Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(01-07-2017, 03:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 01:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Neither you nor Bob disagrees with leftist partisans on the issues.  Bob claims to, but when the opportunity arises, he doesn't.

You disagree with some on the left here because of personal style.  That's not the same thing as disagreeing with them on the issues.

Gun policy is my major break from the blues.  I was also a Scalia fan, favoring rule of law over legislating from the bench.  Broadly, I am dubious about over regulation.

I realize that you claim that.  I also notice that you've refrained from arguing those points with the leftists here when the issues come up.  That makes your claim dubious.

(01-07-2017, 05:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2017, 10:56 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Annual Unemployment Rates, 2009 through 2016 (now that the December 2016 rate is in):

2009: 9.3%
2010: 9.6%
2011: 8.9%
2012: 8.1%
2013: 7.4%
2014: 6.2%
2015: 5.3%
2016: 4.9%

I suspect under Trump, as under Bush, the rate will soon start going in the other direction. By 2019 it could be at least over 6% again; maybe more.

Given it started declining exactly when the Republicans took control of the House, I'd expect it to start increasing in 2019 only if the Democrats win the House in 2018.

(01-07-2017, 06:02 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 05:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2017, 10:56 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Annual Unemployment Rates, 2009 through 2016 (now that the December 2016 rate is in):

2009: 9.3%
2010: 9.6%
2011: 8.9%
2012: 8.1%
2013: 7.4%
2014: 6.2%
2015: 5.3%
2016: 4.9%

I suspect under Trump, as under Bush, the rate will soon start going in the other direction. By 2019 it could be at least over 6% again; maybe more.

Given it started declining exactly when the Republicans took control of the House, I'd expect it to start increasing in 2019 only if the Democrats win the House in 2018.

Well, the "2010" figure probably didn't refer to January 2011.

Still, I expect your timing for 2018 might be right. But it will happen no matter who wins the House in 2018.

Possible. The real figure to watch is the employment to population ratio, which is currently way down. If Trump can increase that noticeably, he will have kept his basic promise.

(01-07-2017, 05:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]I realize that you claim that.  I also notice that you've refrained from arguing those points with the leftists here when the issues come up.  That makes your claim dubious.

You're new here. My record on these points is well enough established. Eric, do you think I've slaked off to much on the gun policy issue?

(01-07-2017, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I don't mind Classic Xer's description of me as a blue recruiter. It would be nice if I could convince more people to my point of view. Classic says he is taking folks like me on to "open up" the discussion; in other words, to oppose points of view like mine. That seems legit for a forum discussion, although it might suggest we are too stuck in our positions.

What I pointed out to Classic, and others did as well, is the error behind his use of the term "blue recruiter." Classic assumes in his statements that anyone who supports Democrats or liberals is dependent on them, and that's the only reason we support Democrats. This is not true, and it could be taken as a "vile stereotype." THAT'S where Classic goes off the rails. But it's not so much that it's a personal insult, as it just shows his condition of being brainwashed by the same old meme; the same trickle-down libertarian economics meme that says "taxes are theft for freeloaders"-- the same meme I have been debunking here for 20 years. The SAME OLD SLOGANS that have our country completely stifled and beholden to the top 1% most wealthy people in the country. Classic Xer is just a very typical "classic" example of someone hooked on those slogans. Galen is perhaps the MOST typical, and the most dogmatic and aggressive believer.

A valid point of view.  I'd agree with your concern about 'Democrats and liberals are all freeloaders' being a false meme.  We could argue about whether to call it a meme or a stereotype.  Both words would do.  I agree it certainly doesn't apply to me, nor to most progressives I know.  

I believe in safety nets, not freeloaders.  I've recently been touting Article 25 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights as defining what safety nets ought to be there.  However, an emphasis also ought to be on an inclusive economy.  The more folks get a living wage, the less the government has to spend on safety nets.  It is as appropriate to work so folks don't need the safety nets as it is to make sure the safety nets are there.  Doing one without doing the other doesn't make a lot of sense.

I assume the above roughly outlines the attitude of many progressives.  Does this make sense to you, Eric?

