(09-04-2016, 11:12 PM)taramarie Wrote: why did you send that to me when you meant to send that to Galen?

(09-05-2016, 01:16 AM)taramarie Wrote: This especially and the rest of your message have nothing to do with me. The first part of your message definitely should not be directed at me.

(09-04-2016, 11:16 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-04-2016, 10:29 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-04-2016, 09:37 PM)taramarie Wrote: It was certainly not self absorbed to give people more civil rights like for women such as myself. Heck even men as they can now go into jobs that were considered "women's work" back in the day. They gave us more freedom culturally. People who want to go back to older days when a mans place was ...... or a woman's place was ..... are insane and will hopefully die off. I will not have my rights taken away from me. People should be allowed to do whatever they wish. It is not self absorbed to give equal rights to people. You are just seeing it through the eyes of a child who went through it at the worst possible time. But the result meant future generations could enjoy that freedom. I am seeing it through the eyes of a child who experienced it after the dust had settled and i could enjoy more freedom than what earlier generations had experienced and I deeply appreciate it.

Choices have consequences and they are not always good.  For what you see as good coming from the Awakening there were even more negative consequences.  Maybe in New Zealand it may have played out but that isn't true in the US.  For one thing the Boomers flat refusal to understand economic consequences is still playing out.  I suspect that choices will become more constrained as the last fifty years of fiscal mismanagement land on our heads.  The Boomers will refuse to accept any responsibility and demand that we pay for their retirement.

Of course choices do not always end up with a positive outcome, but it should be our right to have that option. Yes, of course. It broke up the family, and financial security. I can see that. But we should have that freedom. My dream would have been unattainable if i were in the 50's right now.

(09-05-2016, 01:37 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 01:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 01:16 AM)taramarie Wrote: This especially and the rest of your message have nothing to do with me. The first part of your message definitely should not be directed at me.

Fine, oh prickly one.  I thought you were bright enough to figure it out and mellow enough not to throw a hissy fit.  Sorry.

What's your fucking problem? Male pms? You started this, i'll bloody finish it you wanna start something old man. I was not being "hissy fit" attitude till you sent that message. You wanna start something WRONG person buddy!

(09-05-2016, 01:59 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 01:55 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-04-2016, 11:16 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-04-2016, 10:29 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-04-2016, 09:37 PM)taramarie Wrote: It was certainly not self absorbed to give people more civil rights like for women such as myself. Heck even men as they can now go into jobs that were considered "women's work" back in the day. They gave us more freedom culturally. People who want to go back to older days when a mans place was ...... or a woman's place was ..... are insane and will hopefully die off. I will not have my rights taken away from me. People should be allowed to do whatever they wish. It is not self absorbed to give equal rights to people. You are just seeing it through the eyes of a child who went through it at the worst possible time. But the result meant future generations could enjoy that freedom. I am seeing it through the eyes of a child who experienced it after the dust had settled and i could enjoy more freedom than what earlier generations had experienced and I deeply appreciate it.

Choices have consequences and they are not always good.  For what you see as good coming from the Awakening there were even more negative consequences.  Maybe in New Zealand it may have played out but that isn't true in the US.  For one thing the Boomers flat refusal to understand economic consequences is still playing out.  I suspect that choices will become more constrained as the last fifty years of fiscal mismanagement land on our heads.  The Boomers will refuse to accept any responsibility and demand that we pay for their retirement.

Of course choices do not always end up with a positive outcome, but it should be our right to have that option. Yes, of course. It broke up the family, and financial security. I can see that. But we should have that freedom. My dream would have been unattainable if i were in the 50's right now.

Imagine being part of an entire generation that to this day still has to deal with the consequences.  Trust me on this, you do not want to do damage control for another generation of very short-sighted people.  You are too young to know this but that is pretty much what the Boomers were saying to everyone else at the time.  You may not suffer the negative consequences but someone down the line might.  Consider that thought carefully, it may spare you some regrets in the coming decades.

