Millennials and GenZ horribly misidentified

[AspieMillennial]

(05-03-2019, 10:53 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: I agree with Eric here. 9/11 was not *that* important. Obviously it was a nightmare for people who died and for their families. It was a shock for everyone. But I remember a New Yorker (my cousin's friend) saying in retrospect it was less devastating than hurricane Sandy in 2012. The financial recession of 2008 was definitely more important for people's daily lives. As for the Internet, there is colossal difference between early and late 2000s. I was born in '86, so I remember the websites of 2001. When MySpace went mainstream in 2006, it made a huge difference.

Coming of age doesn't really mean 18, in the modern context extended adolescence is the norm, so people are more likely to start living an adult life around the age of 22. Using age 22 as a proxy for coming of age works well:
1968 for boomers
1986 for Xers
2006 for millennials
2025 for new Artists born in 2003

9/11 was far more impactful than Hurricane Sandy. 9/11 is when the mentality started to shift towards "Give up your freedoms in the name of society and security. Authority good." The war in Iraq resulting from this also resulted in the deficit that caused the 2008 crash. It's all related. Your coming of age is when your innocence is shattered. For Boomers, it was 1963 when JFK got assassinated. For Millennials it was 2001 or 2008. 2006 was not very significant at all IMO.

[Eric the Green]

(05-03-2019, 11:00 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-03-2019, 10:53 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: I agree with Eric here. 9/11 was not *that* important. Obviously it was a nightmare for people who died and for their families. It was a shock for everyone. But I remember a New Yorker (my cousin's friend) saying in retrospect it was less devastating than hurricane Sandy in 2012. The financial recession of 2008 was definitely more important for people's daily lives. As for the Internet, there is colossal difference between early and late 2000s. I was born in '86, so I remember the websites of 2001. When MySpace went mainstream in 2006, it made a huge difference.

Coming of age doesn't really mean 18, in the modern context extended adolescence is the norm, so people are more likely to start living an adult life around the age of 22. Using age 22 as a proxy for coming of age works well:
1968 for boomers
1986 for Xers
2006 for millennials
2025 for new Artists born in 2003

9/11 was far more impactful than Hurricane Sandy. 9/11 is when the mentality started to shift towards "Give up your freedoms in the name of society and security. Authority good." The war in Iraq resulting from this also resulted in the deficit that caused the 2008 crash. It's all related. Your coming of age is when your innocence is shattered. For Boomers, it was 1963 when JFK got assassinated. For Millennials it was 2001 or 2008. 2006 was not very significant at all IMO.

"When mentality started to shift towards "Give up your freedoms in the name of society and security. Authority good." " was not, I don't think, a trend in mentality that continued. We have instituted some security safeguards, but I don't think they have cost us our freedom. They could, if they become more oppressive as a result of further attacks. I don't support giving up freedom in the name of security. But I don't think we gave up our freedom, because we didn't have more attacks, and so more oppression than we got was not needed.

The crash of 2008 was largely caused by the Reaganomics trickle-down policy of deregulating business and banking, which Reagan launched, along with the ideology that supported it, and Clinton and others went along with at key times such as repeal of Glass-Steagall. The budget deficit did not cause any economic crash. That could only happen if defaults or severe anti-US sanctions happen and the currency collapses. What happened was that bundled mortgages that were used for speculation collapsed.

I doubt there is a regular time for each generation when an event shatters your innocence. Shattering events don't always start new turnings. Arguably, the events that start 2nd and 4th turnings are more shattering, and thus that would affect prophets and civics (in our case Boomers and Millennials) shifting from childhood to youth or "coming of age," whatever that means. But JFK's assassination did not shatter Boomer innocence. It was just the start of a cascade of events that shattered not only Boomer innocence, but American innocence held for decades and decades up until the mid-1960s. Also Pearl Harbor attacked, the 1919 bombing of Wall Street, and World War I were shattering events that did not start turnings. That may be because the generational constellation was not in place for a shift. Arguably, the constellation was not in place in 2001 yet either.

A turning shifts through a combination of mood-shifting events and generations reaching a certain age. The event may come a bit late or a bit early, which affects the precise date of the onset of a turning.

Using S&H dates, and the average age of generations, in 2008:

The average millennial was born in about 1992, 16 years old. So that was the average age of shift from childhood into youth.
The average Xer was born in about 1971, 37 years old. That was the average age of shift from youth into middle age.
The average Boomer was born in about 1952, 56 years old. That was the average age of shift from middle age to elderhood.
The average Silent was born in about 1933, 75 years old. That was the average age of shift from elder to old age.

Skipping back to the onset of the 2T in 1964:

The average Boomer was born in about 1952, so the average Boomer was 12 years old shifting from childhood into youth.
The average Silent was born in about 1933, so the average age was 31 years old shifting from youth into middle age.
The average GI was born in about 1912, so the average age was 53 years old shifting from middle age to elder.
The average Lost was born in about 1892, so the average age was 72 years old shifting from elder to old age.

