Controversial Political Opinions

[David Horn]

(05-20-2022, 02:41 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(05-20-2022, 01:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-20-2022, 12:21 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-19-2022, 11:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Perhaps you can accept feminism and equality in the abstract or in law, as deserving equal pay, or equal opportunity and promotion, or not being abused, or having the rights to own property, vote and go to school, etc., and still not approve or still disdain the way that some millennial women behave today in the USA. I understand your experience, Jason, although it may not be everyone's. Not being in contact with many such women, I can neither confirm or deny. I don't care about today's celebrities so I am not informed about them, although I know who Johnny Depp is.

Myself, I resent the way old rural white guys vote, and their attitudes and some of their behavior these days. But I still think they and everyone deserve equal rights. I am very wary of forming political opinions based on bad personal experiences.

Indeed, but while it is important to make the distinction between political policies and the behaviors and culture of those who champion them. In practice, the latter is what generally people vote for. ie, votes for a certain policy give more power to a regime or coalition who favor them, and this often needs to be considered on top of the implications of the individual policies themselves.

If not consciously, liberals usually still understand this on an intuitive level. "It doesn't matter if Trump enacts ____ policy. He's pushing a racist agenda and needs to be stopped". Whether or not this is actually true, it illustrates the point that you have to pay attention to the actual character of interest groups and political factions, not just any particular action they want to take.

I don't see it that way. Liberals oppose Trump's policies, almost all of them, because he is wrong on almost all of his policies.

I know though that the Republicans do this, in a sense. McConnell opposed all of Obama's policies just because he wanted to defeat the Democrats. He admitted as such. But this wasn't because he disapproved of the character of Obama and the Democrats. 

It was political strategy, and it frequently works. People tend to blame the president if his opponents block his agenda. That is what is happening to Biden now.

I don't think you can lump all millennials feminists with those whose behavior you disagree with.

The particular action advocated is what counts. Not whether or not we like those advocating them.

But, if your point is that people often don't do the right thing, and base their votes on their liking or not for those who advocate them, I agree that does happen. Especially among conservatives, since they seem to be more emotionally and reaction-based.

And sometimes they project this onto liberals, if my own experience is any indication. People said that people like me were against Bush because we didn't like him and his style. But that was not true. He is a pretty nice guy in person. His policies, however, were horrific. And conservatives don't want to face up to this, so they say we were against Bush because we hated Bush. Now you seem to be saying the same thing about liberals and Trump, and it's not true about liberals and Trump either. At the very least, Trump is entertaining. He connects well with his audience. But his policies, too, are horrific. And not just his racism; all of them.

While going over the thought for the day in this publication I follow, there was an interesting passage. Started by saying that there could be a desire to break out of a normal routine. Could be fun to meet new people from various social circles, and hear different points of view. You can expand your vision by stepping back to see the big picture and may receive some interesting insights.

Sound familiar? This much is true: it really should because that was mainly the Boomer philosophy back in the heady days of their youth. They tended to eschew the 9 to 5 Monday to Friday work routine to the greatest extent they could. They also at the time eschewed social status that they felt many of their elders were obsessed with. The Monkees hit song "Pleasant Valley Sunday" dealt with this topic. They were also the first generation to denounced overt racism, which in turn lead it to become more clandestine and did sexism and ageism. Where the latter is concerned a lot of times when companies invoked layoffs they often tended to cut out the longest tenured, highest paid folks as much as possible. This for sure smacks of ageism but they get away with it because it is very hard to prove that this is what was behind the layoffs of John and Jane So and So. 

The fact remains that on the whole in their youthful chapter Boomers were more open to expanding their vision by stepping back to see the big picture; much more so than in midlife and now elderhood. A significant number became the very curmudgeons they so vehemently criticized during their youth. And they tend to brand the younger generations in much the same way even though this was many of them in their "free love" stage.

Concerning the previous poster's final paragraph, many actually felt that Bush II was just as dangerous as Trump was, and there was actually an online crusade titled "World Can't Wait", which focused vigorously and driving out the Bush regime. But then again Lincoln was well hated in his time as well.

Boomers are a lot of things, but a paragon of virtue is not one of them.  In fact, we're a totally bifurcated generation, split solidly between all the political and social paradigms.  The far right and far left are about equal.  The same can be said of the Born Again v. Whatever-constitutes-the-opposite.  We're not Prophets.  We're more of a bridge ... or several.  Word to all the younger generations: don't look to us for guidance.  You'll get far too much of it and it will all be conflicting.  Follow your own drummer.

[JasonBlack]

(05-20-2022, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: Boomers are a lot of things, but a paragon of virtue is not one of them.  In fact, we're a totally bifurcated generation, split solidly between all the political and social paradigms.  The far right and far left are about equal.  The same can be said of the Born Again v. Whatever-constitutes-the-opposite.  We're not Prophets.  We're more of a bridge ... or several.  Word to all the younger generations: don't look to us for guidance.  You'll get far too much of it and it will all be conflicting.  Follow your own drummer.

I would argue there is a big difference between giving individual guidance vs societal guidance. 