So do you think we women should go back into the kitchen and not pursue our dreams while men go back to jobs that are traditionally meant for men...essentially the old 1T? That is not realistically attainable financially I hope you realize.

(09-05-2016, 02:42 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 02:28 AM)Galen Wrote: The Boomers did not consider the effects of what they were doing on anyone else.  It simply didn't matter to them.  As for the financial difficulties you refer to, that is one of the nasty little consequences of their attempt to create a utopia.  I am not recommending any particular course of action.  I am trying to get you to consider why did traditional gender roles arise and why the dysfunction you consider to be normal now was rare until the sixties.  Once you know why traditional culture worked you may be able do better than the Boomers did for generations to follow without having to sacrifice too much.  Maybe you can avoid creating another Generation X.

I am trying to get you to think about more than the immediate consequences.  Trust me, this is a crucial skill.

Well we cannot simply go back to traditional roles just like that. That is unrealistic. A rational and realistic solution would be needed. Women will not go backwards and men also should be allowed to do whatever course suits them too. Rights cannot be taken away once given to a society culturally. Unless individuals feel it is suited to them. Also it was not just gen x that went through this financial and cultural shake up. Us millies did too. My dad took off and my mother had to rely on a benefit as it was illegal to leave a child at home alone till the age of 16. We are financially not well off at all. So, trust me i totally understand your concern. However i do not see another 50's 1T happening any time soon and I would not want to live in a world like that. Despite not being well off at all and life made harder financially I appreciate my freedom to plan my future and not be expected to marry and have a family. Culture is ingrained into us on a deep level and is a hard thing to shake up but also we need to be well off enough individually to create a world that is similar to the 50's 1T. It is just not realistic and for millie women....many of them love the freedom. Keep in mind we were taught to appreciate it from the cradle.

(09-05-2016, 02:24 AM)taramarie Wrote: I do not start fights but i certainly finish them. You sent that message to me. If you do not want a fight you sure do not know how to post in a way that avoids it matey. Especially sending that first part to me is unacceptable. Send it to the person it was aimed at as i assume you meant it for Galen. I ask why you sent it and you just insult me. You did not have a hissy fit then but sending the next nasty post you bloody well get one. For someone who does not want a hissy fit on his hands you sure know how to create one!

(09-05-2016, 03:13 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 03:01 AM)Galen Wrote: I am not suggesting a return to the fifties but what they did generally worked better.  You might want to try to create some of the same effects in a different way.  This fourth turning is going to be ugly and I don't think what you consider as the status quo is going to survive.  Too many really bad decisions have been made over the last fifty years and I don't think the bill can be delayed much longer.

I have heard from early boomers about what life was like with a whole family under one roof. They were financially well off and the family was whole but was it always better for the child? Not always. The man or woman would be cheating behind back. They could be emotionally separated and sometimes fighting with the child stuck in the household hearing all of that knowing that it did as much damage or even worse, emotional scarring long lasting effects. So while financially they were better off it was not always a positive story for the couple and their children. So yes there were positives it was as damaging for the children till the couple divorced. Yeah divorce also has negative consequences for a child seeing their parents separate but also financially. Anyway that is just my thoughts after hearing from early boomers what life was like. I am not sure how we can replicate the 50s in a more modernized society. Families have always been dysfunctional. One emotional and the other financial.

(09-05-2016, 03:37 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 03:32 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 03:13 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 03:01 AM)Galen Wrote: I am not suggesting a return to the fifties but what they did generally worked better.  You might want to try to create some of the same effects in a different way.  This fourth turning is going to be ugly and I don't think what you consider as the status quo is going to survive.  Too many really bad decisions have been made over the last fifty years and I don't think the bill can be delayed much longer.

