Report Card for Donald Trump

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-01-2017, 05:51 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 05:47 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 04:59 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: <snip>

Quote:It is not valid to lump 1968 and 2016 riots in the same category.  The 1992 Rodney King race riots (3 events 62 dead) dwarf anything that happened in 2016, and were themselves considerably less than late 1960’s race riots. (1966-68 riots 29 events, 148 dead).  There was something like 1900 incidents of terrorism in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.  In addition were the many hundreds of bombings carried out by domestic terrorists.

I dunno, the increase in murders in cities like Chicago and Baltimore after BLM protests against the police have been quite sizable.  But no, we are still not there yet.

How about this C*'s racists stuff?  How about introducing her to some white sheets? A pair made in heaven.

White Sheets?  Sounds racist.  What, no sheets of color allowed? 

Well, either that or a very long stint in the big house for incitement.

C* Wrote:

Quote:Just so you know... we need to start killing people... first off we need to start killing the White House... the White House might die... your fucking White House... your fucking White House must go…

Quote:White people... give your fucking money... give your fucking house... your fucking property... we need it fucking all... you need to reparate black and indigenous people right now... Pay the fuck up... it ain’t just your fucking time... it’s your fucking money...

Sorry, that spew sound awful damn threatening to me.  Something very, very bad needs to happen to her.  Hell, I'd settle for her getting AIDS. Just imagine the uproar if some whitey said something along those lines.

[Eric the Green]

(02-01-2017, 05:51 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 05:47 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 04:59 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: <snip>

Quote:It is not valid to lump 1968 and 2016 riots in the same category.  The 1992 Rodney King race riots (3 events 62 dead) dwarf anything that happened in 2016, and were themselves considerably less than late 1960’s race riots. (1966-68 riots 29 events, 148 dead).  There was something like 1900 incidents of terrorism in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.  In addition were the many hundreds of bombings carried out by domestic terrorists.

I dunno, the increase in murders in cities like Chicago and Baltimore after BLM protests against the police have been quite sizable.  But no, we are still not there yet.

How about this C*'s racists stuff?  How about introducing her to some white sheets? A pair made in heaven.

White Sheets?  Sounds racist.  What, no sheets of color allowed? 

White racist wear white sheets. Looks like black racists wear black sheets. For black sheep.

[Marypoza]

(02-01-2017, 06:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 05:51 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 05:47 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 04:59 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: <snip>

Quote:It is not valid to lump 1968 and 2016 riots in the same category.  The 1992 Rodney King race riots (3 events 62 dead) dwarf anything that happened in 2016, and were themselves considerably less than late 1960’s race riots. (1966-68 riots 29 events, 148 dead).  There was something like 1900 incidents of terrorism in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.  In addition were the many hundreds of bombings carried out by domestic terrorists.

I dunno, the increase in murders in cities like Chicago and Baltimore after BLM protests against the police have been quite sizable.  But no, we are still not there yet.

How about this C*'s racists stuff?  How about introducing her to some white sheets? A pair made in heaven.

White Sheets?  Sounds racist.  What, no sheets of color allowed? 

White racist wear white sheets.

-- with pointy pillow cases

[Emman85]

Quote:If this is the only financial panic for 20 years after 2008 this would be significant.

What, the 1937 recession was quite bad, I guess the last fourth turning didn't start until 1938 or 1939.

Quote:But suppose there is another one in the next 2-3 years? We had panics in 1857, 1873. 1884, 1893 and 1907 giving spacing of 9-16 years (average 12.5) so there is precedent.

So far.  Suppose we get another candidate--another crisis like suggested above or something else?  Why should 2008 be favored over the other two?  If you say 2008 fits the generations better, isn't that fitting the facts to the theory?

I think there will a another financial shock in the next 1-3 years, I don't know if it will be as bad as 2008 though. 

Quote:Except these aren't big movements.  They are similar in scale to the Religious Right, Divestment and Anti-nuke protests of the eighties. Nothing we have seen is remotely on the scale or intensity as the protests of the 1960's and early 1970's.  There has been rising sociopolitical instability of a vastly larger scale in terms of violence.  These are the rampage killings.