With regards to the former, I've met a good number of boomers who can fill this role, but they tend to be "counter-boomer" either of two ways:
1) Being more like their Gen X next juniors: combining the no-nonsense pragmatism and resourcefulness of Gen X with the assertiveness and willing to dive into the political weeds of boomers. The boomers who are assertive while still actually listening to people should be proud of that aspect of their generation. Gen X don't have it, Millennials have a little, Gen Z, as would be expected from a generation that is both adolescent and of the Adaptive archetype....have none whatsoever.
These types are often either entrepreneurs, Vietnam vets or people who have had to rebuild their life after a serious fuck up or unfortunately event.
2) Aging gracefully into sage roles with works on history, realpolitik or finance. Where many boomers swung in the direction of rigidity in middle age, these doubled down on hyper-open mindedness and a desire to dive into and model the depths of the worlds machinations. Think Niel Howe, Robert Greene or John Mearsheimer.

In either event, they set themselves apart by having developed the more tangible side of empathy: an ability to put themselves into other's shoes, not for the sake of being a bleeding heart liberal, but for the sake of accurately understanding their circumstances so they can provide more realistic advice adapted for the situation. Even then, I do think a lot more boomers have a strong desire to help the younger generation and be a kind of Obi-Wan figure, the problem is that most of them can never get past a rhetorical, talking-point communication style that deals in broad brush strokes where a finer tip is needed. 

With regards to the latter....I'm afraid I have to agree. Boomers couldn't organize their way out of a paper bag, or screw in a light bulb without inventing some moral crusade or transformative experience. Meanwhile, millennials compulsively make up rules to follow, often organizing groups together before anyone has even decided what to do. If we compare them to families, boomers are a family passionately fighting over whether they're going out for Chinese, Italian or BBQ, while millennials are a family of compulsive "where do you want to eat?", "I dunno, where do you want to eat", "I don't know, where do you want to eat?" (Gen X just went out to eat by themselves, and Gen Z just asked their family to bring them back something because they didn't want to leave their room)

[Eric the Green]

(05-20-2022, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: Boomers are a lot of things, but a paragon of virtue is not one of them.  In fact, we're a totally bifurcated generation, split solidly between all the political and social paradigms.  The far right and far left are about equal.  The same can be said of the Born Again v. Whatever-constitutes-the-opposite.  We're not Prophets.  We're more of a bridge ... or several.  Word to all the younger generations: don't look to us for guidance.  You'll get far too much of it and it will all be conflicting.  Follow your own drummer.

Certainly a good description and advice. However, I have known a whole lot of Boomers who could be described as prophets. It does seem to fit our role, and we have filled it. Of course, I am one. But, we have not made a mark that's any better than other generations, despite our initial fame. And of course, there are a lot of Boomers who are not prophets. Being in the SF Bay Area, I am certainly liable to meet a lot more Boomer prophets than one would meet in rural Virginia. And one can be a prophet, and not be a good one, in many ways. Evangelical believers are almost certainly prophets in outlook, but not good ones IMO.

I'd say those of us who are good prophets should fulfill our role and give guidance now. It is needed if humans are to survive as a civilization.
That might be realistic advice based on experience, or it might be leadership in a moral crusade. Both might be needed now.

[David Horn]

(05-21-2022, 03:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-20-2022, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: Boomers are a lot of things, but a paragon of virtue is not one of them.  In fact, we're a totally bifurcated generation, split solidly between all the political and social paradigms.  The far right and far left are about equal.  The same can be said of the Born Again v. Whatever-constitutes-the-opposite.  We're not Prophets.  We're more of a bridge ... or several.  Word to all the younger generations: don't look to us for guidance.  You'll get far too much of it and it will all be conflicting.  Follow your own drummer.

Certainly a good description and advice. However, I have known a whole lot of Boomers who could be described as prophets. It does seem to fit our role, and we have filled it. Of course, I am one. But, we have not made a mark that's any better than other generations, despite our initial fame. And of course, there are a lot of Boomers who are not prophets. Being in the SF Bay Area, I am certainly liable to meet a lot more Boomer prophets than one would meet in rural Virginia. And one can be a prophet, and not be a good one, in many ways. Evangelical believers are almost certainly prophets in outlook, but not good ones IMO.

I'd say those of us who are good prophets should fulfill our role and give guidance now. It is needed if humans are to survive as a civilization.  That might be realistic advice based on experience, or it might be leadership in a moral crusade. Both might be needed now.

Here's the rub.  We're considered overbearing and/or whiney, so any advice we give or direction we offer may produce the exact opposite of what we intend.  Then again, failure to offer any guarantees that counter-advice will be unopposed.  It's a conundrum.

I actually used my 17-year-old grandchildren as a triple sounding board.  For background, the two girls are dissimilar, each mirroring one of their parents, and the boy is laid back but brilliant.  In other words, they are as diverse as I can find in a small sample.  All three have very progressive views but live in a sea of Trumpist Republicans.  Their advice: Ask and answer questions and leave it there.  Don't be pushy, but don't be a rug either. Let others decide for themselves.  Assume the worst.

Let's agree that 17-year-olds lack perspective, so this "advice" needs to be tempered by that.  Yet in the end, they may be right.  Their group (Millennial/Gen-Z cuspers) don't trust anyone or anything, but they seem to trust each other.  Is that enough?  Good question.