Skipping back to the onset of the 4T in 1929:

The average GI was born in about 1912, so the average age was 17 years old shifting from childhood to youth.
The average Lost was born in 1892, so the average age was 37 years old shifting from youth to middle age.
The average Missionary was born in about 1872, so the average age was 57 years old shifting from middle age to elder.
The average Progressive was born in about 1851, so the average age was 78 years old shifting from elder to old age.

In recent American saecula, it appeared that the timing of the Awakening was speeded up a bit by events (early 1T due to the early end of WWII thanks to the Battle of the Bulge, and the JFK assassination and Vietnam War), while the timing of Crises was slowed down a bit by events (it took a while for the full effect of the economic house of cards to truly fall, thanks to the inherent strength of the American economy).

[Eric the Green]

(05-03-2019, 09:23 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-02-2019, 11:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-02-2019, 08:02 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote:

(05-01-2019, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They act and think like millennials, and were all calling themselves that before Pew intervened. The 1996 cut off date made by Pew is made by a demographer.

This is the exact opposite of true.
I don't know what sort of people you've been talking to, but i know people from all these age ranges. And the pew research additionally confirms that there are absolutely significant differences between the millennial average and people born after 96.
I have also explained to you in detail why it's precisely the opposite of what you say. People after 97 have little in common in their psychological development, read: traits, with anyone before that and to say that there was a significant change in people after 2005 trait wise is completely nonsensical as i explicitly addressed that there were no sociopolitical developments at that time significant enough to cause that.
It's like you've literally not read any of my post.

"It went on and continued. No national emergency or total war followed;"
Are you insane?
Literally nothing about life past 9/11 is the same as before.
The idea of an oil war got pushed into public knowledge, travel by air or public transport has changed forever and will possibly never be the same again.
If you showed someone from the 90s the way we are living right now the most shocking thing would be the absolute loss of any sort of privacy. The NSA violating the constitution, the CIA violating human rights, the army committing warcrimes, this all came after 2001, and was never an issue like this. In fact the most animosity towards the political elite from both sides of the political aisle is exclusively due to what sort of liberties were taken after that point in time. Businesses are allowed to do a lot more compared to private persons after this, because they did not have their rights curtailed because they are needed for the economy but regular people had. The economic crash might have made things more dire, but the "screw regular folk, what matters is state and economic interests" which causes the current anti system climate, started exactly after 9/11.
There were invasions and military action in afghanistan and iraq.
And the policy of "if someone tries to put US personnel on trial for warcrimes the standing order is to invade denHaag" is i would say a pretty fucking huge policy change along with torture now being a totally fine thing to do, and constitutional violations in spying on your own citizens directly and with the help of corporations being commonplace.
It's exactly the sort of thing that leads to the old system showing that it is unfit to function at least as much as the new generations are concerned.
The vietnam war happened because there was a clear opponent. Iraq had not much directly to do with 9/11 which prompted it since it was the war on terror.
As a matter of fact from a more historical and less sociological point of view the "war on terror" is considered a new historical epoch on earth as a whole.

The great recession meant that less people have a stable economic background. it has more longterm consequences but is less directly immediately painful than the 29 crash.
And it most definitely is not something that could be noticed by people who were young at that time.
Additionally i have no idea about what sort of true predictions you are talking about since we only have data concerning the people 1997-2004. And any other predictions would also work with 911 being the start. There isn't a single person in the world who is unaware of global terrorism at this point. This started in 2001.
And last not least the economic crisis wasn't a sudden crash. The future prospects of people were already shit, with the entire middle class being pushed into wage slavery since way before, and millennials already having bad prospects for the futur with overly expensive but absoutely necessary university degrees. The only thing 2008 changed was that the job crisis became a bit more dire, which affected the already disenfranchised millennials disproportionately.

Overall the one thing to keep in mind is: Occupy Wallstreet was perhaps the most millennial thing in history.
You are saying that people born in 2004 who were SEVEN at that time are in the same cohort, and could totaly feel that.
I'm saying that the youngest you could be to get and in any way empathize with that crowning millennial event is 14-15. Which with '11-'12 means '97.

I urge you to reconsider because i couldn't find a singe thing among the stuff you said that was actually provably right.

I very much and totally disagree. But all opinions are welcome on the site.

The millennial 2000 cohorts heroically demonstrated for freedom from our deadly insane obsession with guns. If you saw that rally, you can't doubt their civic archetype. And they helped produce the best midterm election turnout in decades. Those same cohorts of young people and even younger are now demonstrating loudly about the greatest crisis of our time, climate change, which started to come into focus in about 2007, and especially in 2010 with the big oil spill that Dumpty Trumpty is now covering up and ignoring. The civics are starting to learn to be civics. That means more than occupying a street. It means participating in civic affairs. It means voting for starters. I agree Occupy was led by millennials, but when it ended, that by no means ended civic actions by millennials, including by younger cohorts than those who Occupied-- but didn't follow through with making their concerns politically effective and partisan, and thus had no civic effect to speak of. And that means Occupy was definitely NOT the most millennial thing in history, and not the crowning event of anything. It was mostly a lot of sound and fury, signifying virtually nothing. It is not civic unless it leads directly to political action within the system as well as outside it. The labor protesters of the 1930s led directly to real power for unions. That was civic. Occupy 2011 was OK, it got some people talking, but not so much as far as real change is concerned. BY the way, I participated in Occupy too so I know all about it.