I was also recently accused of wanting to knock down the wealthy.  That's another false motivation.  I have nothing against people getting very rich so long as the basics are available to the very poor.  Again, for a notion of what I mean by basics, see Article 25.  This notion that I want to knock down the rich came from only one person.  I don't see it as a common belief shared by many conservatives?  Am I wrong?  If it isn't true of me, are there any progressives out there who will admit to wanting to knock down the wealthy for the sake of knocking down the wealthy?

I can see a flip side stereotype of conservatives.  They are concerned only about their own wealth, have never needed safety nets, don't anticipate that they will ever need safety nets, don't think anyone should ever need safety nets, that a willingness to work and a free economy should be enough.  They have just seen so little ugly that they don't believe at a gut level that ugly truly exists.  Thus, for many, Article 25 is and ought to remain a nigh on forgotten set of empty words.

One could take the above paragraph and add insulting words like 'heartless', and 'cruel'.  This could make it a vile stereotype.  To what extent is the stereotype true?  The persistent Republican desire to cut their own taxes and cut entitlements suggests there is something to it.

Thinking progressives freeloaders or conservatives heartless isn't the same degree of direct insult, perhaps, as calling the other guys idiot, stupid, ammosexual, or insane.  Still, it might be prudent, before slamming the other guy's motivations, to make sure you are listening enough that you really understand the other guy's motivations.  

Classic?  Galen?  Has Eric got you pegged right?  He seems to think you have progressives pegged as freeloaders.  Do you seriously think such?  Or has Eric got your motivations wrong?

I moved some posts where people were discussing each other instead of the topic at hand.

(01-07-2017, 05:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 03:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 01:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Neither you nor Bob disagrees with leftist partisans on the issues.  Bob claims to, but when the opportunity arises, he doesn't.

You disagree with some on the left here because of personal style.  That's not the same thing as disagreeing with them on the issues.

Gun policy is my major break from the blues.  I was also a Scalia fan, favoring rule of law over legislating from the bench.  Broadly, I am dubious about over regulation.

I realize that you claim that.  I also notice that you've refrained from arguing those points with the leftists here when the issues come up.  That makes your claim dubious.

There are no leftists here anymore.  Progressives?  Sure ... plenty, but Progressives are not leftists

(01-07-2017, 10:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I don't mind Classic Xer's description of me as a blue recruiter. It would be nice if I could convince more people to my point of view. Classic says he is taking folks like me on to "open up" the discussion; in other words, to oppose points of view like mine. That seems legit for a forum discussion, although it might suggest we are too stuck in our positions.

What I pointed out to Classic, and others did as well, is the error behind his use of the term "blue recruiter." Classic assumes in his statements that anyone who supports Democrats or liberals is dependent on them, and that's the only reason we support Democrats. This is not true, and it could be taken as a "vile stereotype." THAT'S where Classic goes off the rails. But it's not so much that it's a personal insult, as it just shows his condition of being brainwashed by the same old meme; the same trickle-down libertarian economics meme that says "taxes are theft for freeloaders"-- the same meme I have been debunking here for 20 years. The SAME OLD SLOGANS that have our country completely stifled and beholden to the top 1% most wealthy people in the country. Classic Xer is just a very typical "classic" example of someone hooked on those slogans. Galen is perhaps the MOST typical, and the most dogmatic and aggressive believer.

A valid point of view.  I'd agree with your concern about 'Democrats and liberals are all freeloaders' being a false meme.  We could argue about whether to call it a meme or a stereotype.  Both words would do.  I agree it certainly doesn't apply to me, nor to most progressives I know.  

I believe in safety nets, not freeloaders.  I've recently been touting Article 25 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights as defining what safety nets ought to be there.  However, an emphasis also ought to be on an inclusive economy.  The more folks get a living wage, the less the government has to spend on safety nets.  It is as appropriate to work so folks don't need the safety nets as it is to make sure the safety nets are there.  Doing one without doing the other doesn't make a lot of sense.

I assume the above roughly outlines the attitude of many progressives.  Does this make sense to you, Eric?

I was also recently accused of wanting to knock down the wealthy.  That's another false motivation.  I have nothing against people getting very rich so long as the basics are available to the very poor.  Again, for a notion of what I mean by basics, see Article 25.  This notion that I want to knock down the rich came from only one person.  I don't see it as a common belief shared by many conservatives?  Am I wrong?  If it isn't true of me, are there any progressives out there who will admit to wanting to knock down the wealthy for the sake of knocking down the wealthy?