[David Horn]

(05-21-2022, 12:38 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-20-2022, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: Boomers are a lot of things, but a paragon of virtue is not one of them.  In fact, we're a totally bifurcated generation, split solidly between all the political and social paradigms.  The far right and far left are about equal.  The same can be said of the Born Again v. Whatever-constitutes-the-opposite.  We're not Prophets.  We're more of a bridge ... or several.  Word to all the younger generations: don't look to us for guidance.  You'll get far too much of it and it will all be conflicting.  Follow your own drummer.

I would argue there is a big difference between giving individual guidance vs societal guidance. 

With regards to the former, I've met a good number of boomers who can fill this role, but they tend to be "counter-boomer" either of two ways:
1) Being more like their Gen X next juniors: combining the no-nonsense pragmatism and resourcefulness of Gen X with the assertiveness and willing to dive into the political weeds of boomers. The boomers who are assertive while still actually listening to people should be proud of that aspect of their generation. Gen X don't have it, Millennials have a little, Gen Z, as would be expected from a generation that is both adolescent and of the Adaptive archetype....have none whatsoever.
These types are often either entrepreneurs, Vietnam vets or people who have had to rebuild their life after a serious fuck up or unfortunately event.
2) Aging gracefully into sage roles with works on history, realpolitik or finance. Where many boomers swung in the direction of rigidity in middle age, these doubled down on hyper-open mindedness and a desire to dive into and model the depths of the worlds machinations. Think Niel Howe, Robert Greene or John Mearsheimer.

In either event, they set themselves apart by having developed the more tangible side of empathy: an ability to put themselves into other's shoes, not for the sake of being a bleeding heart liberal, but for the sake of accurately understanding their circumstances so they can provide more realistic advice adapted for the situation. Even then, I do think a lot more boomers have a strong desire to help the younger generation and be a kind of Obi-Wan figure, the problem is that most of them can never get past a rhetorical, talking-point communication style that deals in broad brush strokes where a finer tip is needed. 

With regards to the latter....I'm afraid I have to agree. Boomers couldn't organize their way out of a paper bag, or screw in a light bulb without inventing some moral crusade or transformative experience. Meanwhile, millennials compulsively make up rules to follow, often organizing groups together before anyone has even decided what to do. If we compare them to families, boomers are a family passionately fighting over whether they're going out for Chinese, Italian or BBQ, while millennials are a family of compulsive "where do you want to eat?", "I dunno, where do you want to eat", "I don't know, where do you want to eat?" (Gen X just went out to eat by themselves, and Gen Z just asked their family to bring them back something because they didn't want to leave their room)

I'm not 100% in agreement here, but close enough.  We Boomers are the first generation to confront change at the pace we see today.  Some of us kept-up, others, not so much.  I'm a leading-edge Boomer, so my youth experience was linear and boring until the Civil Rights movement and the JFK murder.  After that, things began to change quickly but none of us were attuned to change.  Many missed it entirely.  Others headed for the two extremes where certainty always lies.  Vietnam was another sorting function.  Younger Boomers had different challenges and different outcomes.  In short, we had too little preparation for addressing far too much history.  Some embraced it and others tried to hide.  Ergo: we're a mess.

Our one saving grace: we're better that the Transcendentals, who were the first to flex their muscles in a changing world. In their time, the Agricultural Age ended and the Industrial Age began -- the first advance in human society in 12,000 years. They earned the right to be arrogant and both right and wrong headed. So far, we haven't triggered an outright civil war ... but give us time. We may yet!

[JasonBlack]

(05-21-2022, 08:39 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-21-2022, 12:38 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-20-2022, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: Boomers are a lot of things, but a paragon of virtue is not one of them.  In fact, we're a totally bifurcated generation, split solidly between all the political and social paradigms.  The far right and far left are about equal.  The same can be said of the Born Again v. Whatever-constitutes-the-opposite.  We're not Prophets.  We're more of a bridge ... or several.  Word to all the younger generations: don't look to us for guidance.  You'll get far too much of it and it will all be conflicting.  Follow your own drummer.

I would argue there is a big difference between giving individual guidance vs societal guidance. 

With regards to the former, I've met a good number of boomers who can fill this role, but they tend to be "counter-boomer" either of two ways:
1) Being more like their Gen X next juniors: combining the no-nonsense pragmatism and resourcefulness of Gen X with the assertiveness and willing to dive into the political weeds of boomers. The boomers who are assertive while still actually listening to people should be proud of that aspect of their generation. Gen X don't have it, Millennials have a little, Gen Z, as would be expected from a generation that is both adolescent and of the Adaptive archetype....have none whatsoever.
These types are often either entrepreneurs, Vietnam vets or people who have had to rebuild their life after a serious fuck up or unfortunately event.
2) Aging gracefully into sage roles with works on history, realpolitik or finance. Where many boomers swung in the direction of rigidity in middle age, these doubled down on hyper-open mindedness and a desire to dive into and model the depths of the worlds machinations. Think Niel Howe, Robert Greene or John Mearsheimer.

In either event, they set themselves apart by having developed the more tangible side of empathy: an ability to put themselves into other's shoes, not for the sake of being a bleeding heart liberal, but for the sake of accurately understanding their circumstances so they can provide more realistic advice adapted for the situation. Even then, I do think a lot more boomers have a strong desire to help the younger generation and be a kind of Obi-Wan figure, the problem is that most of them can never get past a rhetorical, talking-point communication style that deals in broad brush strokes where a finer tip is needed. 

