>>21344033
Look at the length of my replies and look ar yours. You have nothing to offer. Nothing to say.

[Anonymous No.21344068]

>>21343717
>Yeah okay.
yes the statement is pointless, because there nwan never a claim that everyone participated, just that the era saw a wave of normalization

>You just admitted in your last paragraph that the 'cultural movement' didn't even come from the 60s.

no i didnt, i said that the ideas that went into revolution built up over time, and that it was in the 60s-70s when the sexual revolution happened and all of these ideas became widely normalized as part of one partly centralized cultural movement

>I'm arguing there was no cultural shift
and you are objectively incorrect and have no argument

>This is like saying there was a massive cultural shift in the 70s because of NAMBLA

this is a blatant false equivalency, NAMBLA was barely culturally relevant

>A bunch of fucking hippies fucking eachother in the woods is not a 'movement'.

why did you intentionally leave out the widespread political activism and protests which had very real legal and political consequences? is it because you know you are wrong so you had to lie and intentionally leave out information?
i cant believe you were making valid points here lol, a littoral child could point out all the holes in these "arguments"

>here is nothing to refute, no claim is made in the wikipedia article. It only discusses events and attitudes

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA man, every time i think ive heard the dumbest thing imaginable from you, you come out and blow away my expectations

can you explain how "events and attitudes" are somehow irrelevant to social movements and cultural shifts?


debating with you feels cruel, i feel like im bullying a worm or some insect who couldn't possibly fight back

[Anonymous No.21344071]

>>21344034
...My reply was quite literally longer than what you said

[Anonymous No.21344099]

>>21343717
>There is nothing to refute, no claim is made in the wikipedia article

The sexual revolution, also known as the sexual liberation, was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the United States and the developed world from the 1960s to the 1970s.[1] Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage).[2] The normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed.[3][4]

theres a claim, literally the first paragraph. now prove it wrong. prove that the events and cvanges of attitudes in that quote are not real things that happened in that era

prove that there was no social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the United States and the developed world from the 1960s to the 1970s

prove that this movement didnt included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage).

prove that there was no normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, alternative forms of sexuality, and abortion


i'm waiting. it should be easy for you since you seem so certain of yourself

[Anonymous No.21344126]

>>21344068
No you are just autistic. *muh protests* are not indicative of consensus you moron. In fact I can guarantee you there is an inverse correlation between public approval on a matter and the 'protests' that surround it. Protests don't mean anything. 'Protestors' are minorities and are not reflective of public opinion. I have observed the development of western values and there is nothing in the 60s which is indicative of any dramatic shift. The cultural values from the early 20th century weare already quite cemented and there is no dramatic 'shift' in attitudes like you retards are trying to get people to believe.

[Anonymous No.21344135]

>>21344099
Some quacks threw a bunch of retard rallies and you are going to convince me this public consensus. Give me a break. You don't push a button that says 'okay lets change how people behave'. People were already behaving in this way. There was no 'shift'.

[Anonymous No.21344146]

>>21344099
>prove that there was no social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the United States and the developed world from the 1960s to the 1970s
Except such social movements have always existed. I have cited them previously. These social movements did not represent anthing new and unique. People in the 60s had rather conservative attitudes especially compared today and that much should be obvious looking at the numbers. Women were married after they finished their schooling. This is the general pattern of that time and the 60s was in fact quite normal.

[Anonymous No.21344171]

[Anonymous No.21344173]

>>21344071
And it has said nothing.

[Anonymous No.21344213]

>>21343234
Frances Stoner Saunders

[Anonymous No.21344214]

>>21344126

>No you are just autistic.

projection much? you are literally going full on revisionist history over the single most heavily documented and culturally relevant social movements in human history and you cant even provide an argument for why. you are seriously off-the charts autistic


>are not indicative of consensus
there you go again " it wasn't real because not literally 100% of people participated"

why do you keep repeating that?

>Protestors' are minorities and are not reflective of public opinion

your repeating "it wasn't real because not literally 100% of people participated"" AGAIN


>there is nothing in the 60s which is indicative of any dramatic shift

prove it .

>and you are going to convince me this public consensus

"it wasn't real because not literally 100% of people participated" AGAIN

>>21344146
so you have no proof then

>>21344173
i pointed out that you were clearly straw manning because you manufactured an argument i never made then proceeded to attack me for something i never claimed. this completely devastated you so all you could say is "your post isnt that long!" for some reason? im not sure what tuou thought you were accomplishing there

[Anonymous No.21344220]

>>21343311
Second this, Wolfe is a good resource for that time, generally. (His non fiction.) Not lit, but I also recommend Ken Burns’ Vietnam War documentary, it’ll give you a lot of the context necessary to understand the domestic political and social strife

[Anonymous No.21344229]

>>21344214
>proofs!!! Prooffsss!!!!! Where are my proofs!!!!
LOOK AT THE DATA YOU FUCKING MORON. THERE IS NO DRAMATIC SHIFT IN THE AVERAGE. There is no drastic shift in attitude! EVERYTHING WAS THE SAME. IN FACT MORE PROSPEROUS THAN AVERAGE.