I can see a flip side stereotype of conservatives.  They are concerned only about their own wealth, have never needed safety nets, don't anticipate that they will ever need safety nets, don't think anyone should ever need safety nets, that a willingness to work and a free economy should be enough.  They have just seen so little ugly that they don't believe at a gut level that ugly truly exists.  Thus, for many, Article 25 is and ought to remain a nigh on forgotten set of empty words.

One could take the above paragraph and add insulting words like 'heartless', and 'cruel'.  This could make it a vile stereotype.  To what extent is the stereotype true?  The persistent Republican desire to cut their own taxes and cut entitlements suggests there is something to it.

Thinking progressives freeloaders or conservatives heartless isn't the same degree of direct insult, perhaps, as calling the other guys idiot, stupid, ammosexual, or insane.  Still, it might be prudent, before slamming the other guy's motivations, to make sure you are listening enough that you really understand the other guy's motivations.  

Classic?  Galen?  Has Eric got you pegged right?  He seems to think you have progressives pegged as freeloaders.  Do you seriously think such?  Or has Eric got your motivations wrong?

Which group, the progressive voters or the Progressives themselves? I don't have you pegged as a freeloader or view you as progressive who's political views and ideological beliefs are exclusively tailored and more likely to attract freeloaders. I have no problem with safety nets. I have a problem with hammocks taking the place of/eliminating safety nets.

(01-08-2017, 01:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 05:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 03:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 01:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Neither you nor Bob disagrees with leftist partisans on the issues.  Bob claims to, but when the opportunity arises, he doesn't.

You disagree with some on the left here because of personal style.  That's not the same thing as disagreeing with them on the issues.

Gun policy is my major break from the blues.  I was also a Scalia fan, favoring rule of law over legislating from the bench.  Broadly, I am dubious about over regulation.

I realize that you claim that.  I also notice that you've refrained from arguing those points with the leftists here when the issues come up.  That makes your claim dubious.

There are no leftists here anymore.  Progressives?  Sure ... plenty, but Progressives are not leftists

What's the difference between a leftist and a Progressive?

(01-08-2017, 05:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Which group, the progressive voters or the Progressives themselves? I don't have you pegged as a freeloader or view you as progressive who's political views and ideological beliefs are exclusively tailored and more likely to attract freeloaders. I have no problem with safety nets. I have a problem with hammocks taking the place of/eliminating safety nets.

Good distinction between safety nets and hammocks.  There are notions, likely with at least some truth, that there are hammock cultures and politics in different parts of the country.  In reading "Hillbilly Eulogy" it was discussed as becoming part of the Scotts Irish Hillbilly and Rust Belt culture.  Allegedly California (and elsewhere) has urban minority hammock dwellers.  The two major parties might both be pursuing votes from these cultures in their own ways.  I would favor trimming hammocks to reinforce safety nets, regardless of state, culture or political affiliation.  Lots of devils need to be chased out of details, but we might agree on that in principle.

I am thinking I need a milder phrase to sometimes use instead of 'vile stereotype'.  Perhaps, 'false motivation'.   If there are people out there who believe most or all Democrats are freeloaders who vote for politicians who put up hammocks, this might be a false understanding of progressive beliefs while perhaps not counting as being vile.  On the other hand, the notion that anyone who favors gun rights has a sexual obsession with guns seems more disgusting, insulting and blatantly false.  That might still deserve a 'vile stereotype' label.

I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture.  I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.  In the exchanges on this forum, most folks are quite able to defend their values, often very well.  

And yet, there is often little tendency to acknowledge there are valid reasons for why the other guy's values and culture came into existence.  Cultures a generally form to solve tough problems presented by history.  They absolutely make sense if one lives inside them.  Different times and different environments call for different ways of adapting and solving problems.  It is a basic premise of my own world view that cultures evolved for good reason, that growing up within a culture will make that culture seem sensible and right.

Not that the other guy's culture will seem sensible and right.  It seems natural to think that if one's own culture is loaded with common sense and valid lessons from history, and the other guy's culture conflicts, that something is wrong with the other guy.  Words like 'insane', 'stupid', 'evil', 'fanatic', 'moron' or others of that ilk spring quite naturally to mind.  If one assumes the other guy's mind doesn't function properly, one can smugly continue to practice one's own values without questioning them, without being open to change.