The 2008 recession was definitely a sudden crash, in September of that year. Look back at the record of wall street then. If not for lessons learned and timely intervention by the government, we would have fallen into the worst depression EVER. Imagine millions of million-dollar mortgages evaporating. That was a huge disaster. Global terrorism means nothing to the average person; it's far away, and so were the stupid wars. Nor do I think the NSA violating privacy, etc, bad policy as it was, had any real impact on most Americans. Having your life savings and your home wiped out, did. Losing your job did. Lower income did. And this crisis continues today, because Trump is a total liar and a total creep. His claims are bogus. Most people have not recovered from the crash, and that most certainly includes 1997-2004 cohorts, who are entering an economy in debt and with everything unaffordable.

The old system was to wage unnecessary wars like Vietnam, which did NOT have a legitimate opponent, but was an unprovoked US invasion, and that policy was simply continued in Iraq. It was ZERO as far as anything new is concerned. If we don't agree on that, we live in alternate universes.

I read your post. I would agree with pushing the Gen Z start back to 2003, according to descriptions I've heard and seen about children at that age, but not to 1997. That implies that 2001 was the start of the 4th Turning. That is an event I predicted. And it is absolutely NOT the start of a 4T. I would never agree with that. You are out of touch with recent history. I doubt you lived through that time.

You wait and see. This 4T will end in 2028 and 2029. 4Ts do not last close to 30 years.

Speak for yourself. I'm Millennial and roll my eyes all the time because mass shootings are overplayed in the media as a tactic to make us feel unsafe. The media is just a 24/7 news agency based on making profits off our fears. If anything they create more mass shootings because people want the fame. Then idiot protestors want no more guns.

I should correct my statement at least this much: I shouldn't say I will never change my mind on something, because that is closed-minded. I'll just say I doubt I will ever agree that 9-11-2001 was the start of a 4th turning.

Mass shootings are definitely not over-played, and millennials know this and are mobilizing against this very-real threat to our lives. Mass shootings by nuts with guns, and shootings of innocent people of color by police, are linked, and are vastly under-reported. Thousands occur each year. Such gun violence is not the whole of this 4T by any means, but it is one element of it and a major motivating factor for circa-2000-born cohort millennials to take civic action. You can't deny that they did this last year. They mobilized millions of youth to vote. That is civic action. Occupying a street is not necessarily civic at all. Lots of Boomer prophets occupied administration buildings and streets in the sixties. Nomad Xers "acted up" to get attention about AIDS in the eighties.

If you think protesters against guns are idiots, well, we have a major disagreement there, and you disagree with a majority of millennials on this too. Americans are the ONLY developed country with such an idiot gun obsession that blocks meaningful gun control, and it's time for this obsession to END! We are not cowboys and indians! Grow up!

The 1997-2003 cohorts are NOW acting civically about guns, about climate change, and about inequality, college debt and low wages. Unlike you, they know these issues are civic and are on the ballot for a vote. They are just coming into their own as a civic generation, and we haven't seen anything yet from millennials, born from 1982 to 2003.

[AspieMillennial]

(05-04-2019, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-03-2019, 09:23 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-02-2019, 11:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-02-2019, 08:02 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote:

(05-01-2019, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They act and think like millennials, and were all calling themselves that before Pew intervened. The 1996 cut off date made by Pew is made by a demographer.

This is the exact opposite of true.
I don't know what sort of people you've been talking to, but i know people from all these age ranges. And the pew research additionally confirms that there are absolutely significant differences between the millennial average and people born after 96.
I have also explained to you in detail why it's precisely the opposite of what you say. People after 97 have little in common in their psychological development, read: traits, with anyone before that and to say that there was a significant change in people after 2005 trait wise is completely nonsensical as i explicitly addressed that there were no sociopolitical developments at that time significant enough to cause that.
It's like you've literally not read any of my post.

"It went on and continued. No national emergency or total war followed;"
Are you insane?
Literally nothing about life past 9/11 is the same as before.
The idea of an oil war got pushed into public knowledge, travel by air or public transport has changed forever and will possibly never be the same again.
If you showed someone from the 90s the way we are living right now the most shocking thing would be the absolute loss of any sort of privacy. The NSA violating the constitution, the CIA violating human rights, the army committing warcrimes, this all came after 2001, and was never an issue like this. In fact the most animosity towards the political elite from both sides of the political aisle is exclusively due to what sort of liberties were taken after that point in time. Businesses are allowed to do a lot more compared to private persons after this, because they did not have their rights curtailed because they are needed for the economy but regular people had. The economic crash might have made things more dire, but the "screw regular folk, what matters is state and economic interests" which causes the current anti system climate, started exactly after 9/11.
There were invasions and military action in afghanistan and iraq.
And the policy of "if someone tries to put US personnel on trial for warcrimes the standing order is to invade denHaag" is i would say a pretty fucking huge policy change along with torture now being a totally fine thing to do, and constitutional violations in spying on your own citizens directly and with the help of corporations being commonplace.
It's exactly the sort of thing that leads to the old system showing that it is unfit to function at least as much as the new generations are concerned.
The vietnam war happened because there was a clear opponent. Iraq had not much directly to do with 9/11 which prompted it since it was the war on terror.
As a matter of fact from a more historical and less sociological point of view the "war on terror" is considered a new historical epoch on earth as a whole.