[Anonymous No.21344240]

>>21344229
yes, you are making revisionist history claims about the single most well documented social movement in human history which defined modern pop culture norms and had dramatic political repercussions. i want proof if you are going to make these utterly outrageous claims. proofs!!! Prooffsss!!!!! Where are my proofs!!!!

[Anonymous No.21344241]

>>21344214
>data isn't real becuz muh woodstock!! muh agitators!!! muh moviessss!!!

Dude call your fucking grandparents and ask them how it was.

[Anonymous No.21344243]

>>21344241
not an argument. lets see the proof. you are literally claiming its there, so share it.

[Anonymous No.21344246]

>>21344240
You have no proofs either! Your only 'proofs' is muh movies, muh wikipedia articles of the cultural icons!!!

Yet actual attitudes were quite average with other periods in history. There is no 'dramatic change!'
>>21344243
My own observation of the data. I do not need 'proof'. I look at the data and the data does not show any variance than average. The 60s were not really such a massive cultural shift.

[Anonymous No.21344249]

Has anyone here read pic related? Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.21344250]

>>21344246
>our only 'proofs' is muh movies, muh wikipedia articles of the cultural icons!!!

yes my only proof is documented history and real tangible cultural changes

>My own observation of the data. I do not need 'proof'

youre making a fucking insane, world-shattering claim that completely and utterly rewrites modern history as we know it . POST PROOF

[Anonymous No.21344256]

>>21344243
>>21344246
Even if we use>>21344250
>yes my only proof is documented history and real tangible cultural changes
You have not shown it!

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 1960s that didn't already happen in that century? WHAT was so different?

>youre making a fucking insane, world-shattering claim that completely and utterly rewrites modern history as we know it .
CALL YOUR FUCKING GRANDPARENTS. ASK THEN IF THERE WAS SOME SHIFT IN ATTITUDE AT THAT TIME. I GUARANTEE AND THEY WILL SAY THAT EVERYTHING WAS QUITE NORMAL.

[Anonymous No.21344267]

>>21344256
why are you so afraid to back up your claim? is it because you know its wrong and you have nothing to say?


for what its worth, you deserve a medal or something for this. im pretty sure you are legitimately the first person in history to make this claim that the sexual revolution didn't happen. its a completely original new schizo conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous No.21344270]

>>21344246
also, i already asked you to refute the information in the wikipedia articles and you refused.

if youre going to make this claim, please explain how the information in the articles are wrong and how you know this

[Anonymous No.21344279]

>>21344267
You are the fucking moron that thinks there was a sudden change of morals in the 60s. There wasn't. You are the one who needs to bring the evidence. You cite some movements, yet there was alwaya such movements. You have not shown how population behavior has changed from the average during this time.

[Anonymous No.21344280]

>>21344270
THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES CLAIM ABOUT MOVEMENTS. SUCH MOVEMENT'S HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED.

[Anonymous No.21344285]

>>21344279
>You are the fucking moron that thinks there was a sudden change of morals in the 60s
for the 5th time, this is a strawman and i never claimed that change happened over night or "suddenly"

>You are the one who needs to bring the evidence.

no im not, the burden of proof is on you because you are claiming that the most well documented social movement in human history never happened. you have to back up that claim. You were the first person in this thread to make the claim, you have the burden of proof.

you made the schizo claim, you provide the proof. even schizo flat earthers have jpgs and infographs. where are yours? where is your data? where is your explicit proof of your claim that the sexual revolution didn't happen? id love to see what kind of schizo infographs you could come up with

[Anonymous No.21344287]

>>21344280

The sexual revolution, also known as the sexual liberation, was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the United States and the developed world from the 1960s to the 1970s.[1] Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage).[2] The normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed.[3][4]

now prove it wrong. prove that the events and changes of attitudes in that quote are not real things that happened in that era

prove that there was no social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the United States and the developed world from the 1960s to the 1970s

prove that this movement didnt included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage).

prove that there was no normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, alternative forms of sexuality, and abortion

[Anonymous No.21344297]

>>21344285
>for the 5th time, this is a strawman and i never claimed that change happened over night or "suddenly"
So then there was no change in the current. There was no cultural shift. The current was always headed in this direction and the 60s do not stand out in terms of moral attitudes. You are the one making schizo claims, not me.