I have heard from early boomers about what life was like with a whole family under one roof. They were financially well off and the family was whole but was it always better for the child? Not always. The man or woman would be cheating behind back. They could be emotionally separated and sometimes fighting with the child stuck in the household hearing all of that knowing that it did as much damage or even worse, emotional scarring long lasting effects. So while financially they were better off it was not always a positive story for the couple and their children. So yes there were positives it was as damaging for the children till the couple divorced. Yeah divorce also has negative consequences for a child seeing their parents separate but also financially. Anyway that is just my thoughts after hearing from early boomers what life was like. I am not sure how we can replicate the 50s in a more modernized society. Families have always been dysfunctional. One emotional and the other financial.

On average it worked out better.  Trust me on this, I am in a position to know.  Look up the crime statistics on children from single parent households some time.  It is not a pretty picture.

How many families during the 50s were dysfunctional emotionally by being stuck together in an unhappy relationship meanwhile affecting the children compared to now? Clearly it was enough to create a rebellion from that kind of relationship.

(09-05-2016, 04:44 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 04:20 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 03:37 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 03:32 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 03:13 AM)taramarie Wrote: I have heard from early boomers about what life was like with a whole family under one roof. They were financially well off and the family was whole but was it always better for the child? Not always. The man or woman would be cheating behind back. They could be emotionally separated and sometimes fighting with the child stuck in the household hearing all of that knowing that it did as much damage or even worse, emotional scarring long lasting effects. So while financially they were better off it was not always a positive story for the couple and their children. So yes there were positives it was as damaging for the children till the couple divorced. Yeah divorce also has negative consequences for a child seeing their parents separate but also financially. Anyway that is just my thoughts after hearing from early boomers what life was like. I am not sure how we can replicate the 50s in a more modernized society. Families have always been dysfunctional. One emotional and the other financial.

On average it worked out better.  Trust me on this, I am in a position to know.  Look up the crime statistics on children from single parent households some time.  It is not a pretty picture.

How many families during the 50s were dysfunctional emotionally by being stuck together in an unhappy relationship meanwhile affecting the children compared to now? Clearly it was enough to create a rebellion from that kind of relationship.

Fewer than the ones that were screwed up in the seventies.  Even the Boomers that were in a good situation rebelled as hard as that may be for you to understand because it just what they did.  They really think that they can shape the world arbitrarily with no consquences.  They are going to spend their Golden Years denying they did anything wrong because the truth is too terrible for them to accept.  Boomers don't ask questions which I suspect is because they are afraid they won't like the answers.  For Generation X sometimes questions are all we have, there are very few certainties for us.

Take it from an Xer, sometimes you only get to choose from bad or worse.  Judging from the statistics after the sixties, the Boomers have fucked up far more people, per capita, than the Lost or the GIs ever did.  I judge them from their results. Truth is, I got far better advice from them then I ever did from the Boomers.

Only through uncertainty can understanding come.  You may be far too certain about things for your own good.  Only time will tell if I am right about that. In the end it always does.

" You may be far too certain about things for your own good.  Only time will tell if I am right about that. In the end it always does." You know me. I listen to both sides of the story and come to the best conclusion I can come up with. I always listen to both sides. Which is why i have so many fights with Eric. Because for him it is always listen to ME AND ONLY ME FOR I HAVE THE ANSWERS FOR ALL BECAUSE I AM ALWAYS RIGHT! Per capita yes of course Lost and GIs would be better than boomers. Some boomers knew no better. Even us millies and the gen xers have learned from hard times to be more careful with money so I have read. But that also is due to broken families, many have no jobs, living at home with parents, and so they literally have no money to spend. Some are saving for homes. Here in NZ we cannot afford homes especially in Auckland (housing crisis). We bus to save money because we cannot afford cars. Yes I also read this too. Hard times early in life teach you some wonderful things to just be careful with your money. That may save us in time. I have seen reckless spending in older folk. My mother is a fine example of credit card spending beyond her means.

As for "They really think that they can shape the world arbitrarily with no consequences.  They are going to spend their Golden Years denying they did anything wrong because the truth is too terrible for them to accept.  Boomers don't ask questions which I suspect is because they are afraid they won't like the answers."