If person A calls person B from another culture stupid, I am inclined to think a good part of the problem lies in person A.  He is too closed to B's culture, too tightly committed to his own culture, unable to open up his mind and consider where the other guy is truly coming from.  Of course, this isn't unusual.  It is essentially the norm.  People immersed in one culture, committed to its perspectives and beliefs, find it very difficult to understand and respect where the other guy is coming from.  To understand and respect the other guy might be perceived as a letting go of one's own basic beliefs.  To many, such would be traumatic to impossible.

Too often this lack of understanding and respect leads to assumptions of mental incapably, false ideas of what his motives are, and sometimes vile stereotypes of what members of another culture are like.

To a significant degree I am more concerned with this inability to comprehend and communicate across cultural borders than I am with promoting blue values.  I am generally pegged as blue, not without reason, but the red - blue divide doesn't seem as important as understanding why the red - blue divide is so caustic and divisive.  

At the moment, I'm focusing on pursuing and getting a true understanding of motives while quashing false ideas of motives.  This might come across as my being motivated by a desire to become a nanny moderator.  Not quite my true motivation.  I'd like to go for real communication.

Ugly as stereotypes are, they almost have some factual basis with a distinctive cause behind them. Jews used to have the rap of being extremely greedy and materialistic. Such is what my grandparents' generations (Lost and GI) thought of Jews. I did not see that in the Jews that I met. I saw instead sophisticated, cultured, successful, civilized, and largely decent people who no longer had to be greedy and materialistic.  Maybe a bit more earthy than I was... the group I am from (basically a  Calvinist heritage) is not renowned for sexual frankness. But that is my Boomer generation.  

So what is the difference? Did my grandparents see a different group of Jews than I did? Sure. But those were at most one generation away from the "Anatevka" of the hardscrabble shtetl  in which economic reality dictated much human behavior -- even whom one married. Grow up in the world of Sholem Aleichem and you too would be extremely greedy and materialistic (marriage is not for love in Fiddler on the Roof -- see below) because such is essential for survival. Suburban America? Not so much.





OK, so the way my Jewish contemporaries are is far more like me (I am not Jewish, but antisemitic bigots on the web often figure that I am Jewish because I am a Nazi-hating, smart liberal with a German-sounding surname) suggests some convergence of economic reality for Jews and probably the typical middle-class person who is about half from English-speaking cultures and about half from Germany and Switzerland. So antisemitic creeps think that I am a Jew. To this I first say "Better a Jew than you". I then say "At least you don't confuse me with your kind, which would really be awful".

Suburban life has a way of homogenizing experiences. That's where the good ethnic restaurants are, and contrary to myth, the best rib places are in the suburbs.  Kids and young adults my age typically had college educations in common by age 25, and they shopped in the same mall stores. We tended to want the same  sorts of jobs, even if we did not get them. We adopted the same grammar.

......

I find Albion's Seed one of the most telling books of American general history; it relates how institutions and culture in the various regions of America resulted from mass settlement of English, Welsh, Scots-Irish, and German settlers (and to a lesser extent the Dutch and French Huguenots of the short-lived New Netherland and the Swedes and a few Finns in what would become Delaware) in various regions of colonial America. There was New England, in which one of the most renowned universities of the world (Harvard) was established only fifteen years after the Pilgrims almost exclusively from southeastern England landed at Plymouth Rock; New Netherland, under Dutch rule as today a multi-ethnic world (the Dutch were a minority, which may explain why the Dutch hold there was so short), southeastern Pennsylvania and southwestern New Jersey, where the Quakers from the industrial Midlands of England and Wales  and German Mennonites (similar religions) established a world of minimal pomp, the very old South from Chesapeake Bay to Georgia in which "Cavalier" settlers from the still-feudal southwest  of England established a hierarchical order in which an aristocratic elite needed a peasant  class in permanent subjection and could not entice English peasants to take the dangerous trip to a brutal land for no improvement in their lives. The Cavaliers ended up bringing slaves over to take the role of English peasants. Finally, people from the anarchic, intellect-disdaining Borderlands of northern England, southern Scotland, and Northern Ireland brought their disdain for hierarchy and their preference for settling scores with fights to the  Backwoods.