You are arguing two completely different things. There was a 'sexual revolution' but you are also claiming it was 'gradual'. It's either one or the other. Where is this revolution? How does it show?

The sexual revolution didn't happen because the age of marriage during the 60s was one of the lowest and the rates of stay at home mothers is also one of the highest.

[Anonymous No.21344303]

>>21344287
>prove that there was no normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, alternative forms of sexuality, and abortion
FOR THE ONE THOUSDANDTH TIME YOU FUCKING MORON SUCH MOVEMENTS HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED. JUST BECAUSE THEY FUCKIJG EXIST AS A MOVEMENT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. THE EXISTENCE OF A MOVEMENT DOES NOT MAKE IT A REPRESENTATION OF VALUES.

[Anonymous No.21344306]

>>21344297
>So then there was no change in the current. There was no cultural shift.

once again, this isn't what i claimed at all.

the fact that you refuse to address my point and keep continuously resorting to strawmans and you refuse provide proof of your claim is a concession. you are admitting that you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.21344310]

>>21344303
prove that there was no normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, alternative forms of sexuality, and abortion in the 1960s-1970s

[Anonymous No.21344316]

>>21344303
>JUST BECAUSE THEY FUCKIJG EXIST AS A MOVEMENT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING

so the existence of the sexual revolution as a movement does not mean there was a sexual revolution movement? you're coming completely unhinged. not surprising considering how utterly insane your claims are

[Anonymous No.21344318]

>>21344306
Your point is bunk! There is no sudden change in attitude you fucking idiot and you haven't shown me how. Citing a bunch of movements doesn't mean shit. Movements like those have always existed.
>>21344310
I SAID SUCH MOVEMENTS HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED.

YET MOST PEOPLE MARRIED YOUNG AND MOST MOTHERS STAYED AT HOME.

[Anonymous No.21344324]

>>21344318
>There is no sudden change
for the SIXTH time, this is a strawman claim that I never made

>I SAID SUCH MOVEMENTS HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED

and the 60s-70s are unique in that these ideals coalesced into a movement that hit the mainstream in a big way and had a huge pop-cultural influence that still defines our social norms today

>YET MOST PEOPLE MARRIED YOUNG AND MOST MOTHERS STAYED AT HOME.

of course they did, those were the social norms that the sexual revolution was moving away from

you still havnt provided proof or even a valid theoretical argument that the sexual revolution did not happen

you are utterly deranged

[Anonymous No.21344341]

>>21344324
>of course they did, those were the social norms
You just admitted the 'sexual revolution' is not representative of the general public.

[Anonymous No.21344348]

>>21344324
Readread this post, then reread my original post: >>21343304

[Anonymous No.21344352]

>>21344341
no, I admitted that the 'sexual revolution' was not representative of 100% the general public over night, the literal second it began. that would be a nonsensical claim, that i never made. ANOTHER strawman on your part.

[Anonymous No.21344354]

>>21344348
your post is an irrelevant non-argument. all it says is that the social norms the sexual revolution sought to opposed existed. that is completely meaningless

[Anonymous No.21344359]

>>21344352
The 'sexual revolution' was not a movement at all. The phrase is a post hoc characterisation of the attitudes present at the time. The OP asked how there was such a massive cultural shift. My post said there wasn't. That is all.

[Anonymous No.21344360]

>>21344354
So there was no massive cultural shift, as claimed in the OP as was my post >>21343304
Was responding to.

[Anonymous No.21344361]

>>21344359
>The 'sexual revolution' was not a movement at all.
prove it then

>he phrase is a post hoc characterisation of the attitudes present at the time.

and "attitudes" experienced a dramatic pop-cultural shift throughout the 60s and 70s

>My post said there wasn't.
and you are objectively incorrect and cant even BEGIN to back up your claim

[Anonymous No.21344367]

>>21344360
>So there was no massive cultural shift
thats not what i said at all, how could you possibly extrapolate that from my post? this post is completely nonsensical

[Anonymous No.21344377]

>>21344361
>prove it then
Prove that it was! Again this is a post hoc made up jargon to describe the period.
>and "attitudes" experienced a dramatic pop-cultural shift throughout the 60s
No, it hasn't.
>>21344367
>thats not what i said at all
THAT IS WHAT I SAID. THE CLAIM IS THAT THERE WAS A SHIFT IN ATTITUDE. YOU ADMITTED THAT THERE WASN'T ONE. YOU ADMITTED THAT PEOPLE FOLLOWED THE NORMS OF THE TIME.

