Leading and trailing edge millenials

[Warren Dew]

Here's a video on a disciplinary session between a trailing edge millenial grad student TA and a professor, who seems to be a leading edge millenial, regarding a video of a politically charged debate the TA presented for discussion in class.  It's cued to the following exchange.

TA:  I remained very neutral.
Professor:  That's kind of the problem.






The whole thing plays as kind of a 1984 style inquisition designed to make the victim love big brother, but that's tangential to what's relevant to the millenial generation.

Leading edge millenials generally buy in to political correctness as something to be enforced by any means possible, and are horrified when someone fails to take political correctness as fundamental tenets of their belief system.  Meanwhile, it's now seeming more and more like trailing edge millenials, while agreeing with political correctness, take the view that it is something that can be legitimately debated and examined, rather than as something to be enforced dogmatically.

I wonder to what extent this is a result of leading edge millenials being generally the children of boomers, while trailing edge millenials are generally the children of Xs.  One might expect boomers, with their "ends justify the means" attitude, to instill dogmatism about their beliefs in their children.  Meanwhile, Xs, who value their individual privacy and freedom, might have passed along more tolerant attitudes to their younger millenial children.

This also suggests to me a different way of examining the awakening era:  as a transition from dogmatic leading edge civic leadership to tolerant trailing edge civic leadership.  Certainly one could view the US Presidential transitions during the boom awakening as following that general path.  And that might, in turn, help explain why the awakening transition is from the institutional domination of the high to the institutional neglect of the unraveling.

[Eric the Green]

Reagan, of course, was very dogmatic, although permissive about wealthy institutions and individuals pursuing their economic goals (which is part of the dogma, of course). But Carter did not push the liberal agenda of the sixties. I don't notice such political correctness among early millennials; where do you see it? If anything, the college students who have been more dogmatic recently had to have been born in the 1990s somewhere. Middle range millennials, perhaps.

If anything, though the Xers are in favor of individualism in politics, they have been the most dogmatic posters on this board over the years. Most of those whom I know in person here in CA though, are tolerant and easy-going. Exceptions apply to all these characterizations.

[Warren Dew]

(11-23-2017, 02:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Reagan, of course, was very dogmatic, although permissive about wealthy institutions and individuals pursuing their economic goals (which is part of the dogma, of course). But Carter did not push the liberal agenda of the sixties. I don't notice such political correctness among early millennials; where do you see it? If anything, the college students who have been more dogmatic recently had to have been born in the 1990s somewhere. Middle range millennials, perhaps.

If anything, though the Xers are in favor of individualism in politics, they have been the most dogmatic posters on this board over the years. Most of those whom I know in person here in CA though, are tolerant and easy-going. Exceptions apply to all these characterizations.

The Civic Presidents were Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush.  Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were all about an active and growing federal government, though I agree "authoritarian" might be better than "dogmatic".  Carter in contrast attempted to reduce federal power and overreach with his "zero based budgeting" and Reagan actually succeeded at reducing federal regulatory power.  To put it another way, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were trying to extend the Truman-Eisenhower High, while Carter and Reagan ushered in the Unraveling.

[Kinser79]

This is interesting however, I think we need to see how the Zeds react to PC culture.  Largely I find them rejecting it on mass, and they are probably going to be as large if not larger than Millennials  

That being said, I have noticed a difference in flavor between what you call "leading edge" and "trailing edge" Millennials in the work force.  By and large the older ones seem to want to enforce the Leftist based PC narrative at all costs, even willing to engage in moral panics over it, while the younger ones are more skeptical of the benefits of PC culture.

Part of this could be due to parental generation, Zeds for sure and later Millies are largely the children of Xers (and we are skeptical of just about everything) while older Millies are typically the younger children of Boomers.

[Kinser79]

We should also stop to consider my theories on Magasaecula and how the current saecula is a mega-unraveling. The point of PC culture, post-modernism, and the denial of biology and psychology and etc is designed to tear down what is left of Enlightenment Age civilization.

[David Horn]

(11-23-2017, 04:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-23-2017, 02:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Reagan, of course, was very dogmatic, although permissive about wealthy institutions and individuals pursuing their economic goals (which is part of the dogma, of course). But Carter did not push the liberal agenda of the sixties. I don't notice such political correctness among early millennials; where do you see it? If anything, the college students who have been more dogmatic recently had to have been born in the 1990s somewhere. Middle range millennials, perhaps.

If anything, though the Xers are in favor of individualism in politics, they have been the most dogmatic posters on this board over the years. Most of those whom I know in person here in CA though, are tolerant and easy-going. Exceptions apply to all these characterizations.

The Civic Presidents were Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush.  Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were all about an active and growing federal government, though I agree "authoritarian" might be better than "dogmatic".  Carter in contrast attempted to reduce federal power and overreach with his "zero based budgeting" and Reagan actually succeeded at reducing federal regulatory power.  To put it another way, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were trying to extend the Truman-Eisenhower High, while Carter and Reagan ushered in the Unraveling.