With regards to the latter....I'm afraid I have to agree. Boomers couldn't organize their way out of a paper bag, or screw in a light bulb without inventing some moral crusade or transformative experience. Meanwhile, millennials compulsively make up rules to follow, often organizing groups together before anyone has even decided what to do. If we compare them to families, boomers are a family passionately fighting over whether they're going out for Chinese, Italian or BBQ, while millennials are a family of compulsive "where do you want to eat?", "I dunno, where do you want to eat", "I don't know, where do you want to eat?" (Gen X just went out to eat by themselves, and Gen Z just asked their family to bring them back something because they didn't want to leave their room)

I'm not 100% in agreement here, but close enough.  We Boomers are the first generation to confront change at the pace we see today.  Some of us kept-up, others, not so much.  I'm a leading-edge Boomer, so my youth experience was linear and boring until the Civil Rights movement and the JFK murder.  After that, things began to change quickly but none of us were attuned to change.  Many missed it entirely.  Others headed for the two extremes where certainty always lies.  Vietnam was another sorting function.  Younger Boomers had different challenges and different outcomes.  In short, we had too little preparation for addressing far too much history.  Some embraced it and others tried to hide.  Ergo: we're a mess.

Our one saving grace: we're better that the Transcendentals, who were the first to flex their muscles in a changing world. In their time, the Agricultural Age ended and the Industrial Age began -- the first advance in human society in 12,000 years. They earned the right to be arrogant and both right and wrong headed. So far, we haven't triggered an outright civil war ... but give us time. We may yet!

The saving grace of boomers is that they saved the crusading of older idealist gens for battles they know they can win with few causalities. ex: I was against the war in Iraq and most of what was done in Afghanistan, but I will say this...we kicked their asses. There was no risk of a draft, and even if you felt you needed to join the military to afford school and healthcare, you had plenty of other options. The boomers gave millennials and Gen X the choices they were never given, and we should remember that.

edit: reading this again, I realize that was kind of your point haha

[David Horn]

(05-21-2022, 08:49 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: The saving grace of boomers is that they saved the crusading of older idealist gens for battles they know they can win with few causalities. ex: I was against the war in Iraq and most of what was done in Afghanistan, but I will say this...we kicked their asses. There was no risk of a draft, and even if you felt you needed to join the military to afford school and healthcare, you had plenty of other options. The boomers gave millennials and Gen X the choices they were never given, and we should remember that.

edit: reading this again, I realize that was kind of your point haha

Not to pour too much gasoline on the fire, but killing the draft was probably the greatest mistake of 1970s America, and near the top of the list for America in general. Nixon did it to win votes (it worked), but it meant that the very idea of shared civic duty died right then and there. No one is answering JFK's question about what any of us should do for our country, it's all transactional: I vote (or not) and you give me things. No nation can operate that way forever. Right now, the military consists of 1% of the population, and most (though certainly not all of those 1%) considered themselves super-citizens. We can't have a special class of citizen unless we wish to become what we abhor.

[JasonBlack]

(05-22-2022, 09:49 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-21-2022, 08:49 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: The saving grace of boomers is that they saved the crusading of older idealist gens for battles they know they can win with few causalities. ex: I was against the war in Iraq and most of what was done in Afghanistan, but I will say this...we kicked their asses. There was no risk of a draft, and even if you felt you needed to join the military to afford school and healthcare, you had plenty of other options. The boomers gave millennials and Gen X the choices they were never given, and we should remember that.

edit: reading this again, I realize that was kind of your point haha

Not to pour too much gasoline on the fire, but killing the draft was probably the greatest mistake of 1970s America, and near the top of the list for America in general. Nixon did it to win votes (it worked), but it meant that the very idea of shared civic duty died right then and there. No one is answering JFK's question about what any of us should do for our country, it's all transactional: I vote (or not) and you give me things. No nation can operate that way forever. Right now, the military consists of 1% of the population, and most (though certainly not all of those 1%) considered themselves super-citizens. We can't have a special class of citizen unless we wish to become what we abhor.

There are plenty of programs which have the potential to foster civic spirit without coercing people into shooting young boys overseas (college age males still feel like "boys" to me). I admit, war has a long and consistent track record of raising a country's moral, but for once....I'm going to be an idealist and say I think we can come up with some better alternatives.

[JasonBlack]

Here's one: legalize some level of physical retaliation against those who continually provoke attacks. There are people who are respectful because they value it for its own sake, but frankly, for everyone else, there needs to be some implicit threat of "I might get punched if I try to pick fights with too many people". An example of what I mean: if someone routinely disrespects your mother, you are 100% justified in punching them in the face, and you should not face legal charges.

While we're at it, I would argue that people are a little too reliant on government structures to provide punishments for bad behavior. There needs to be more room for private citizens to do the same things in many contexts.

[Eric the Green]

(05-23-2022, 12:08 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: Here's one: legalize some level of physical retaliation against those who continually provoke attacks. There are people who are respectful because they value it for its own sake, but frankly, for everyone else, there needs to be some implicit threat of "I might get punched if I try to pick fights with too many people". An example of what I mean: if someone routinely disrespects your mother, you are 100% justified in punching them in the face, and you should not face legal charges.

While we're at it, I would argue that people are a little too reliant on government structures to provide punishments for bad behavior. There needs to be more room for private citizens to do the same things in many contexts.