[Anonymous No.21344427]

>>21344377

>THE CLAIM IS THAT THERE WAS A SHIFT IN ATTITUDE.
there was

>YOU ADMITTED THAT THERE WASN'T ONE.
no i didnt, i said that old social norms existed. are you seriously so fucking DENSE that you need me to explain the very concept of change to you? ok, sure, i guess im talking to a literal 5 year old or literal retard and i have to dumb it down and make things clear and simple as possible for your child-like mind to comprehend!!

change in this context means one thing transitions to another. A turns into B. do you understand this concept? here are some additional resources just in case its to advanced for you and you need more https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change

social norm group (A) is the dominant "class" of social norms, but whats this? the 1960s happen and now various philosophical ideals are coming together in the form of social norm group (B), and (B) becomes a hot new pop culture trend!

as history records, in the most well documented social movement in human history, we see various philosophical ideals coming together in the form of (B), which becomes increasingly popular throughout the 1960s and 70s. it begins influencing all forms of pop culture and social interactions. music, film, literature, all media, as well as human social interactions and relationships. by the end of the 70s, (B) is completely normalized.

this period of change from the 1960s to the 1970s is generally referred to as "the sexual revolution" because it is within this era that these new ideals came together into a cohesive pop-cultural force and became normalized. the various ideas that went into the sexual revolution had existed for, in most cases, all of human history and beyond i would think, but it is during this specific time period where these ideas come together into a movement that actually catches on and is actually successful at making dramatic changes

I hope your retarded monkey brain understands this because i literally cannot make it any more clearer and simpler than this.

[Anonymous No.21344437]

>>21344427
>no i didnt, i said that old social norms existed
SO THERE WAS NO 'MASSIVE ECULTURAL SHIFT' AS CLAIMED PER THE OP.

[Anonymous No.21344457]

>>21344437
..are you joking right now? do you literally not comprehend the concept of change? oh boy. i explained it the best i could, my dude, i dont know what to tell you. thing A exists, then it changes to thing B

the fact that thing A existed at a given point in time does not mean that it exists infinitely throughout all time.
A existed, then things changed.


what about this do you not comprehend?

i actually CANNOT believe i am having this conversation. literally have to explain to you about the concept of change and linear tame

what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.21344466]

>>21344457
You are the moron.
OP: massive cultural shift
Me: There was no massive shift
You: UMMMMMMM IT WAS SLOWWWWWWWW AND CHANGINGGGGG OVER TIMEEEE

[Anonymous No.21344493]

>>21344466
you are literally the single dumbest person ive ever interacted with. that is not hyberbole in the slight. i have NEVER met anyone as stupid as you are. ever. i will remember this conversation for the rest of my life. i have literally never experienced any human being as stupid as you in decades of my life

>OP: massive cultural shift
correct
>Me: There was no massive shift
wrong
>You: UMMMMMMM IT WAS SLOWWWWWWWW AND CHANGINGGGGG OVER TIMEEEE
not what i said. why do you refuse to make an argument then fall back on strawmaning me OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN?
i am seriously at a loss for words from for actually dense you are.

[Anonymous No.21344512]

>>21344493
Where is this 'massive cultural shift'? It isn't there. It simply is not there.

[Anonymous No.21344525]

>>21344457
>i actually CANNOT believe i am having this conversation. literally have to explain to you about the concept of change and linear tame
If you've ever tried to prove the existence of God to normies, you notice this happens all the time.

[Anonymous No.21344531]

>>21344525
You are another autist.

[Anonymous No.21344537]

>>21344512
the massive cultural shift is during the 60s and 70s. in just two decades various ideals that were completely contrary to previous social norms, hell, contrary to the normalized values held in the west for 2000 years, were unified into a pop-culture force and almost completely normalized. that is HUGE. in two decades we went from traditional values that you pointed out, like stay at home moms and marriage in young adulthood, to casual sex and hookup culture, and normalized pornography, and the normalization of homosexuality. we saw the advent of birth control. the sexual revolution was FUCKING HUGE my dude, it literally defines western civilization from the 60s onward.

i just.. i cannot comprehend what you arent comprehending about this. this is the dumbest fucking conversation ive ever had,. youre literally MAKING MY ARGUMENT FOR ME by pointing out how trad people were at the beginning of the movement, in contrast to how things were by the 80s and onwards.

[Anonymous No.21344552]

>>21344537
>in just two decades various ideals that were completely contrary to previous social norms, hell, contrary to the normalized values held in the west for 2000 years
That literally didn't happen.
>in two decades we went from traditional values
No we didn't
>casual sex and hookup culture,
and normalized pornography
Already existed WELL before the 1960s
>normalization of homosexuality.
Again, existed WELL before the 60s.
>the sexual revolution was FUCKING HUGE my dude, it literally defines western civilization from the 60s onward
Lol dude are you underage and have no understanding of history.