OK Warren, we found a point of agreement.  Hurray!  On the other hand, how does any of this result in a culminating 4T, of whatever flavor?  It's been reduced to fencing: thrust, parry, thrust, parry, change hands and repeat.  That leads nowhere.  If the entire point of politics devolves to party A overturns everything party B did, then party B returns the favor, the end result is either chaos or stultification.. Neither seems in any way valuable.  Neither leads to a true 1T either.

[David Horn]

(11-23-2017, 09:40 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: We should also stop to consider my theories on Magasaecula and how the current saecula is a mega-unraveling.  The point of PC culture, post-modernism, and the denial of biology and psychology and etc is designed to tear down what is left of Enlightenment Age civilization.

Perhaps, but to what end?  On the other hand, we are moving into a new era that can't function on the old mores, so something has to change.  I don't expect much prior to culmination of the next 2T, which I will not live to see.

[Eric the Green]

(11-23-2017, 04:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-23-2017, 02:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Reagan, of course, was very dogmatic, although permissive about wealthy institutions and individuals pursuing their economic goals (which is part of the dogma, of course). But Carter did not push the liberal agenda of the sixties. I don't notice such political correctness among early millennials; where do you see it? If anything, the college students who have been more dogmatic recently had to have been born in the 1990s somewhere. Middle range millennials, perhaps.

If anything, though the Xers are in favor of individualism in politics, they have been the most dogmatic posters on this board over the years. Most of those whom I know in person here in CA though, are tolerant and easy-going. Exceptions apply to all these characterizations.

The Civic Presidents were Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush.  Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were all about an active and growing federal government, though I agree "authoritarian" might be better than "dogmatic".  Carter in contrast attempted to reduce federal power and overreach with his "zero based budgeting" and Reagan actually succeeded at reducing federal regulatory power.  To put it another way, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were trying to extend the Truman-Eisenhower High, while Carter and Reagan ushered in the Unraveling.

Liberals like me do not agree that an active federal government = authoritarian. It depends on what the government does, and for what purpose and at who's direction. In the sixties, an active federal government was used in many cases to counteract authoritarian corporations and states. It is authoritarian for an industry to pollute your river and your air. It is authoritarian for Mississippi officials to deny your right to vote based on your race. It is authoritarian for your boss to pay substandard wages and fire you for speaking your mind. 

Laws are needed to counteract criminals and brigands. Just laws and regulations may be "authority," but they promote justice and peace, and thus represent the peoples' will. In that sense, they represent the authority of the people. Regulations are needed to counteract the abusive actions of authority. If regulations do not do this, and only add to paperwork and such, then they should be rescinded. Democrats in recent years have reduced these kinds of regulations. Republicans on the other hand take away the regulations that curb the power of abusive authority. Republicans think that laws and regulations that restrain their own abuse of power is authoritarian, but that laws to regulate your personal life are just fine.

I would say Carter and first term Reagan cut back on the liberal agenda or reversed it. I wouldn't say they ushered in the unravelling, but they paved the way for it by cutting back on the Awakening. I would say Kennedy and Johnson spurred the Awakening, and Nixon did some of both, paving the way for the unravelling, and extending the Awakening. The effects of JFK's Awakening rhetoric were mostly posthumous.

Good to discuss this with you. Best wishes for the holidays.

[Kinser79]

(11-24-2017, 09:47 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-23-2017, 09:40 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: We should also stop to consider my theories on Magasaecula and how the current saecula is a mega-unraveling.  The point of PC culture, post-modernism, and the denial of biology and psychology and etc is designed to tear down what is left of Enlightenment Age civilization.

Perhaps, but to what end?  On the other hand, we are moving into a new era that can't function on the old mores, so something has to change.  I don't expect much prior to culmination of the next 2T, which I will not live to see.

I see you failed at reading Trotsky.  That's okay I guess, most of the antifa trotskite scum failed at reading Trotsky too.  The purpose of permanent revolution is to have a permanent revolution.  Destruction is the end in and of itself.

[David Horn]

(11-26-2017, 02:03 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-24-2017, 09:47 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-23-2017, 09:40 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: We should also stop to consider my theories on Magasaecula and how the current saecula is a mega-unraveling.  The point of PC culture, post-modernism, and the denial of biology and psychology and etc is designed to tear down what is left of Enlightenment Age civilization.

Perhaps, but to what end?  On the other hand, we are moving into a new era that can't function on the old mores, so something has to change.  I don't expect much prior to culmination of the next 2T, which I will not live to see.

I see you failed at reading Trotsky.  That's okay I guess, most of the antifa trotskite scum failed at reading Trotsky too.  The purpose of permanent revolution is to have a permanent revolution.  Destruction is the end in and of itself.

Permanent revolution is antithetical to the human psyche.  We can't tolerate more than a certain degree of change, and we're even more sensitive to the rate of change, so that's a nonstarter ... but you already know that.  It's interesting that those least tolerant of change are supporting it wholeheartedly.  We'll see if they still like it in a few years.

