If there's a problem with traditionalism promoting a fake historical utopia, that same problem is present in their perception of "traditional values".

Because "traditional values" are rather vague idea.

uh, no. Believing in the family as the smallest unit of society, a microcosm of all other grander social structures.
Believing the individual is not entitled to inane liberties just because they think it's a good idea at the time or doesn't cause immediate damages.

Believing that having moral fragmentation is a toxin that tears people apart, and that people need to agree on the fundamentals of right and wrong to participate in society

So instead of "traditional values", just "family values" and individualism?

No, not really individualism

How is that traditionalist or conservative?

Individualism helped get us here

Oh, I didn't properly read it to the end.

Okay, so then enlighten me, whiic, since you seem to not know what traditional values are upon the utterance of the term and so thoroughly doubt the concept of tradition as being nothing more than impotent nostalgia.

Does modernity have problems? What are they, and how do we stop them?

Sure. Problems exist.

I don't have a short answer to offer. Even the list of problems is quite extensive.

if you tell me that every era had it's problems i'm going to batter you with a 9 iron tbqh

because that's such a truism it's not even amusing

Well, every era did have it's problems. That's just a fact, although not an excuse to correct current era's malfuctions.

not an excuse to *not* correct?

I think the current era is quite run off the track. The solution isn't going back, but choosing another direction entirely.

And that could be something along the lines of emphasizing responsibility over entitlement, but also among live and let live among people who are not threatening you. Basically libertarian values.

With a sprinkle of social responsibility because "atomized individual" doesn't work.

And fact-based child-raising.

So going back but leaving God behind

<:thunk:462282216467333140>

Which pretty much aligns it traditional "family values" (if you don't include "hate gays" under it, since it has nothing to do with how to manage a family, it's just moralizing).

Aannnnnd there's your credibility gone in a puff of smoke

No, it abso-fucking-lutely is about family management.

I would not say "go back" since East-Europe: back = socialism.

that's not going back far enough tbh

if that's the case

OK, so my puff of smoke is the need to hate gays.

<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

Or was it in the refusal to bring back theocracy?

Hate the degenerates among the group, not the entire group

no, whiic.

It's like hating all of Christianity because of some dude bombing an Abortion clinic lmao

It's not being conscious of the things that make up a healthy family. In the same breath you say fact-based childrearing you think that a gay couple can raise children as effectively as a nuclear family.

They're just about as effective as single mothers

Because it's about essential balances

Boys need both their mothers and their fathers, and this is the same for young girls.

Gay couple cannot have children by themselves.

They adopt

Which is opposed by traditionalism.