[Anonymous No.21344558]

>>21344537
>like stay at home moms and marriage in young adulthood
Yes, just as you admit that was the norm in the 60s. So again, no massive cultural shift at that time.

[Anonymous No.21344566]

>>21344552
>That literally didn't happen.
it literally did
>No we didn't
yes it did, you literally confirmed it with your own post here >>21344297
>the age of marriage during the 60s was one of the lowest and the rates of stay at home mothers is also one of the highest.

those are YOUR OWN WORDS. we went from THAT to what we have NOW BETWEEN NOW and THEN.

once again, you literally pointed out the sexual revolution yourself

>Already existed WELL before the 1960s

"EXISTED" IS NOT THAT SAME AS TOTAL NORMALIZATION. "EXISTED" IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING THE DOMINANT SOCIAL NORMS.
>lol dude are you underage and have no understanding of history.

project much? holy shit

[Anonymous No.21344570]

>>21344566
>those are YOUR OWN WORDS. we went from THAT to what we have NOW BETWEEN NOW and THEN.
WHAT WE HAVE NOW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEN MORON.
>once again, you literally pointed out the sexual revolution yourself
IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE 60s clearly.
>EXISTED" IS NOT THAT SAME AS TOTAL NORMALIZATION. "EXISTED" IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING THE DOMINANT SOCIAL NORMS.
Exactly motherfucker. THE DOMINANT SOCIAL FORMS PREVAILED IN THE 60s. MOST THINGS WERE THE SAME. NO SHIFT. YOU JUST ADMITTED IT.

You are very clearly a woman. And you are also retarded.

[Anonymous No.21344571]

>>21344558
>he still doesnt understand change and linear time

you are completely fucking hopeless. YOU ARE PROVING MY POINT.

YES, IT WAS THE NORM IN THE 60s. THEN IT CONTRARY VALUES WERE NORMALIZED. ONE DAY LEAD INTO ANOTHER AND THINGS CHANGED. LINEAR TIME. CHANGE. SOCIAL TRENDS. POP CULTURE. HOW DO I GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL?

how do you even fucking get dressed in the morning, let alone use a fucking computer?

[Anonymous No.21344575]

>>21344571
>YES, IT WAS THE NORM IN THE 60s. THEN IT CONTRARY VALUES WERE NORMALIZED.
EXCEPT THE SO CALLED CONTRARY VALUES WEREN'T NORMALIZED.
>ONE DAY LEAD INTO ANOTHER AND THINGS CHANGED. LINEAR TIME.
NOT IN THE 60s YOU MORON.

You admitted the attitudes are the same. You ADMIT to it.

[Anonymous No.21344582]

>>21344570
>WHAT WE HAVE NOW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEN MORON
ye sit does, it has EVERYTHING to do with it. where do you think "now came from? do you think we just waved a magic fucking wand? what even is this post?

>IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE 60s
yes it did.

>Exactly motherfucker. THE DOMINANT SOCIAL FORMS PREVAILED IN THE 60s. MOST THINGS WERE THE SAME. NO SHIFT. YOU JUST ADMITTED IT.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHggFAGGHGHRGTNSFHNSFHNGHSNM


DOMINANT SOCIAL NORMS EXISTED IN 60s. ALSO IN THE 60s THINGS BEGAN TO CHANGE. BEGAN. ONE DAY TO THE NEXT, TO THE DAY AFTER THAT. 1 to 2 to 3. THE FACT THAT THE OLD VALUES EXISTED AT POINT A IN TIME DOES NOT MEAN THEY NEVER CHANGED.

LINEAR FUCKING TIME
CHANGE

OH MY FUCKING GOD THIS IS SO FUCKING FUNNY

I WILL REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION FOR THE REST OF MY GODDAMN LIFE KEK

[Anonymous No.21344585]

>>21344575
>NOT IN THE 60s YOU MORON.
YES IN THE 60S. THE FACT THAT OLD NORMS DOMINATED IN THE 60s IS LITERALLY PROOF THAT IT WAS FROM THAT POINT ONWARDS WHEN THE REAL CHANGE BEGAN

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA OH MY GOD YOU ARE LIUTERALLY MAKING MY ARGUMENT FOR ME OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.21344586]

CAPS LOCK, BABY, UH-HUH UH-HUH
I KNOW HOW TO PRESS THAT KEY (BABY)
CAPS LOCK, BABY, UH-HUH UH-HUH
I DO IT FOR YOU AND FOR ME (OH YEAH)

[Anonymous No.21344588]

>>21344582
>DOMINANT SOCIAL NORMS EXISTED IN 60s. ALSO IN THE 60s THINGS BEGAN TO CHANGE. BEGAN. ONE DAY TO THE NEXT, TO THE DAY AFTER THAT. 1 to 2 to 3. THE FACT THAT THE OLD VALUES EXISTED AT POINT A IN TIME DOES NOT MEAN THEY NEVER CHANGED.
AND IN THIS PERIOD OF CHANGE THERE WAS NO MASSIVE CULTURAL SHIFT AS CLAIMED IN THE OP.