Those cultures moved west  -- due west.

(OK, you say, what about the large Irish immigration largely to the Eastern seaboard? The Irish Catholics simply took over existing institutions as Yankees moved out to the richer farmlands of the Midwest. In some ways the Irish Catholics of the Northeast are the true heirs of New England Puritans).

Those cultures shape regional attitudes on religion, education, and ethnicity. The Confederacy assumed wrongly that it had the allegiance of the Backwoodsmen who in fact chafed under the rule of plantation owners. Ordinarily armies try to avoid mountainous regions, but the Union Army found eastern Tennessee extremely vulnerable because of a population that had no use for plantation society.

People do not have their cultures because they are stupid. People have their cultures because they are raised in their cultures and cannot really escape the early-child lessons that suggest no viable alternatives.

There's one poster whom I respect for dealing with a horrid disease, being intelligent and erudite, and doing very well despite living in one of the more economically-unforgiving parts of America -- but I thoroughly despise her politics.  She has treated me with kindness when I went through some very bad times. I can see myself reciprocating if things go bad for her.

(01-09-2017, 01:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 11:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 04:43 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Long story short it is just as I assumed. He despises ignorant and vicious labels that smear everyone  "blue" or "red" in a negative way instead of listening to individuals.

(Sound of whistle blowing.)  Excessive brevity and clarity!  Fifteen yards from the spot of the foul.  Repeat first down.  

(Hopefully she knows enough American Football to get the reference.)

I have zero interest in American football nor do i watch any sports so.....no would be your answer.

Sorry.  I was just being silly, implying that being succinct and clear is improper, that it should be punished.

(01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2017, 05:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Which group, the progressive voters or the Progressives themselves? I don't have you pegged as a freeloader or view you as progressive who's political views and ideological beliefs are exclusively tailored and more likely to attract freeloaders. I have no problem with safety nets. I have a problem with hammocks taking the place of/eliminating safety nets.

Good distinction between safety nets and hammocks.  There are notions, likely with at least some truth, that there are hammock cultures and politics in different parts of the country.  In reading "Hillbilly Eulogy" it was discussed as becoming part of the Scotts Irish Hillbilly and Rust Belt culture.  Allegedly California (and elsewhere) has urban minority hammock dwellers.  The two major parties might both be pursuing votes from these cultures in their own ways.  I would favor trimming hammocks to reinforce safety nets, regardless of state, culture or political affiliation.  Lots of devils need to be chased out of details, but we might agree on that in principle.

I am thinking I need a milder phrase to sometimes use instead of 'vile stereotype'.  Perhaps, 'false motivation'.   If there are people out there who believe most or all Democrats are freeloaders who vote for politicians who put up hammocks, this might be a false understanding of progressive beliefs while perhaps not counting as being vile.  On the other hand, the notion that anyone who favors gun rights has a sexual obsession with guns seems more disgusting, insulting and blatantly false.  That might still deserve a 'vile stereotype' label.

I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture.  I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.  In the exchanges on this forum, most folks are quite able to defend their values, often very well.  

And yet, there is often little tendency to acknowledge there are valid reasons for why the other guy's values and culture came into existence.  Cultures a generally form to solve tough problems presented by history.  They absolutely make sense if one lives inside them.  Different times and different environments call for different ways of adapting and solving problems.  It is a basic premise of my own world view that cultures evolved for good reason, that growing up within a culture will make that culture seem sensible and right.

Not that the other guy's culture will seem sensible and right.  It seems natural to think that if one's own culture is loaded with common sense and valid lessons from history, and the other guy's culture conflicts, that something is wrong with the other guy.  Words like 'insane', 'stupid', 'evil', 'fanatic', 'moron' or others of that ilk spring quite naturally to mind.  If one assumes the other guy's mind doesn't function properly, one can smugly continue to practice one's own values without questioning them, without being open to change.

If person A calls person B from another culture stupid, I am inclined to think a good part of the problem lies in person A.  He is too closed to B's culture, too tightly committed to his own culture, unable to open up his mind and consider where the other guy is truly coming from.  Of course, this isn't unusual.  It is essentially the norm.  People immersed in one culture, committed to its perspectives and beliefs, find it very difficult to understand and respect where the other guy is coming from.  To understand and respect the other guy might be perceived as a letting go of one's own basic beliefs.  To many, such would be traumatic to impossible.