I can't go there with you, or with libertarianism in general. We need the government. Self-defense is a valid reason for violence, recogtnized by law. Being insulted is not. Respect and uphold the law, and our rights to be activists to change it.

[Eric the Green]

(05-22-2022, 09:35 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-22-2022, 09:49 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-21-2022, 08:49 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: The saving grace of boomers is that they saved the crusading of older idealist gens for battles they know they can win with few causalities. ex: I was against the war in Iraq and most of what was done in Afghanistan, but I will say this...we kicked their asses. There was no risk of a draft, and even if you felt you needed to join the military to afford school and healthcare, you had plenty of other options. The boomers gave millennials and Gen X the choices they were never given, and we should remember that.

edit: reading this again, I realize that was kind of your point haha

Not to pour too much gasoline on the fire, but killing the draft was probably the greatest mistake of 1970s America, and near the top of the list for America in general.  Nixon did it to win votes (it worked), but it meant that the very idea of shared civic duty died right then and there.  No one is answering JFK's question about what any of us should do for our country, it's all transactional: I vote (or not) and you give me things.  No nation can operate that way forever.  Right now, the military consists of 1% of the population, and most (though certainly not all of those 1%) considered themselves super-citizens.  We can't have a special class of citizen unless we wish to become what we abhor.

There are plenty of programs which have the potential to foster civic spirit without coercing people into shooting young boys overseas (college age males still feel like "boys" to me). I admit, war has a long and consistent track record of raising a country's moral, but for once....I'm going to be an idealist and say I think we can come up with some better alternatives.

I'm with you on that one, Jason. And with MLK Jr.

[David Horn]

(05-22-2022, 09:35 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-22-2022, 09:49 AM)David Horn Wrote: Not to pour too much gasoline on the fire, but killing the draft was probably the greatest mistake of 1970s America, and near the top of the list for America in general.  Nixon did it to win votes (it worked), but it meant that the very idea of shared civic duty died right then and there.  No one is answering JFK's question about what any of us should do for our country, it's all transactional: I vote (or not) and you give me things.  No nation can operate that way forever.  Right now, the military consists of 1% of the population, and most (though certainly not all of those 1%) considered themselves super-citizens.  We can't have a special class of citizen unless we wish to become what we abhor.

There are plenty of programs which have the potential to foster civic spirit without coercing people into shooting young boys overseas (college age males still feel like "boys" to me). I admit, war has a long and consistent track record of raising a country's moral, but for once....I'm going to be an idealist and say I think we can come up with some better alternatives.

The point I was making had nothing to do with war, little to do with military service and everything to do with civic engagement.  Don't want to serve in the military (assuming there is no overwhelming need to defend the nation) -- fine.  There are many other options. How about the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps?  Neither is connected with the military in any way, but both provide service to others through US Government entities.  I've had friends serve in both, and other local and state options also exist.  

All of these options do two valuable things: they bring disparate people together to perform common tasks for the general good.  This is the spirit of communitarianism.  They also teach, by example, why the communal and cooperative model is both valid and valuable.  We lack a sense of civics and the teaching of civics is only part of the problem.  

And note: you don't even have to serve to understand that you have a responsibility to serve if called.

[JasonBlack]

(05-23-2022, 02:05 PM)David Horn Wrote: Don't want to serve in the military (assuming there is no overwhelming need to defend the nation) -- fine. There are many other options. How about the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps?

This is agreeable. forced combat/violence was my biggest contention.

[JasonBlack]

If your husband or wife isn't abusive, you have an obligation to stay in an unhappy marriage for the sake of your children. Your child's happiness is more important than yours is, especially because you were the one who chose wrong, not them. Americans (this goes across generations) love to talk about "selfishness" this and "helping humanity" that, when they're too self-absorbed to take care of their own damn kids. At least people in the 90s and 2000s actually realized the divorce epidemic was a bad thing. Now we just view hoe-ish lifestyles (among women and men) as normal and just shrug our shoulders when asked how it affects the kids....in the event we even bother to ask at all or get their perspective. The cherry on top is that we then ask surprised when kids have all these mental health problems.

Fuck this "living your best life" bullshit. Sometimes people just need to...shut up and do their duty.

[Eric the Green]

(06-03-2022, 02:34 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: If your husband or wife isn't abusive, you have an obligation to stay in an unhappy marriage for the sake of your children. Your child's happiness is more important than yours is, especially because you were the one who chose wrong, not them. Americans (this goes across generations) love to talk about "selfishness" this and "helping humanity" that, when they're too self-absorbed to take care of their own damn kids. At least people in the 90s and 2000s actually realized the divorce epidemic was a bad thing. Now we just view hoe-ish lifestyles (among women and men) as normal and just shrug our shoulders when asked how it affects the kids....in the event we even bother to ask at all or get their perspective. The cherry on top is that we then (act) surprised when kids have all these mental health problems.

Fuck this "living your best life" bullshit. Sometimes people just need to...shut up and do their duty.