To them it felt needed at the time. They saw injustice and saw what was needed to balance things out culturally. We all in our youth see what is needed at the time. That was needed in their time as far as they were concerned. For the positive of their result i am grateful to them. We know money is not everything. It sure does help out but who are we to keep people together who do not want to be just for financial security? Is that not selfish? I have no excuse for their generation for reckless spending without reflecting on the dire consequences other than the fact it is generational forgetting, greed and impatience. Many thought good times would always be good. We learned earlier on than them that is not always the case going through the worst recession since the great depression.Plus here in NZ city shattering quakes on top of it. We had it worse here especially. So I learned very quickly at a young age for which I am grateful.

(09-05-2016, 05:36 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 05:22 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 04:44 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 04:20 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 03:37 AM)taramarie Wrote: How many families during the 50s were dysfunctional emotionally by being stuck together in an unhappy relationship meanwhile affecting the children compared to now? Clearly it was enough to create a rebellion from that kind of relationship.

Fewer than the ones that were screwed up in the seventies.  Even the Boomers that were in a good situation rebelled as hard as that may be for you to understand because it just what they did.  They really think that they can shape the world arbitrarily with no consquences.  They are going to spend their Golden Years denying they did anything wrong because the truth is too terrible for them to accept.  Boomers don't ask questions which I suspect is because they are afraid they won't like the answers.  For Generation X sometimes questions are all we have, there are very few certainties for us.

Take it from an Xer, sometimes you only get to choose from bad or worse.  Judging from the statistics after the sixties, the Boomers have fucked up far more people, per capita, than the Lost or the GIs ever did.  I judge them from their results. Truth is, I got far better advice from them then I ever did from the Boomers.

Only through uncertainty can understanding come.  You may be far too certain about things for your own good.  Only time will tell if I am right about that. In the end it always does.

" You may be far too certain about things for your own good.  Only time will tell if I am right about that. In the end it always does." You know me. I listen to both sides of the story and come to the best conclusion I can come up with. I always listen to both sides. Which is why i have so many fights with Eric. Because for him it is always listen to ME AND ONLY ME FOR I HAVE THE ANSWERS FOR ALL BECAUSE I AM ALWAYS RIGHT! Per capita yes of course Lost and GIs would be better than boomers. Some boomers knew no better. Even us millies and the gen xers have learned from hard times to be more careful with money so I have read. But that also is due to broken families, many have no jobs, living at home with parents, and so they literally have no money to spend. Some are saving for homes. Here in NZ we cannot afford homes especially in Auckland (housing crisis). We bus to save money because we cannot afford cars. Yes I also read this too. Hard times early in life teach you some wonderful things to just be careful with your money. That may save us in time. I have seen reckless spending in older folk. My mother is a fine example of credit card spending beyond her means.

As for "They really think that they can shape the world arbitrarily with no consequences.  They are going to spend their Golden Years denying they did anything wrong because the truth is too terrible for them to accept.  Boomers don't ask questions which I suspect is because they are afraid they won't like the answers."

To them it felt needed at the time. They saw injustice and saw what was needed to balance things out culturally. We all in our youth see what is needed at the time. That was needed in their time as far as they were concerned. For the positive of their result i am grateful to them. We know money is not everything. It sure does help out but who are we to keep people together who do not want to be just for financial security? Is that not selfish? I have no excuse for their generation for reckless spending without reflecting on the dire consequences other than the fact it is generational forgetting, greed and impatience. Many thought good times would always be good. We learned earlier on than them that is not always the case going through the worst recession since the great depression.Plus here in NZ city shattering quakes on top of it. We had it worse here especially. So I learned very quickly at a young age for which I am grateful.

What you see as positive result came at great cost and not just in terms of money.  Generation X has paid and is still paying that bill.  Millies are too but they don't really understand how high that price is.  It is a bill that the Boomers are busy trying to avoid that bill.

I wonder if you can guess what America's greatest cultural flaw is?