Too often this lack of understanding and respect leads to assumptions of mental incapably, false ideas of what his motives are, and sometimes vile stereotypes of what members of another culture are like.

To a significant degree I am more concerned with this inability to comprehend and communicate across cultural borders than I am with promoting blue values.  I am generally pegged as blue, not without reason, but the red - blue divide doesn't seem as important as understanding why the red - blue divide is so caustic and divisive.  

At the moment, I'm focusing on pursuing and getting a true understanding of motives while quashing false ideas of motives.  This might come across as my being motivated by a desire to become a nanny moderator.  Not quite my true motivation.  I'd like to go for real communication.

Minorities aren't the only ones who are interested in hammocks these days.

(01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture.  I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.

Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you.  In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory.  Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.

(01-08-2017, 11:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Ugly as stereotypes are, they almost have some factual basis with a distinctive cause behind them.

Sometimes there are elements of truth in stereotypes, which are sometimes dated.  Other stereotypes are just plain ugly and insulting.  The old pre Bruce Lee stereotype of orientals proposed they were half blind, wore coke bottle thick glasses, and had buck teeth.  While I am fond of Breakfast at Tiffany's, Micky Rooney's pseudo oriental character is a disgrace.  

Even the stereotypes that may have significant truth in them can be dangerous guides for interacting with people.  I found Hillbilly Eulogy to be an interesting read, a view of coal country and rust belt Scotts Irish culture that is at the same nostalgic, sympathetic and totally damning.  It gives a fascinating glimpse of the culture from the inside that has helped me understand a lot.  However, it would be dangerous should one encounter an individual from that part of the world who portrays a few of the symptoms from Hillbilly Eulogy to assume that said individual is a total embodiment of everything covered in the book.  Similarly, it seems wrong to assume that a conservative poster from that part of the world who touches a few aspects of Hillbilly culture is an all out worst case representative of what the Eulogy author was trying to describe.  (It is wrong to beat one's wife unless she throws the first blow.)

(01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture.  I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.

Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you.  In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory.  Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.

I often use 'culture' as meaning 'a large group of people who share common world views and values'.  Don't assume that when talking cultures in abstract that I am always referring to one of the groups from Albion's Seed.

I'm from greater Boston and fit reasonably with the 'Yankee' pattern from Albion's Seed.  I'm also a software guy with a formidable respect for science.  I went to Catholic Saturday religious classes in my youth, which effects my views on morality, though I never fully bought into the Catholic's authoritarian hierarchical side.  I chased after a handful of spiritual systems in my youth, and retained a few snippets of wisdom.  All these influences and others merge together to form something much more complex than the expectations one might have of someone who is committed to any one of the above influences.

I assume this is true of most people.  If someone is sufficiently religious, the fact that he comes from one of the regions and cultures covered by Albion's Seed might or might not be entirely irrelevant.  If someone is sufficiently politically partisan, his religion might or might not mean much.  There are all sorts of people who center their lives on different things.

By this understanding, libertarianism is a culture, a set of values and a way of looking at the world shared by many people.  As I see it, this political philosophy is much more dominant in yourself than any element of 'yankee' culture you might have picked up by living near Boston.  It would be a gross and obvious mistake to assume Albion's Seed will provide insight into your thought.  This isn't to say that Albion's Seed doesn't provide considerable insight on the country's divisions.  Albion's Seed provides a useful set of stereotypes, but stereotypes are quite often a very poor tool for understanding people. 

I try to recognize this complexity and respect that all these ways of looking at the world had valid historical reasons for coming into existence.  No matter what culture one comes from, growing up within that culture will allow firm commitment to that culture's values and world view.  Members of cultures can develop a very firm faith that commitment to that culture is rational, logical, justified and entirely defensible.  Thus, as much as I deplore large parts of Hillbilly culture, reading Hillbilly Eulogy helps me understand how the culture evolved and why they are what they are.