[Eric the Green]

That is a good point, that we need breaks from change. But I do think we live in the age of perpetual revolution. But, within that Revolution, there also needs to be a revolution of respect for tradition and valuing of all of our heritage; a revolution to keep recovering all that is great from the past, as well as perpetually questioning all things and moving beyond current authority. To be always creating the new, and at the same time, revering and building on the old; for as Bergson said, we only know what is new if we know what is old. We know what is coming into being only by contrast to what already is. Only if we remember the past, can we move into something genuinely new. "Progress" has its delusions too.

The Enlightenment is certainly old hat now. And I wonder how much value it really brought us. It's culture has grown stale and too enclosed within reason; too superficial. But it has brought us a lot of good, especially, at least, in the political realm; respect for human rights being top of the list. And it started what we call the modern world, in which more freedom is possible. Where do we go from there, though? Where have we gone? Into many other spaces and ideas, philosophies and approaches in the last 250 years, as we have been given new horizons to explore, both within and beyond the "Western" world or civilization. And we never can explore or build them all; we can never know and create everything. Life is always within mystery, and that's as we would have it.

[pbrower2a]

(11-27-2017, 03:29 PM)t Eric the Green Wrote: That is a good point, that we need breaks from change. But I do think we live in the age of perpetual revolution. But, within that Revolution, there also needs to be a revolution of respect for tradition and valuing of all of our heritage; a revolution to keep recovering all that is great from the past, as well as perpetually questioning all things and moving beyond current authority. To be always creating the new, and at the same time, revering and building on the old; for as Bergson said, we only know what is new if we know what is old. We know what is coming into being only by contrast to what already is. Only if we remember the past, can we move into something genuinely new. "Progress" has its delusions too.

The economic revolution is the end of scarcity. Productivity now outstrips the need for more labor, and all human needs are comparatively easy to meet. Labor will be devalued, or people will be compelled to pay (or overpay) for questionable objects or services -- like loan-shark interest. If I had to move I would probably  buy such stuff as I need at Goodwill, Salvation Army, or the like. Replacing my current stuff with such used stuff means less of an outlay than renting a moving truck. Sure, I will keep most of my books, music CDs, and video -- and clothing.

Much serviceable stuff is cheap. What is precious isn't a dinner plate; it is the cultural creations.

Quote:The Enlightenment is certainly old hat now. And I wonder how much value it really brought us. It's culture has grown stale and too enclosed within reason; too superficial. But it has brought us a lot of good, especially, at least, in the political realm; respect for human rights being top of the list. And it started what we call the modern world, in which more freedom is possible. Where do we go from there, though? Where have we gone? Into many other spaces and ideas, philosophies and approaches in the last 250 years, as we have been given new horizons to explore, both within and beyond the "Western" world or civilization. And we never can explore or build them all; we can never know and create everything. Life is always within mystery, and that's as we would have it.

The Enlightenment is Old Hat? Heck no -- obviously not Bach's Toccata in F, not Voltaire's Candide, and certainly not the paintings of Francisco Goya. There are to be rediscovered as if new by the best and brightest of all new generations of sophisticated adolescents and smart adults. We need to put more emphasis on enriching human minds. What we need reject is the idea that the past has nothing to offer. I saw a program on PBS last night on the album Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which according to one music critic is the greatest album of pop music ever made. The Beatles were quite sophisticated  with musical techniques (duh! They were the most polished figures of pop music since the Big band era), but also with music of the then-distant Baroque era, the polyrhthms of Stravinsky, and contemporary trends involving Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez, and John Cage -- and English literature, including the fantasy world of Lewis Carroll. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds had nothing to do with lysergic acid.

One consequence of the End of Scarcity (except on genuine luxuries such as antiques, waterfront residential property, gems, and precious metals) is that we will have more leisure time. We may have to cut the normal workweek from 40 hours a week to 30 hours or so just to avoid unemployment, transforming unemployment into leisure and increasing pay for such hours as they still work. That is what America did in the 1930s, and what we may need to do again. Do we still need to buy more stuff to go quickly into a landfill?

We need to learn how to live -- truly live -- as we never have before. The raw materials and labor that we needed for living as we did in the 1950s are close to what we need now per person. Even vehicle fuel has flatlined in recent years.

[Warren Dew]

(11-28-2017, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Much serviceable stuff is cheap. What is precious isn't a dinner plate; it is the cultural creations. 

Sounds like someone who doesn't have to pay for his own room and board speaking.

[pbrower2a]

(11-28-2017, 11:29 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2017, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Much serviceable stuff is cheap. What is precious isn't a dinner plate; it is the cultural creations. 

Sounds like someone who doesn't have to pay for his own room and board speaking.

Non sequitur.

In much of America, the most rapidly-rising cost is rent. For the privilege of living where the opportunities are, one pays a fiendish price. For the privilege of functioning as a highly productive or creative person one pays a fiendish price. Does rent become 80% of an income if one is an advertising copywriter or a software engineer? What does that do to mere clerks?

Of course, in Trump's fascist economy nothing matters except that the Right People get what they want and that the little people pay the taxes. He's a typical rent-grabber, the sort of capitalist who perfectly fits the Marxist stereotype of a capitalist. It's a bad idea to fit a derogatory stereotype no matter what one's ethnic, religious, occupational. or class group. .