You didn't deny you are a woman. You are a woman. Aren't you?

[Anonymous No.21344589]

>>21344585
>THE FACT THAT OLD NORMS DOMINATED IN THE LITERALLY PROOF THAT IT WAS FROM THAT POINT ONWARDS WHEN THE REAL CHANGE BEGAN

Again, so there was no 'cultural shift'. You admit it, yet again.

[Anonymous No.21344595]

>>21344588
>AND IN THIS PERIOD OF CHANGE THERE WAS NO MASSIVE CULTURAL SHIFT AS CLAIMED IN THE OP.

YOU LITERALLY JUST POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISNT THE CASE. YOU JUST DID IT. IN THE 1960S PEOPLE WERE EPIC TRAD STYLE (YOUR WORDS) NOW THEY ARE VERY MUCH NOT. BY 1969 WE LITERALLY HAD FAGS RIOTING IN THE STREETS. IT ONLY TOOK A FEW DECADES FOR THIS CHANGE. THINGS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY BETWEEN POINT A AND PINT B IN TIMEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

CHANGE.
LINEAR TIME .

[Anonymous No.21344598]

>>21344589
>>21344595

[Anonymous No.21344604]

>>21344595
>BY 1969 WE LITERALLY HAD FAGS RIOTING IN THE STREETS
THERE WERE ALWAYS FAGS RIOTING ON THE CITY STREETS RETARD. The 60s didn't have any more faggots causing an uproar than what was done normally. THEY WERE DOING IT A LOT IN THE 50s, and ESPECIALLY in the twenties.
The attitudes the decade began with in the 60s, were the same that they ended with. Between 1960-1970 there was no massive cultural shift. Things were generally the same.

[Anonymous No.21344619]

>>21344604
>THERE WERE ALWAYS FAGS RIOTING ON THE CITY STREETS RETARD

SHOW ME WHERE IN RECENT HISTORY WHERE THEY SUCCESSFULLY NORMALIZED HOMOSEXUALITY IN WESTERN CHRISTIAN SOCIETY. "EXISTED" IS NOT THAT SAME AS TOTAL NORMALIZATION. "EXISTED" IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING THE DOMINANT SOCIAL NORMS.

WEVE BEEN OVER THIS ALREADY

>The 60s didn't have any more faggots causing an uproar than what was done normally. THEY WERE DOING IT A LOT IN THE 50s, and ESPECIALLY in the twenties.

BUT IN THE 60S THEY BECAME PART OF A LARGER COMPREHENSIVE SOCIAL MOVEMENT WHICH ACTUALLY CHANGED SOCIAL NORMS COMPLETELY

>Between 1960-1970 there was no massive cultural shift. Things were generally the same.

OBJECTIVELY INCORRECT


YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.21344624]

>>21343304
The cultural headwinds—the preoccupations of the elite and wannabe elite—most definitely shifted greatly during that time. What you're noting is only that we, wrongly, look at the entire mass of the ship to determine its course rather than merely looking at the direction of the rudder.

[Anonymous No.21344626]

>>21344619
>BUT IN THE 60S THEY BECAME PART OF A LARGER COMPREHENSIVE SOCIAL MOVEMENT WHICH ACTUALLY CHANGED SOCIAL NORMS COMPLETELY
NOT IN THE 1960s. You admitted MUTLIPLE TIMES THERE was no shift in attitude.
>OBJECTIVELY INCORRECT
You said >>21344585
>THE OLD NORMS DOMINATED SOCIETY
THESE ARE YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS

[Anonymous No.21344635]

>>21344624
>The cultural headwinds—the preoccupations of the elite and wannabe elite—most definitely shifted greatly during that time
No it didn't. Eddie Bernays was already doing what he did in the twenties. Capitalists were always capitalists.