Many people are locked into their own values and culture.  What they believe is true.  Anything that conflicts with it is false.  Thus, they must create intense defense mechanisms that allows them to reject anything that conflicts with their belief system.  Thus, we have extreme partisans, intensely clinging to their own perspective, required to deny any validity to other perspectives, casually thinking that anyone from another culture must be wrong.  Often they'll use stronger words than 'wrong'...  insane, ammosexual, evil, stupid, etc...

That's where we're really coming from different places.  I am doubtful that you will be able follow what I'm trying to say without learning to respect other people's perspectives.  I see you as too firmly committed to your own perspective to learn to do that.

(01-09-2017, 01:53 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry I am not sure what you are talking about. I have not had the best time lately. I have ruptured something internally and bled out severely 2 nights ago. I am currently in hospital kind of drugged up and getting cramps from the rupture and laxatives which are prep for tomorrow. Please be clear with me just this once. Not angry if you think I am. Just tired and not well and just want to understand what you mean.

OK. You managed to succinctly and clearly reprise what I used far too many words to say. Succinct clear language is a good thing. You made me a bit jealous. The joke was intended to say that something is wrong with being succinct and clear, that good writing ought to be punished. I don't really believe that. I might just have an off sense of humor. (In American Football, if a player breaks the rules, the referee will blow a whistle and move the ball further away from where that player wants the ball to go.)

I was just trying for a bit of a joke and to acknowledge that you had caught the gist of my prior post correctly.

Rest. Be well.

(01-09-2017, 01:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture.  I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.

Your mistake is in assuming it's all about culture for everyone, just because it happens to be so for you.  In fact, most of the conservatives here are libertarian leaning, and base our reasoning not on culture but on facts and proven economic theory.  Assuming that it's a clash of cultures may be why you go wrong so much.

Neo-liberalism (aka Reaganomics, Austrian economics, libertarian economics, trickle-down, free market ideology, etc.) is not based on facts, but on an ideological belief system promoted by those whose interests are served by it.

Human history for the last 12,000 years has been powered by a series of innovations, climaxing in our modern world over the last 200-plus years, according to the 2015 PBS documentary called Humanity from Space:





Humanity has proved that it can innovate, and explode the data availiable to us.

This documentary is far from the full human story. Indeed, it neglects the vast field of "culture" and ideas/ideologies. But it makes a great point. We have the data and the innovative ability to create a civilization for the future.

But the catch is that we need to pay attention to the data, and support the innovations we need.

But neo-liberalism is the greatest obstacle to that future. It is the greatest threat to all of our lives.

Because neo-liberals systematically deceive the people with false conspiracy theories that deny the data, and oppose innovation, and seeks to shut down the best means of coordinated action to support innovation and transmit data-- our public institutions.

Neo-liberals promote denial of climate change, ignoring and distorting the data that all our technology provides us about our future.

Neo-liberals oppose the innovations that could save us and allow us to prosper in the future, by defending the corporations that produce the kinds of energy and products that endanger us, and putting politicians in office like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Rex Tillerson who want to expand rather than transfer away from the industries that threaten us.

Neo-liberals deny that we are a global society, and seek to keep us enslaved to nationalist scammers like Donald Trump, at a time when peoples of the world need to work together to resolve our issues. It denies the value of people working together for the greater good, which has made us what we are; touting instead a ridiculous individualism that creates nothing.

Neo-liberalism seeks to concentrate the wealth created by human innovation in the hands of a few people, seeking a neo-medieval society in which everything is controlled by a few owners.

Neo-liberalism has been disproven by any standard imaginable. It is the worst scam of our time. No intelligent person has any business supporting or promoting it.

(01-08-2017, 01:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 05:55 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 03:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-07-2017, 01:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Neither you nor Bob disagrees with leftist partisans on the issues.  Bob claims to, but when the opportunity arises, he doesn't.

You disagree with some on the left here because of personal style.  That's not the same thing as disagreeing with them on the issues.

Gun policy is my major break from the blues.  I was also a Scalia fan, favoring rule of law over legislating from the bench.  Broadly, I am dubious about over regulation.

I realize that you claim that.  I also notice that you've refrained from arguing those points with the leftists here when the issues come up.  That makes your claim dubious.

There are no leftists here anymore.  Progressives?  Sure ... plenty, but Progressives are not leftists

In Right-Wing-Land even centrists are "Leftists".