Good points. I don't know if I would have adhered to them, though, or else in fact I didn't, because I myself did not see having a father or even a mother as that important to my own upbringing. My parents were happily married, but I was not happily tied to them or to my siblings. So from my point of view, "family" seems less important to me than it does to many others. And I did not want to do my "duty" and do service work in my early 20s, because to me then, my education and my participation (such as it was) in the outstanding youth culture of that time and in the activism of those times was more valuable to me than "doing my duty," and I didn't think indeed that we are here to "do your duty", but to "live our best life". But that is how I felt then, and I understand other viewpoints. If I were 20 years old today, and saw the crappy youth culture and the cost and trends in education today, I might well choose to join the Peace Corps or something, and I admire those who do this.

It is important not to have children if your own behavior or situation will affect them badly. I didn't. Being children of an unhappy marriage may be even worse than being without a parent, especially if that parent soon finds a better marriage mate who is willing to provide and care for and love their step-child. So one-size-fits-all moral pronouncements don't work too well. Morality is based on the golden rule, not on specific duty or institution requirements. In our age, people are discovering that they can find the lifestyle that works best for them, and determine their own ethics, not just obey what family or society requires them to do as a duty. And living a life of duty is not living a genuine or authentic life. A real life is centered in the heart chakra. But that then imposes on them the need to choose one's course of life wisely. That may not always be so easy. So that's why more-conservative or red-state/county people might choose instead to obey social and authoritarian dictates. And then, of course, to knock and rail against those who choose not to do that. Our level of social evolution feeds the culture wars.

[beechnut79]

(06-03-2022, 04:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-03-2022, 02:34 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: If your husband or wife isn't abusive, you have an obligation to stay in an unhappy marriage for the sake of your children. Your child's happiness is more important than yours is, especially because you were the one who chose wrong, not them. Americans (this goes across generations) love to talk about "selfishness" this and "helping humanity" that, when they're too self-absorbed to take care of their own damn kids. At least people in the 90s and 2000s actually realized the divorce epidemic was a bad thing. Now we just view hoe-ish lifestyles (among women and men) as normal and just shrug our shoulders when asked how it affects the kids....in the event we even bother to ask at all or get their perspective. The cherry on top is that we then (act) surprised when kids have all these mental health problems.

Fuck this "living your best life" bullshit. Sometimes people just need to...shut up and do their duty.

Good points. I don't know if I would have adhered to them, though, or else in fact I didn't, because I myself did not see having a father or even a mother as that important to my own upbringing. My parents were happily married, but I was not happily tied to them or to my siblings. So from my point of view, "family" seems less important to me than it does to many others. And I did not want to do my "duty" and do service work in my early 20s, because to me then, my education and my participation (such as it was) in the outstanding youth culture of that time and in the activism of those times was more valuable to me than "doing my duty," and I didn't think indeed that we are here to "do your duty", but to "live our best life". But that is how I felt then, and I understand other viewpoints. If I were 20 years old today, and saw the crappy youth culture and the cost and trends in education today, I might well choose to join the Peace Corps or something, and I admire those who do this.

It is important not to have children if your own behavior or situation will affect them badly. I didn't. Being children of an unhappy marriage may be even worse than being without a parent, especially if that parent soon finds a better marriage mate who is willing to provide and care for and love their step-child. So one-size-fits-all moral pronouncements don't work too well. Morality is based on the golden rule, not on specific duty or institution requirements. In our age, people are discovering that they can find the lifestyle that works best for them, and determine their own ethics, not just obey what family or society requires them to do as a duty. And living a life of duty is not living a genuine or authentic life. A real life is centered in the heart chakra. But that then imposes on them the need to choose one's course of life wisely. That may not always be so easy. So that's why more-conservative or red-state/county people might choose instead to obey social and authoritarian dictates. And then, of course, to knock and rail against those who choose not to do that. Our level of social evolution feeds the culture wars.

Paragraph by paragraph response:

P1: I was much the same way. Like you, I never married or had children. My parents were happily married for 55 years before my dad died. My mom lived about 3- 1/2 years afterwards. I did not have a normal growing up experience as I got sent to boarding school when I was ten. I had a condition which later became widely know as Asperger's Syndrome later on. Was then finally able to kind of put two and two together to figure out why my growing up was not normal. Once I turned 21 I decided it was time to rebel against the experience, and to this day I feel that much was hidden from me at the time. The one-size-fits-all approach you mention was quite normal during the 1950s but much of that world was fiction even at that time, although really not understood until later. When the 2T busted loose in the late 1960s Me Generation lifestyles postponed marriages, sent the divorce rate soaring, and launched our world into a new social paradigm, much of which has since been rejected, especially sexual permissiveness. The election of Reagan in 1980 did usher in a more conservative mindset, especially following the AIDS scare a few years later.

P2:  Again for the same reason I didn't. But I also developed a desire to be a successful ladies' man which never really materialized. If I were to ever write an autobiography it would be titled "Ladies' Man Dreams". I often question whether the term ladies' man, while once carrying a certain mystique, hasn't become more derogatory in the politically correct present. In many ways intolerance of those who don't follow certain practices seems to have actually increased rather than decreasing. My Asperger's was no doubt a big factor in my failure to achieve my ladies' man goals. Dreamed of being out on the town most if not all weekends with in many cases a different woman each time. Condition no doubt kept me from making the kind of income necessary to be able to achieve this. Today there may be even fewer who could afford this lifestyle.