The great recession meant that less people have a stable economic background. it has more longterm consequences but is less directly immediately painful than the 29 crash.
And it most definitely is not something that could be noticed by people who were young at that time.
Additionally i have no idea about what sort of true predictions you are talking about since we only have data concerning the people 1997-2004. And any other predictions would also work with 911 being the start. There isn't a single person in the world who is unaware of global terrorism at this point. This started in 2001.
And last not least the economic crisis wasn't a sudden crash. The future prospects of people were already shit, with the entire middle class being pushed into wage slavery since way before, and millennials already having bad prospects for the futur with overly expensive but absoutely necessary university degrees. The only thing 2008 changed was that the job crisis became a bit more dire, which affected the already disenfranchised millennials disproportionately.

Overall the one thing to keep in mind is: Occupy Wallstreet was perhaps the most millennial thing in history.
You are saying that people born in 2004 who were SEVEN at that time are in the same cohort, and could totaly feel that.
I'm saying that the youngest you could be to get and in any way empathize with that crowning millennial event is 14-15. Which with '11-'12 means '97.

I urge you to reconsider because i couldn't find a singe thing among the stuff you said that was actually provably right.

I very much and totally disagree. But all opinions are welcome on the site.

The millennial 2000 cohorts heroically demonstrated for freedom from our deadly insane obsession with guns. If you saw that rally, you can't doubt their civic archetype. And they helped produce the best midterm election turnout in decades. Those same cohorts of young people and even younger are now demonstrating loudly about the greatest crisis of our time, climate change, which started to come into focus in about 2007, and especially in 2010 with the big oil spill that Dumpty Trumpty is now covering up and ignoring. The civics are starting to learn to be civics. That means more than occupying a street. It means participating in civic affairs. It means voting for starters. I agree Occupy was led by millennials, but when it ended, that by no means ended civic actions by millennials, including by younger cohorts than those who Occupied-- but didn't follow through with making their concerns politically effective and partisan, and thus had no civic effect to speak of. And that means Occupy was definitely NOT the most millennial thing in history, and not the crowning event of anything. It was mostly a lot of sound and fury, signifying virtually nothing. It is not civic unless it leads directly to political action within the system as well as outside it. The labor protesters of the 1930s led directly to real power for unions. That was civic. Occupy 2011 was OK, it got some people talking, but not so much as far as real change is concerned. BY the way, I participated in Occupy too so I know all about it.

The 2008 recession was definitely a sudden crash, in September of that year. Look back at the record of wall street then. If not for lessons learned and timely intervention by the government, we would have fallen into the worst depression EVER. Imagine millions of million-dollar mortgages evaporating. That was a huge disaster. Global terrorism means nothing to the average person; it's far away, and so were the stupid wars. Nor do I think the NSA violating privacy, etc, bad policy as it was, had any real impact on most Americans. Having your life savings and your home wiped out, did. Losing your job did. Lower income did. And this crisis continues today, because Trump is a total liar and a total creep. His claims are bogus. Most people have not recovered from the crash, and that most certainly includes 1997-2004 cohorts, who are entering an economy in debt and with everything unaffordable.

The old system was to wage unnecessary wars like Vietnam, which did NOT have a legitimate opponent, but was an unprovoked US invasion, and that policy was simply continued in Iraq. It was ZERO as far as anything new is concerned. If we don't agree on that, we live in alternate universes.

I read your post. I would agree with pushing the Gen Z start back to 2003, according to descriptions I've heard and seen about children at that age, but not to 1997. That implies that 2001 was the start of the 4th Turning. That is an event I predicted. And it is absolutely NOT the start of a 4T. I would never agree with that. You are out of touch with recent history. I doubt you lived through that time.

You wait and see. This 4T will end in 2028 and 2029. 4Ts do not last close to 30 years.

Speak for yourself. I'm Millennial and roll my eyes all the time because mass shootings are overplayed in the media as a tactic to make us feel unsafe. The media is just a 24/7 news agency based on making profits off our fears. If anything they create more mass shootings because people want the fame. Then idiot protestors want no more guns.

I should correct my statement at least this much: I shouldn't say I will never change my mind on something, because that is closed-minded. I'll just say I doubt I will ever agree that 9-11-2001 was the start of a 4th turning.