[Anonymous No.21344650]

>>21344626
THE OLD NORMS DOMINATED SOCIETY
THEN THEY CHANGED

HERE IS A VISUAL AID. THE GIF SHOWS A GREEN BAR GROW

IN THE BEGINNING OF THE GIF THE GREEN IS SMALL, AND THE NON-GREEN PORTION OF THE BAR IS DOMINANT

THE NON-GREEN IS DOMINANT, BUT THE TREND HAS BEGUN. THE CHANGE HAS BEGUN. THE GREEN IS GROWING WHILE THE NON GREEN IS DOMINANT.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE GIF THE GREEN IS SMALL. AT THE END OF THE GIF THE GREEN IS BIG. THE FACT THAT THE GREEN IS SMALL IN THE BEGINNING DOES NOT MEAN THE GREEN STAYS SMALL

THE GIF IS THE 1960S AND 1970S

LINEAR TIME

CHANGE

IN THE BEGINNING OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION OLD VALUES STILL DOMINATED. BY THE END, CONTRARY VALUES WERE NORMALIZED. NEW IDEAS EXISTED BUT OLD IDEAS STILL DOMINATED. INT HE 1960S A BIG POP CULTURE TREND EMERGES. THIS TREND ACTUALLY CHANGES THINGS. THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION HAPPENS.

[Anonymous No.21344651]

By the light of burning dreams by David Talbot.

Also several Adam Curtis documentaries detail how the radical individualism of the 60's counter-culture developed into Regan style neo liberalism in the 80's.
Century of the self, all watched over by machines.

[Anonymous No.21344657]

>>21344650
>THE OLD NORMS DOMINATED SOCIETY
>THEN THEY CHANGED
THEY STILL DOMINATED IN THE LATE SIXTIES AND EARLY 70s MORON.

[Anonymous No.21344666]

>>21344657
>HEY STILL DOMINATED IN THE LATE SIXTIES AND EARLY 70s MORON.

YES NO SHIT, BUT THE TREND HAD ALREADY BEGUN

LINEAR. FUCKING. TIME

HOW DO YOU STILL NOT GET THIS AFTER I EVEN GOT THE VISUAL AID

OLD VALUES STILL DOMINATED IN THE LATE 60S AND EARLY 70S, AND THE GREEN BAR ISNT FULL UNTIL THE END OF THE GIF

PART WAY THROUGH THE GIF, THE GREEN BAR IS ONLY PARTLY GROWN

PART WAY THOUGH THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION, THE NORMALIZATION IS ONLY PARTLY COMPLETE

[Anonymous No.21344669]

>>21344666
You are autistic. I can tell by the pepes. Again you already admit norms prevailed in the 60s. Thus there was no drastic shift, like the OP said their was.

[Anonymous No.21344670]

>>21344669
>their was
There was.

[Anonymous No.21344680]

>>21344669
YOU LITERALLY CANNOT COMPREHEND CHANGE AND LINEAR TIME

I DIDNT "ADMIT" THAT OLD NORMS PREVAILED IN THE 60S, THATS THE ENTIRE POINT. ITS YOU WHO IS "ADMITTING" IT

YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT IN THE 60S OLD NORMS WERE DOMINANT, THAT FACT ALONE IS PROOF OF DRAMATIC CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. FROM OLD NORMS TO NEW NORMS INM A FEW DECADES. ITS LITERALLY THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT PROOF THAT YOU ARE WRONG IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD AND YOU STILL DONT GET IT. I EVEN GOT A FUCKING VISUAL AID FOR YOU AND YOU STILL DONT GET IT

[Anonymous No.21344685]

>he's really quite smart, I don't know why he turned out like this
>today he spent hours discussing literature with his internet friend but somehow he just can't land a job, I don't know what we did wrong

[Anonymous No.21344686]

>>21344680
>YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT IN THE 60S OLD NORMS WERE DOMINANT
That's what my post said, that is what I have always been saying.

[Anonymous No.21344689]

>>21344685
I am going to kill myself

[Anonymous No.21344693]

> He had so much potential. He was always so bright.

[Anonymous No.21344698]

>>21344686
you literally claimed the sexual revolution never happened and that the 60s did not see the emergence of such massive social movements. are you fucking high on crack? fuck you for tempting me into staying up late with your fucking lunatic schizo theories

[Anonymous No.21344706]

>>21344698
>you literally claimed the sexual revolution never happened
If there was a sexual revolution in the 60s then the old forms wouldn't have prevailed. Like you ADMITTED they did.