[JasonBlack]

(06-03-2022, 04:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good points. I don't know if I would have adhered to them, though, or else in fact I didn't, because I myself did not see having a father or even a mother as that important to my own upbringing. My parents were happily married, but I was not happily tied to them or to my siblings. So from my point of view, "family" seems less important to me than it does to many others. And I did not want to do my "duty" and do service work in my early 20s, because to me then, my education and my participation (such as it was) in the outstanding youth culture of that time and in the activism of those times was more valuable to me than "doing my duty," and I didn't think indeed that we are here to "do your duty", but to "live our best life". But that is how I felt then, and I understand other viewpoints. If I were 20 years old today, and saw the crappy youth culture and the cost and trends in education today, I might well choose to join the Peace Corps or something, and I admire those who do this.

It is important not to have children if your own behavior or situation will affect them badly. I didn't. Being children of an unhappy marriage may be even worse than being without a parent, especially if that parent soon finds a better marriage mate who is willing to provide and care for and love their step-child. So one-size-fits-all moral pronouncements don't work too well. Morality is based on the golden rule, not on specific duty or institution requirements. In our age, people are discovering that they can find the lifestyle that works best for them, and determine their own ethics, not just obey what family or society requires them to do as a duty. And living a life of duty is not living a genuine or authentic life. A real life is centered in the heart chakra. But that then imposes on them the need to choose one's course of life wisely. That may not always be so easy. So that's why more-conservative or red-state/county people might choose instead to obey social and authoritarian dictates. And then, of course, to knock and rail against those who choose not to do that. Our level of social evolution feeds the culture wars.

I think you can be forgiven for not having a sense of duty in your early 20s. Almost no one really understands it at that age, including me. For people who have to come to their own conclusions (rather than people who just naturally follow orders, although society needs some of these too), the concept of "duty" doesn't make sense until they have something to protect or be responsible which they care about. For example, I think it's less useful to think in terms of "virginity" and more useful to think in terms of "does this person have the potential to be a supportive wife, or simply a person I can have a bit of fun with?". The former inspires men to be dutiful, the latter does not.

Quote:In our age, people are discovering that they can find the lifestyle that works best for them, and determine their own ethics, not just obey what family or society requires them to do as a duty

I guess to those people, I would ask "how is that working for you?" imo, the relevance of "duty" to the conversation of dating is less "who do you want to be with?" or "what conventional/unconventional roles do you want?" and more "do you actually have the patience, discipline and communication skills to make things last when you do find someone you're compatible with?". 

On a collective level, the question of "how is that working for you?" is still relevant, and it's even easier to answer: about as poorly as could possibly be expected. Sure, there are a lot of economic problems that are out of most people's direct control, and this is going to take its toll on mental health but we can and must control how we manage our most important relationships, both platonic and romantic. Too much "follow your passion" has led to a culture of lonely, unfulfilled and, quite frankly, mentally ill swings of serial monogamy. It turns out that most people have a tendency to choose people who are very bad for them, whether it's men being attracted to women with borderline personality traits or women being attracted to bad boy, sociopathic rebels (there is even a body of evidence that show that men find sex with "crazy" women more satisfying, and these are double blind, so the guy doesn't know he choosing a girl like this). 

As a society, we talk a lot about mental health issues, but frankly, most of what we encourage as a solution to such problems is just doubling down on what caused them in the first place. Decades of research have shown us the brutal effects that fatherlessness has on young boys, the positive effects of stable monogamous relationships on mental and physical health, the significantly higher happiness ratings of people who exhibit the combination of patience and assertiveness to work through nasty relationship problems, etc. 

Sorry, but...the undeniable truth is that American society needs a lot more work when it comes to doing your duty. Rising Civic generations begin taking the helm during 4th turnings for a reason. After 2/3 decades of only knowing shit not working, even more individualistic people start to think "ya know, maybe we should...actually develop some rules to follow".

[pbrower2a]

(06-17-2022, 09:51 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(06-03-2022, 04:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good points. I don't know if I would have adhered to them, though, or else in fact I didn't, because I myself did not see having a father or even a mother as that important to my own upbringing. My parents were happily married, but I was not happily tied to them or to my siblings. So from my point of view, "family" seems less important to me than it does to many others. And I did not want to do my "duty" and do service work in my early 20s, because to me then, my education and my participation (such as it was) in the outstanding youth culture of that time and in the activism of those times was more valuable to me than "doing my duty," and I didn't think indeed that we are here to "do your duty", but to "live our best life". But that is how I felt then, and I understand other viewpoints. If I were 20 years old today, and saw the crappy youth culture and the cost and trends in education today, I might well choose to join the Peace Corps or something, and I admire those who do this.

It is important not to have children if your own behavior or situation will affect them badly. I didn't. Being children of an unhappy marriage may be even worse than being without a parent, especially if that parent soon finds a better marriage mate who is willing to provide and care for and love their step-child. So one-size-fits-all moral pronouncements don't work too well. Morality is based on the golden rule, not on specific duty or institution requirements. In our age, people are discovering that they can find the lifestyle that works best for them, and determine their own ethics, not just obey what family or society requires them to do as a duty. And living a life of duty is not living a genuine or authentic life. A real life is centered in the heart chakra. But that then imposes on them the need to choose one's course of life wisely. That may not always be so easy. So that's why more-conservative or red-state/county people might choose instead to obey social and authoritarian dictates. And then, of course, to knock and rail against those who choose not to do that. Our level of social evolution feeds the culture wars.