Mass shootings are definitely not over-played, and millennials know this and are mobilizing against this very-real threat to our lives. Mass shootings by nuts with guns, and shootings of innocent people of color by police, are linked, and are vastly under-reported. Thousands occur each year. Such gun violence is not the whole of this 4T by any means, but it is one element of it and a major motivating factor for circa-2000-born cohort millennials to take civic action. You can't deny that they did this last year. They mobilized millions of youth to vote. That is civic action. Occupying a street is not necessarily civic at all. Lots of Boomer prophets occupied administration buildings and streets in the sixties. Nomad Xers "acted up" to get attention about AIDS in the eighties.

If you think protesters against guns are idiots, well, we have a major disagreement there, and you disagree with a majority of millennials on this too. Americans are the ONLY developed country with such an idiot gun obsession that blocks meaningful gun control, and it's time for this obsession to END! We are not cowboys and indians! Grow up!

The 1997-2003 cohorts are NOW acting civically about guns, about climate change, and about inequality, college debt and low wages. Unlike you, they know these issues are civic and are on the ballot for a vote. They are just coming into their own as a civic generation, and we haven't seen anything yet from millennials, born from 1982 to 2003.

I live in the US and know first wave Millennials who own guns and are pro gun. However, I do live in an area where Trump signs were everywhere so maybe I'm biased. The crime rate is falling lower yet the media demands I think the sky is falling. I think there are different threats but mass shooting is too rare. I think the media gives the shooters too much attention and this glamourizes it for would be shooters who want infamy. I'm not alone on these views either because lots of younger Americans agree.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...-americans

[Kinser79]

AspieMillennial, Eric is an ignoramus. Worse, he is so ignorant that he believes himself to be incredibly wise. Dunning-Kruger is in full force with him.

I would agree that the Lamestream Media gives far more attention to those who commit crimes of the mass shooter type. They are also incredibly silent on the more prevalent form of gun violence--gang warfare. It should be noted that the guns used in gangland crime are almost always illegally obtained so new and different laws and controls would have no effect.

Of course then again anyone who already understands that criminals aren't known for obeying laws would already understand this.

[David Horn]

(05-04-2019, 07:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ... I would agree that the Lamestream Media gives far more attention to those who commit crimes of the mass shooter type.  They are also incredibly silent on the more prevalent form of gun violence--gang warfare.  It should be noted that the guns used in gangland crime are almost always illegally obtained so new and different laws and controls would have no effect.

Of course then again anyone who already understands that criminals aren't known for obeying laws would already understand this.

Yeah, except for making the guns, of course.  We are awash in firearms because we have essentially no controls on selling them.  If they can be sold, they will be manufactured.  If they are manufactured, some will be misdirected (usually through theft or bribery) into the illegal market.  That said, weapons that don't exist, because the legal market is tight, can't be misdirected because they don't exist in the first place.

So no.  The argument that illegal weapons can't be deterred is nonsense.  They seem to be deterred in other countries that actually give a damn.

[AspieMillennial]

(05-05-2019, 02:58 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-04-2019, 07:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ... I would agree that the Lamestream Media gives far more attention to those who commit crimes of the mass shooter type.  They are also incredibly silent on the more prevalent form of gun violence--gang warfare.  It should be noted that the guns used in gangland crime are almost always illegally obtained so new and different laws and controls would have no effect.

Of course then again anyone who already understands that criminals aren't known for obeying laws would already understand this.

Yeah, except for making the guns, of course.  We are awash in firearms because we have essentially no controls on selling them.  If they can be sold, they will be manufactured.  If they are manufactured, some will be misdirected (usually through theft or bribery) into the illegal market.  That said, weapons that don't exist, because the legal market is tight, can't be misdirected because they don't exist in the first place.

So no.  The argument that illegal weapons can't be deterred is nonsense.  They seem to be deterred in other countries that actually give a damn.

America doesn't want the gun laws of other countries. Other countries should stop pushing this nonsense on us.

[Kinser79]

(05-05-2019, 02:58 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-04-2019, 07:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ... I would agree that the Lamestream Media gives far more attention to those who commit crimes of the mass shooter type.  They are also incredibly silent on the more prevalent form of gun violence--gang warfare.  It should be noted that the guns used in gangland crime are almost always illegally obtained so new and different laws and controls would have no effect.

Of course then again anyone who already understands that criminals aren't known for obeying laws would already understand this.

Yeah, except for making the guns, of course.  We are awash in firearms because we have essentially no controls on selling them.  If they can be sold, they will be manufactured.  If they are manufactured, some will be misdirected (usually through theft or bribery) into the illegal market.  That said, weapons that don't exist, because the legal market is tight, can't be misdirected because they don't exist in the first place.

So no.  The argument that illegal weapons can't be deterred is nonsense.  They seem to be deterred in other countries that actually give a damn.

Yes because Prohibition always works.  After all no one can get Heroin or Cocaine.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Prohibition works-consider the success against alcohol.

[David Horn]

(05-05-2019, 05:48 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-05-2019, 02:58 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-04-2019, 07:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ... I would agree that the Lamestream Media gives far more attention to those who commit crimes of the mass shooter type.  They are also incredibly silent on the more prevalent form of gun violence--gang warfare.  It should be noted that the guns used in gangland crime are almost always illegally obtained so new and different laws and controls would have no effect.

