Trendiness exposed by time is at base not much more than abject silliness. This truth is obviously (and amusingly) illustrated by clothing fashions. To get a chuckle out of about anyone, show them a few choice fashion pics from any given era. If the current fuzzy boots, deplorably ubiquitous yoga pants, and flat-billed baseball caps (with stickers!) are not enough for you, maybe try the late 80s. Shoulder pads and ratty bangs were “totally radical” then, but were rapidly “dead as disco” by the time Seattle poured forth something reeking of teen spirit in ’91. People anxious to keep up with the latest often waste copious resources and energy often ending up looking very silly.
Beyond passing fashion trends, this silliness of trendiness can be found among the “scientific,” too. When’s the last time your wife excitedly shuffled off to a “Bump Party” to have a phrenologist – “who takes herself very seriously” – prognosticate and give advice based upon cranial bumps and curvatures? It was the bee’s knees, alright, but that was a hit before your mother was born. However, this accomplished phrenologist had excellent reasons to take herself quite seriously. She was a practitioner of *all rise* science in her own day. Phrenology would merely be a laughable historical blip, were it not used wickedly. The “science” of phrenology became the handmaiden of the “social sciences” influenced by Darwinism. Social Darwinism is nothing more than racism with a thin veneer of empiricism (for purposes of marketing and self-justification). “Listen, honey, the most recent findings of Phrenologists indicate that Black are supposed to be slaves and White are supposed to be their masters.” Science, all trendy and silly, said so.
One of the most recent bubbles of trendy silliness has been in the realm of ethics. The New Morality centers around sexuality, both personal and social. This New Morality of the past fifteen minutes (obviously what every enlightened person should believe) is that the more contorted, perverted, and confused your sexuality, the better. The standard of the New Morality appears to praise nearly any expression of sexuality and to condemn nearly any condemnation of sexual expression. In fact, the notion of helping people out of sexual confusion is, itself, often seen as sheer bigotry and narrow mindedness. The actual truth that sexual sins of all varieties are prohibited and will be judged by almighty God is so repugnant as to be laughed to scorn, and that just before they turn and devour the one casting the pearl. The New Morality WILL BE IMPOSED (in the name of freedom!?), beginning with hapless business owners.
All this and more in the last 15 minutes! The recent explosion of “transgenderism” and gender “self-identification” is to human ethics what the belted pilgrim hat is to the history of head wear. The New Morality is as peculiar and silly (read: trendy) as Angela Davis’s “natural” or the tallest platform shoes from Studio 54. If the New Morality were the rage in 1906, rest assured that trained and trustworthy Phrenologists would have the “transgender bump” located definitively on their cranial maps. Instead, those scientific maps contained evidences of the silly trends of 110 years ago, not the fads of the last 15 minutes.
Fads are silly. Ethical fads are no less silly but far more deadly.