There has been a rising sense of general civil unrest and political discontent for the past 5-6 years and these various movements are part of that, the women's march that just happened was possibly the largest protest the US has ever seen. Just last week millions of people were marching in the streets literally, what's you're definition of big?

Even in 1969 there was not THIS kind of reaction to Nixon's inauguration, you are right that we have yet to approach the violent severity of 1967, 1968 but if Peter Turchin's prediction is right the early 2020s could be worse than that period, he's saying it could get as bad as 1919!

Quote:What I am getting at, is if there is something to this theory, it should be possible to predict that certain events will/will not happen as an experiment, so as the test the theory.  Otherwise how can you ever validate it?

But you have ignored the most vital part of the theory, generational aging, if what you are saying is true then the flower children of '67 are not Boomers, the early grungers and crack dealers of the early '90s are not Xers, heck I'm Gen X.

You'd have to push the generations boundaries up by about a decade for each living adult generation today, there would be no internal consistency of the theory itself.

[Mikebert]

(02-01-2017, 05:32 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Yes, Mike, I am familiar with the concepts of dominant and recessive generations, I have been posting and reading here for about 4 years now (Jesus, where does time go?).

OK explain them.  What role do they play and why is this important?

[Mikebert]

(02-01-2017, 04:59 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Well, strictly speaking, the crisis began in 1929, and the response didn't occur until 1933, with a relapse in 1937, and the issue wasn't truly fixed until the enormous buildup during WWII.

I would point out that after 1932, the nature of the response (a Democratic one) was fixed.  Republicans suffered such enormous losses that they would have no chance to set policy for the rest of the 4T.

Quote:I dunno, the increase in murders in cities like Chicago and Baltimore after BLM protests against the police have been quite sizable.  

Compared to what?

[Mikebert]

(02-01-2017, 05:56 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Ah, so you are restricting measures of violence to "sociopolitical events"?  Do you have a definition for that?  

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.to...0Paper.pdf

[SomeGuy]

(02-03-2017, 02:56 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 05:32 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Yes, Mike, I am familiar with the concepts of dominant and recessive generations, I have been posting and reading here for about 4 years now (Jesus, where does time go?).

OK explain them.  What role do they play and why is this important?

A dominant generation is one that exercises an independent role during their first social movement, a role which they then carry on into midlife.  A recessive generation is one that play a dependent role (either child or midlife) during their first social moment, and compensates for that in the next.  

Consequently, dominant generations end up exerting influence in the public sphere (rhetoric and values, technology and institutions), whereas recessive generations compensate for their dependent role by exerting a commensurately greater influence on the private world of human relationships.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:I would point out that after 1932, the nature of the response (a Democratic one) was fixed.  Republicans suffered such enormous losses that they would have no chance to set policy for the rest of the 4T.

Eh, particularly after the defection of Southern Democrats, the Conservative Coalition was never so toothless as all that.  Is the GD/WWII really the only valid model?

Quote:Compared to what?

Compared to what it had been immediately prior.

[SomeGuy]

(02-03-2017, 03:05 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 05:56 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Ah, so you are restricting measures of violence to "sociopolitical events"?  Do you have a definition for that?  

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.to...0Paper.pdf

Thank you.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:A dominant generation is one that exercises an independent role during their first social movement, a role which they then carry on into midlife.  A recessive generation is one that play a dependent role (either child or midlife) during their first social moment, and compensates for that in the next.  

Consequently, dominant generations end up exerting influence in the public sphere (rhetoric and values, technology and institutions), whereas recessive generations compensate for their dependent role by exerting a commensurately greater influence on the private world of human relationships.

If you'd like something a little bit less paraphrased from Generations, this difference is that the dominant generations get to be the stars of the show (either the guy behind the camera or the guy right in front of it, as it were) during the two social moments they live through, which carries over into the next turning, whereas the recessives play supporting roles (either in the audience or behind the scenes) during the big moments, while their active periods occur when nothing much is going on, and they remain in the shadow of the generation ahead of/increasingly behind them.