Of course then again anyone who already understands that criminals aren't known for obeying laws would already understand this.

Yeah, except for making the guns, of course.  We are awash in firearms because we have essentially no controls on selling them.  If they can be sold, they will be manufactured.  If they are manufactured, some will be misdirected (usually through theft or bribery) into the illegal market.  That said, weapons that don't exist, because the legal market is tight, can't be misdirected because they don't exist in the first place.

So no.  The argument that illegal weapons can't be deterred is nonsense.  They seem to be deterred in other countries that actually give a damn.

Yes because Prohibition always works.  After all no one can get Heroin or Cocaine.

Try manufacturing guns in your kitchen … especially ones with high velocity ordinance, semiautomatic fire, and large magazines.  Light weight and high reliability are also tricky.

[AspieMillennial]

(05-06-2019, 09:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-05-2019, 05:48 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-05-2019, 02:58 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-04-2019, 07:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: ... I would agree that the Lamestream Media gives far more attention to those who commit crimes of the mass shooter type.  They are also incredibly silent on the more prevalent form of gun violence--gang warfare.  It should be noted that the guns used in gangland crime are almost always illegally obtained so new and different laws and controls would have no effect.

Of course then again anyone who already understands that criminals aren't known for obeying laws would already understand this.

Yeah, except for making the guns, of course.  We are awash in firearms because we have essentially no controls on selling them.  If they can be sold, they will be manufactured.  If they are manufactured, some will be misdirected (usually through theft or bribery) into the illegal market.  That said, weapons that don't exist, because the legal market is tight, can't be misdirected because they don't exist in the first place.

So no.  The argument that illegal weapons can't be deterred is nonsense.  They seem to be deterred in other countries that actually give a damn.

Yes because Prohibition always works.  After all no one can get Heroin or Cocaine.

Try manufacturing guns in your kitchen … especially ones with high velocity ordinance, semiautomatic fire, and large magazines.  Light weight and high reliability are also tricky.

You're forgetting we have 3D printers now.

[David Horn]

(05-06-2019, 09:22 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-06-2019, 09:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: Try manufacturing guns in your kitchen … especially ones with high velocity ordinance, semiautomatic fire, and large magazines.  Light weight and high reliability are also tricky.

You're forgetting we have 3D printers now.

No I'm not. Available 3D printers still lack the ability to prestress metal, or work in exotic materials. For example, a 3D printer that could print a high strength, light weight alloy can be built, but it would require roughly $1Million to produce it -- after the prototype had already been developed and tested, of course.

[Kinser79]

The key word in your last post Mr. Horn is "Available". In five or ten years such machines may be available. After all a mere fifteen years ago having a device you could surf the web on in your pocket at all times was considered science fiction. If there is profit in it, people will make it. Believe me.

[NobodyImportant]

Eric you changed how you phrased things so that you don't have to confront the truth that you are super closed minded yourself.
This very same "i'm super tolerant and open minded.... towards myself and those who agree with me" attitude is absolutely characteristic of the millennial cohort.
Also again you did nothing to address the points i made previously. 2001 isn't something i personally regard as something big, but something that is OBJECTIVELY the marker of an actual new historic era.
-So you have no arguments based on psychological development since people born 95 and 99 had very different psychological factors growing up, while 98 and 03 have not.
-You have no arguments from a historical perspective, because the 9/11 attacks are already the defining event of the early 21st century, marking an actual new historic era, like columbus landing in america.
-You have no arguments from a policy perspective, because 9/11 literally changed internal and external policy everywhere around the globe and has been used everywhere to erode freedoms and very suddenly and very rapidly push the current political climate towards somethuing unbearable by the populace.
-Your only argument is that the crash affected people's lives more, but this is nonsense to base a generational divide around 2003 on, because people born after 2000 would not have been aware enough to notice anything, and because as i said actual economic data shows that completely opposed to 29, 08 was just a drop on a downward graph for literally every person involved.
Also, the current cycle ending in 28 wouldn't prove your point either since there is no fixed rule about how long a crisis period can last.

"But I don't think we gave up our freedom, because we didn't have more attacks, and so more oppression than we got was not needed."
What on earth are you talking about. Have you read any of what i wrote. Gitmo, enhanced interrogation, Snowden, etc etc etc
'Global terror threat' which was the phenomenon introduced then, was and is still used to further and further curtail freedoms. Except recently it's also other things, because useful idiots will immediately also want to censor any view opposing theirs.


I agree that overall 2008 was an important event in propagating the crisis, but the crisis was already there. Keep in mind that the crisis doesn't have to be one single topic.