[Anonymous No.21344733]

>>21344706

ok, this is my last post. we will go over all of this one more time

>if there was a sexual revolution in the 60s then the old forms wouldn't have prevailed

the sexual revolution happened in the 60s, AND the old forms were dominant. these conditions ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. how is that you ask? this is possible because the old forms are, well, the old forms. they were the default state. the beginning state. when the sexual revolution began, the old forms were still dominant because thats how change and linear time works. in order for change to occur, thing A turns into thing B. A is the existing condition. A LOGICALLY HAS TO EXIST. then time happens, and A turns into B.

now look at this gif >>21344650

you click on the gif, and the sexual revolution begins. for the first fraction of a second, the green bar is small and the non green portion is big. the non green is dominant, and the non green HAS to exist, or else the entire gif makes no sense at all. the contrast between green and non green is the purpose. then time happens and the green gets bigger change happens.


hope that helps because im not explaining this fucking asinine shit again

[Anonymous No.21344741]

>>21344733
>the sexual revolution happened in the 60s, AND the old forms were dominant. these conditions ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Yes they are. For a revolution to have occurred there would have to be a change in values, which you admitted there was not.

[Anonymous No.21344743]

>>21344733
Ano, why waste your time on someone that's baiting or completely retarded?

[Anonymous No.21344746]

>>21344743
You are the retard. You have autism. I know for a fact that you do have it. Both you and that other fucking moron that doesn't understand that there was no shift in public morality during the decade that was the 60s. ANONS repeatedly admitted the old norms prevailed.

[Anonymous No.21344751]

>>21344741
>which you admitted there was not
no i did not, i admitted that the change began while the old values were still dominant then unfolded rapidly over a period of time, which we callthe sexual revolution, because thats how literal reality works. its called linear time.

you can read all about how that change began to unfold in the 1960s and what led to it here


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution_in_1960s_United_States

goodnight

[Anonymous No.21344756]

>>21344751
>no i did not,
Yes you did.
>>21344666
>OLD VALUES STILL DOMINATED IN THE LATE 60S AND EARLY 70S

[Anonymous No.21344767]

>>21344756
see the visual aid and its explanation here >>21344650

[Anonymous No.21344771]

>>21344767
>there was a revolution in society where the old norms prevailed

[Anonymous No.21344773]

>>21344771
see the visual aid and its explanation here >>21344650

[Anonymous No.21344776]

>>21344773
Retard.

[Anonymous No.21344780]

>>21344776
lineartimemeans moving from the past into the future in a straight line,

[Anonymous No.21344784]

>>21344780
Morality did not change in that decade.

[Anonymous No.21344786]

>>21344784
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution_in_1960s_United_States

[Anonymous No.21344796]

>>21344786
You are the one who admitted it did not change.
>>21344666
>OLD VALUES STILL DOMINATED IN THE LATE 60S AND EARLY 70S

If old values dominated then there is by definition no revolution.

[Anonymous No.21345261]

>>21344126
> *muh protests* are not indicative of consensus
(unrelated) reminder that Drumpf lost the popular vote twice and the GOP lost the popular vote 7 out of 8 times in the last 30 years.
On a related note though, the argument is that for example sex became a place in the public domain because of the movements during the sixties. The 'public' domain encompasses what happens on the streets, in art, in politics, and in media. Were there brothels before the 60s? Yes. However going to one was regarded as a 'private' affair. Therefore whether a specific question of Sexuality had a consensus is irrelevant for the question of it being discussed publicly. It would not even need to be discussed publicly in newspapers, proclaimed in street protests, nor sung of in songs, nor portraited in paintings, if there was a consensus. If there were then protests, and their crowds not so insignificantly small as to be declared a mere local or regional issue - then arguing for the nonexistence of a cultural movement in the 60s is rather silly.

[Anonymous No.21345319]

>>21344784
Copium

[Anonymous No.21345321]

>>21344796
>the scientific revolution didn't happen because unscientific thinking still dominates

[Anonymous No.21345924]

>>21343234

[Anonymous No.21346068]

So this retard says because cultural norms were largely intact going into the sixties that they didn't change and now we have a 200 post meltdown how the sexual revolution never happened?

[Anonymous No.21346125]

>>21343399
>If you're interested in the 50's you need to start by reading a book about the 40's. If you were going to red tlotr trilogy you wouldn't start with the second book would you? So really you need to be asking if there is any good books on the 40s

[Anonymous No.21346208]

Wtf happened here? Did somebody give a bunch of anons cocaine?

[Anonymous No.21347365]

I'm sure this will get lost in the chaos, but...

[Anonymous No.21347572]

>>21345261
> *muh protests* are not indicative of consensus
>(unrelated) reminder that Drumpf lost the popular vote twice and the GOP lost the popular vote 7 out of 8 times in the last 30 years.
You think you're being clever, but you're really just making his point for him. Or do you believe that the Jan 6 protests were actually indicative of consensus?

[Anonymous No.21347670]

>>21347572

[Anonymous No.21347712]

>>21347572

[Anonymous No.21348613]

>>21343329
That's not a good book.

[Anonymous No.21348748]

>>21348613
>t.boneless