[Eric the Green]

You may be wrong on many things, Jordan, but you do have a good grasp of the theory and what it means. My compliments.

[Mikebert]

(02-01-2017, 10:25 PM)Emman85 Wrote: There has been a rising sense of general civil unrest and political discontent for the past 5-6 years and these various movements are part of that, the women's march that just happened was possibly the largest protest the US has ever seen. Just last week millions of people were marching in the streets literally, what's you're definition of big?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...es-experts

The Iraq War protests led to nothing and so were small in effect.  Occupy Wall Street got lots of publicity and was small in effect.  The Tea Party was small in numbers but achieved large effects. The first two were small, even though they were either numerically large or got plenty of media attention.  The last was large, even though the actual protests and coverage were less than or equal to the other two.

Quote:..you are right that we have yet to approach the violent severity of 1967...

Precisely, which is why they will remain "small" in my estimation, pending some demonstration of effectiveness.

[SomeGuy]

(02-03-2017, 03:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You may be wrong on many things, Jordan, but you do have a good grasp of the theory and what it means. My compliments.

Thank you, Eric.

*bows*

I can't say that I am less abrasive in person, but I can say that it is very rarely ill-meant...

That doesn't mean you aren't still wrong, though. 

[Mikebert]

(02-03-2017, 03:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: A dominant generation is one that exercises an independent role during their first social movement, a role which they then carry on into midlife.  A recessive generation is one that play a dependent role (either child or midlife) during their first social moment, and compensates for that in the next.  

Consequently, dominant generations end up exerting influence in the public sphere (rhetoric and values, technology and institutions), whereas recessive generations compensate for their dependent role by exerting a commensurately greater influence on the private world of human relationships.

Ok. Now why are some generations dominant and others not?

[SomeGuy]

(02-03-2017, 03:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 03:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: A dominant generation is one that exercises an independent role during their first social movement, a role which they then carry on into midlife.  A recessive generation is one that play a dependent role (either child or midlife) during their first social moment, and compensates for that in the next.  

Consequently, dominant generations end up exerting influence in the public sphere (rhetoric and values, technology and institutions), whereas recessive generations compensate for their dependent role by exerting a commensurately greater influence on the private world of human relationships.

Ok. Now why are some generations dominant and others not?

Because social moments occur in relatively set intervals?  I feel like I have already answered this question.

Or are you looking for something more fancy like "lagged negative feedback mechanism"?

[SomeGuy]

There are other issues I raised that you have yet addressed, that might actually lead to new discussions.  Or are we determined to turn this into a shin-kicking competition?

[Mikebert]

(02-03-2017, 03:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 03:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 03:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: A dominant generation is one that exercises an independent role during their first social movement, a role which they then carry on into midlife.  A recessive generation is one that play a dependent role (either child or midlife) during their first social moment, and compensates for that in the next.  

Consequently, dominant generations end up exerting influence in the public sphere (rhetoric and values, technology and institutions), whereas recessive generations compensate for their dependent role by exerting a commensurately greater influence on the private world of human relationships.

Ok. Now why are some generations dominant and others not?

Because social moments occur in relatively set intervals?

No I want an answer to the question.  Why DO social moments occur at relative set intervals?  This is what the S&H model is supposed to explain.  Are you saying S&H claim some exogenous factor causes generations to happen?  That wasn't my reading, my understanding is that the process is endogenous.

For cryin out loud.  The gave a mantra that explains their model.  Did you miss that?

[SomeGuy]

I literally already gave you my answer: Dominant generations play active roles during periods when society is perceived to be in crisis (a social moment), and they carry that (successful) role with them into the 3T/1T.

If you don't like that answer, feel free to yell "WRONG!" and declare victory, but that's the final answer.

[SomeGuy]

I hate when you do that, I wrote a response to a question you changed while I was writing it.

The S & H answer is that generations (and the roles they play) create turnings, and turnings (and the events that occur in them) create generations.