And also keep in mind that the current hero generation are the "impotent heroes", because basically none of the protest actions millennials organized ever did anything. Combine this with the "active measures" the USSR took way back in the 60s finally bearing fruit, and thus people not simply rebelling against the current system but any sort of structure and the rise of conflicting group identities as a social rallying point. Do all this and you can see that to simply categorize the millennials as the cohort that is going to do the turning and the turning as "just another one of those 4th turnings" is just flat out wrong. The power dynamics are not in favor of millennials. They do not have the means or unity to change society thanks to their historical and personal circumstances.
The only protest that *might possibly* lead to actual change and steer society away from the current self destructive orthodoxy in its limited scope, is the current yellow vest protests. They are the first place where the identitarian splits among the people who want to do something about the situation dissolved for a bit. This is a necessity to actually produce historically significant societal impact.
And even those have genX and before heavily involved.

A large part of why this current 4th turning is different and why you can't just deal with it as simply as before is due to the fact that the elite of society guarding the current orthodoxy, because it's profitable to them, are more entrenched and more powerful than the rest, and there isn't really anyone opposing them apart from the people. There are a couple of forward thinking individuals who are actually in touch with current society, but they also aren't exactly normal like elon musk the genX er.

There isn't a single part of the world you can point to that isn't embroiled in social or physical conflict at the moment, and tensions are at an absolute all time high, but these conflicts are all internal. They are things that you can't just solve by heroic action, a call to arms, or anything, because society is fairly evenly split.
Jill Stein didn't even come close to getting elected. And over half of america happily voted for the personification of current globalist orthodoxy and corporate special interest groups, Hillary. And the other option, Trump, wasn't even a hardline opposition to the corporate part of things either, even though he was the one less backed by special interest groups. And the third option? Bernie? He wholeheartedly buys into the identitarian bullshit that is responsible for the masses being split and things like the yelow vests being rare. Not to mention that he folded and readily accepted anything that the political overlords demanded.

And this isn't just restricted to US politics mind you.
Look at britain with ever new draconian surveillance laws introduced that makes you think that once they're out of the EU they're gonna reenact 1984 or mad max within a decade. Where's the massive opposition to this?
Look at france. It's been half a year and the protests still barely accomplished anything, even though they were the most effective and most extensive and most brutal in the past decades.
Look at the EU with it being universally hated. By germany because everyone seems to profit off off them, and by everyone else because germany is making itself out to be the despotic ruler of the continent again. But still it remains in power and what can one do?
Look at central europe with everyone banding more and more together against the EU but all still wholly remaining in it and supporting it.
Look at south america with the political split similar to the US.
Look at china with people being more and more discontent and the party being less and less able to keep up the facade, but at the same time also having more and more ability to suppress the populace.
Look at russia with increasingly aggressive imperialist policies, increasing fondness of soviet memories, but at the same time a populace incredibly wary of where this all will go.
Look at southeast asia, with internal conflicts and minority problems and rampant corruption and absolute madmen getting power because of this but still absolutely no ideas for solutions in sight.
Look at japan with the demographic crisis that has been looming for the past 30 years, but still absolutely no solution in sight, and absolutely no sign of bad policies and social trends being challenged.
Look at the middle east where thanks to the US meddling every damn hopeful democratic revolution basically resulted in something even worse than before.
Look at southafrica, which is getting increasingly racist and faces no opposition.
Look at the rest of africa which is being gradually recolonized by china, and literally no one is doing anything against it.

I do not know how the turning could actually go ahead without an actual civil war breaking out literally everywhere, spontaneously, without support, and without hope. (cuz the populace of the world is super lethargic. even the heroes don't *really* want to give their lives for change)
There are simply no options available for things to actually start going well suddenly. Nowhere. So we have two options:
-Either this all continues this way to a gradual meltdown and the entire world just becomes a dystopia and in a generation we can face global war again because of the resulting conflict coming not from the populace but just the interest groups, but with all of the populace just having hellish living conditions as a basis.
-Or things just cool down, and things get very gradually reformed instead of revolutionized.
Neither of this will result in a classic turning during the next decade.

The way things are currently headed the second one seems a bit more likely, with marginally more people rejecting the orthodoxy than accepting it (Trump/Brexit/ChinaTradewar/CentralEUUnion/GradualReform in ME/YellowVests)

TL;DR: The classic definition of these last two generational cohorts doesn't work, because there is no power and no option to actually carry out big societal change, and not enough pull into a single direction in any topic (apart from yellow vests) to actually affect any change anywhere. Therefore you can't view these generations classically anyway. So to just rigidly categorize them based on time intervals is nonsense anyway.


Also to the people turning this into a gun debate: No.

Mass shootings don't even enter into it they're just a part of dumb as fuck american culture and have been for quite a while now, same as massive fuckups from authorities. ISIL, black hawk, waco, cuba, ... You can go back to basically the start of the current cycle to still find examples of similar things, therefore it's irrelevant. And for gun crime even further.

[David Horn]

(05-06-2019, 03:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The key word in your last post Mr. Horn is "Available".  In five or ten years such machines may be available.  After all a mere fifteen years ago having a device you could surf the web on in your pocket at all times was considered science fiction.  If there is profit in it, people will make it.  Believe me.