Lets see...greed, deception, propaganda (included in deception) tribalism (created partly due to deception). Hmm yeah thinking about it i would say deception. It is a great tool to separate then conquer for power, cultural and financial. Yes everything has its positive and negative consequence. Never denied that there were no negative consequence. Only that there was positives but to reverse it would be impossible culturally.

(09-04-2016, 02:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-04-2016, 01:41 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(09-04-2016, 01:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The awakening was a brief though glorious dream time.  Eric is in some ways an echo of it.  Not a total echo.  Most blue boomers aren't into astrology or mysticism.  Eric has become something of a hawk of late, which is not representative of the old anti-war hippies.  Most blue boomers did grow out of the awakening mood, and got into wives, family, jobs and (shudder) disco.  They in time outgrew the disco as well.  As much as anyone on this forum, though, Eric might give you some impression of hippie culture.  I'm a blue boomer too, though.  Not all blue boomers are totally alike.  Beware vile stereotypes.  Don't judge the United States as a scrambled collection of hateful partisan propaganda.

What do you mean by that?

In the slang of the time, a 'hawk' was an advocate for the use of military force.  A 'dove' would wish to avoid use of military force.  During the awakening, the Establishment believed in the domino theory, that communism had to be resisted everywhere and always, thus they would be the hawks.  The young blue boomers were being sent to Vietnam to risk their lives for a corrupt dictatorship.  They were for the most part doves.

During the Bush 43 administration there was a debate about the Iraq war.  The Republicans leaned 'stay the course,' and would be labeled hawks using the old slang.  The Democrats leaned 'cut and run' and would be called doves.

Eric seems to be favoring intervention in Syria of late.  Now, Syria is quite different from Vietnam,  The hawk / dove debate ought to be framed in a very different way.  Still, to the extent he is advocating intervention he is going hawk, while during the awakening your typical hippie would be a dove.

Love, peace and rock and roll.  

(09-05-2016, 01:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-05-2016, 01:16 AM)taramarie Wrote: This especially and the rest of your message have nothing to do with me. The first part of your message definitely should not be directed at me.

Fine, oh prickly one. I thought you were bright enough to figure it out and mellow enough not to throw a hissy fit. Sorry.

(09-04-2016, 01:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Galen and Eric tend to indulge in what I call 'vile stereotypes'.  They have spliced together the worst aspects of members of their opposite cultures into ugly caricatures, and will try to sell their venom as if it represents the culture of their political rivals.  They are highly partisan and as such are making no attempt to understand or sympathize with people who disagree with them.

(09-05-2016, 10:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know if you've read any of my articles, or would admit it if you have not. But if you haven't, you can't really say I don't understand my political rivals. For example, can you honestly say that I don't understand my free-market opponents upon reading this article?
http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

(09-05-2016, 10:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: This ideology that Galen passionately believes in, is not hard to "understand;" nor that it holds sway to a great extent in the red states. There are other aspects of southern culture besides the belief in this ideology; other ideologies and folkways and so on. I don't say southern culture is all bad, since it is a musical hub, it shows hospitality, I like baseball, etc., although I don't like greasy food, or guns, and I don't follow NASCAR anymore, and sympathize with Colin Kaepernick, and disagree with knocking hippies, etc.; but as long as they keep voting for Republicans, as they exist today, they stereotype themselves, and they are fair game, because their votes have real-world consequences, such as climate change, war, poverty and discrimination. That doesn't mean that Democrats and Greens and people who believe in other ideologies don't make mistakes too.

(09-05-2016, 10:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But I hadn't been clear on just how reactionary Galen is, until I saw these recent posts. Not only is he a free-market libertarian, but upholds traditional gender roles and says boomers messed up society by challenging them. No doubt that I am a progressive, because I am interested and concerned and support movements for change, and therefore I am going to disagree with reactionary ideas. To say I don't understand them, just because I oppose them, makes zero logical sense.

(09-05-2016, 10:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: What I notice often from you, Tara (especially), galen and others, is that when I make measured and qualified statements, they are ignored. Only my apparent extremist positions are heard or remembered.