That's still unlikely, even in the future.  The physics involved in creating the ideal firearm make the machine inherently complex and, therefore, expensive.  It may be cheaper.  It will never be cheap.

[Kinser79]

(05-07-2019, 09:31 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-06-2019, 03:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The key word in your last post Mr. Horn is "Available".  In five or ten years such machines may be available.  After all a mere fifteen years ago having a device you could surf the web on in your pocket at all times was considered science fiction.  If there is profit in it, people will make it.  Believe me.

That's still unlikely, even in the future.  The physics involved in creating the ideal firearm make the machine inherently complex and, therefore, expensive.  It may be cheaper.  It will never be cheap.

The physics involved in making the ideal smart phone are inherently complex, and at first were incredibly expensive.  Capitalism has a habit of discovering ways to make things faster, better, cheaper.

[David Horn]

(05-08-2019, 08:20 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-07-2019, 09:31 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-06-2019, 03:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The key word in your last post Mr. Horn is "Available".  In five or ten years such machines may be available.  After all a mere fifteen years ago having a device you could surf the web on in your pocket at all times was considered science fiction.  If there is profit in it, people will make it.  Believe me.

That's still unlikely, even in the future.  The physics involved in creating the ideal firearm make the machine inherently complex and, therefore, expensive.  It may be cheaper.  It will never be cheap.

The physics involved in making the ideal smart phone are inherently complex, and at first were incredibly expensive.  Capitalism has a habit of discovering ways to make things faster, better, cheaper.

Yet here we are, 4 generations into the process, but no one is making smart phone chips in their kitchen, are they?  There's a reason for that. 

[Kinser79]

(05-08-2019, 09:38 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-08-2019, 08:20 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-07-2019, 09:31 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-06-2019, 03:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The key word in your last post Mr. Horn is "Available".  In five or ten years such machines may be available.  After all a mere fifteen years ago having a device you could surf the web on in your pocket at all times was considered science fiction.  If there is profit in it, people will make it.  Believe me.

That's still unlikely, even in the future.  The physics involved in creating the ideal firearm make the machine inherently complex and, therefore, expensive.  It may be cheaper.  It will never be cheap.

The physics involved in making the ideal smart phone are inherently complex, and at first were incredibly expensive.  Capitalism has a habit of discovering ways to make things faster, better, cheaper.

Yet here we are, 4 generations into the process, but no one is making smart phone chips in their kitchen, are they?  There's a reason for that. 

Not quite.  3D printing technology isn't even out of its infancy yet--let alone 4 generations.  That is the reason people aren't printing smart phone chips in their kitchen yet.

Right now economies of scale still rule in industrial production.  That may change once 3D printing gets out of its infancy. 

Or are you a member of the school who in 1988 believed that no one would want to ever own a cell phone and pay a dollar for a local call on the street when the nearest payphone is a quarter.  BTW good luck finding a payphone.  I have employees that don't even know what payphones are!

[David Horn]

(05-08-2019, 09:45 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-08-2019, 09:38 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-08-2019, 08:20 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-07-2019, 09:31 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-06-2019, 03:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The key word in your last post Mr. Horn is "Available".  In five or ten years such machines may be available.  After all a mere fifteen years ago having a device you could surf the web on in your pocket at all times was considered science fiction.  If there is profit in it, people will make it.  Believe me.

That's still unlikely, even in the future.  The physics involved in creating the ideal firearm make the machine inherently complex and, therefore, expensive.  It may be cheaper.  It will never be cheap.

The physics involved in making the ideal smart phone are inherently complex, and at first were incredibly expensive.  Capitalism has a habit of discovering ways to make things faster, better, cheaper.

Yet here we are, 4 generations into the process, but no one is making smart phone chips in their kitchen, are they?  There's a reason for that. 

Not quite.  3D printing technology isn't even out of its infancy yet--let alone 4 generations.  That is the reason people aren't printing smart phone chips in their kitchen yet.

Right now economies of scale still rule in industrial production.  That may change once 3D printing gets out of its infancy. 

Or are you a member of the school who in 1988 believed that no one would want to ever own a cell phone and pay a dollar for a local call on the street when the nearest payphone is a quarter.  BTW good luck finding a payphone.  I have employees that don't even know what payphones are!

You can't print high-density microchips, because the size of the elements and the interstitial spacing between elements is measured in individual atoms.  The degree of precision is totally incompatible with any print technology we can conceive today.   If one ever does exist, it will be astronomically expensive (i.e. 10s to 100s of Millions of dollars). 

Note: we don't have personal spacecraft either.

[Kinser79]

Mr. Horn, you still haven't countered my argument. What can and cannot be conceived of today is of little importance to what will and will not happen. Should humans at some point master fusion technology (which seems to be permanently 40 years away) it is conceivable to have the energy necessary to replicate just about anything Star Trek style. At which point what is and is not millions of dollars in price will be of little importance. That being said I'm not convinced that the dollar as it currently exists will even exist in 50 years.

And no we don't have personal space craft yet either. But that is a matter of time. Humanity must eventually expand beyond Earth or it will parish.