I think you can be forgiven for not having a sense of duty in your early 20s. Almost no one really understands it at that age, including me. For people who have to come to their own conclusions (rather than people who just naturally follow orders, although society needs some of these too), the concept of "duty" doesn't make sense until they have something to protect or be responsible which they care about. For example, I think it's less useful to think in terms of "virginity" and more useful to think in terms of "does this person have the potential to be a supportive wife, or simply a person I can have a bit of fun with?". The former inspires men to be dutiful, the latter does not.

People in their twenties have needs, and survival needs come before latching onto permanent roles in adult life. Many of the jobs of twenty-something adults are well suited, due to low pay and little security, to those who can still sponge off middle-aged parents faring far better than they. At one time working-class kids quickly went into trades with predictable career ladders or took factory jobs that at the least "were a living". Retail clerking and food-service work have never pretended to be "a living". As factory jobs disappeared,  kids from blue-collar families saw such jobs as appeared as offering no long-term stake in the overall economy. 

It is worth remembering that the factory also created its share of white-collar work that college grads could latch onto. Employers had their expectations, but new grads could fit those. At one point, college grads were told "do not do factory work, but go ahead and work in manufacturing" because there are plenty of jobs in manufacturing (accounting, marketing, engineering, research) that do not require one to get one's hands dirty or break a sweat. 

In one's twenties one may have little obvious stake in the economic system (which may explain why young adults had little use for the Republican Party even before Trump made a mess on 1/6/21) and may still be sorting out what they want in family life because their incomes do not support it. "Twelve in one room in A-may-REE-caw!" is no longer an expectation and fear solely of Puerto Ricans in West Side Story, new movie version or old. If economic conditions create the reality of "twelve in one room in A-may-REE-caw!", then such is hardly good for family life.

I think I know Millennial expectations well. They demand no Voyage to the Interior as we Boomers wanted. If economic conditions allow a solid family life without destitution, then such is fine. They want solid pay but neither crony capitalism nor monopolistic gouging.  They have lowered expectations for formal education in that they expect it to lead to a career without the concern for expanding one's intellectual universe or becoming a better person. (The original purpose of the medieval university was to improve the student, which is a good thing for us all and worthy of a cost largely passed onto us all. Obviously most college grads today are not going to become feudal lords or hierarchs in the church, but it is clearly best that those who are to become the administrative and commercial leaders as well as the school teachers and clergy not become rogues.  We need as leaders people who recognize that there is more to life than "sex&drugs&rock-n-roll"; for people unable to find anything else in life but who make above-average income, cocaine might be a temptation. 

Yes, we must improve ourselves or keep our standards high if they were already there. Good bosses are well worth subsidized education that might result from taxes paid by people completely unsuited to the intellectual rigors of college.  

Quote:In our age, people are discovering that they can find the lifestyle that works best for them, and determine their own ethics, not just obey what family or society requires them to do as a duty

I guess to those people, I would ask "how is that working for you?" imo, the relevance of "duty" to the conversation of dating is less "who do you want to be with?" or "what conventional/unconventional roles do you want?" and more "do you actually have the patience, discipline and communication skills to make things last when you do find someone you're compatible with?". 

On a collective level, the question of "how is that working for you?" is still relevant, and it's even easier to answer: about as poorly as could possibly be expected. Sure, there are a lot of economic problems that are out of most people's direct control, and this is going to take its toll on mental health but we can and must control how we manage our most important relationships, both platonic and romantic. Too much "follow your passion" has led to a culture of lonely, unfulfilled and, quite frankly, mentally ill swings of serial monogamy. It turns out that most people have a tendency to choose people who are very bad for them, whether it's men being attracted to women with borderline personality traits or women being attracted to bad boy, sociopathic rebels (there is even a body of evidence that show that men find sex with "crazy" women more satisfying, and these are double blind, so the guy doesn't know he choosing a girl like this). 

As a society, we talk a lot about mental health issues, but frankly, most of what we encourage as a solution to such problems is just doubling down on what caused them in the first place. Decades of research have shown us the brutal effects that fatherlessness has on young boys, the positive effects of stable monogamous relationships on mental and physical health, the significantly higher happiness ratings of people who exhibit the combination of patience and assertiveness to work through nasty relationship problems, etc. 

Sorry, but...the undeniable truth is that American society needs a lot more work when it comes to doing your duty. Rising Civic generations begin taking the helm during 4th turnings for a reason. After 2/3 decades of only knowing shit not working, even more individualistic people start to think "ya know, maybe we should...actually develop some rules to follow".

We still have big problems. One is that our institutions are tailor-made for advancement by pathological narcissists good at game-playing but horrible in developing harmony within the institutions that they lead. Ordering people about is how one runs a plantation with plenty of slaves or a concentration camp. Again, the appropriate but old and undervalued purpose of undergraduate education is the improvement of the persons who will become the cultural, commercial, administrative, and technical leaders. 

We have put too much emphasis on the MBA programs and too little on developing people who can make personal sacrifices of economic advantage on moral grounds. Treating people badly? Mafia-like groups and totalitarian regimes are highly adept at that. Who wants a dystopia? Privileges of being treated a little better than the thralls maybe attractive once things are hopeless in an order that melds the worst of capitalist plutocracy and Stalinist or fascist command-and-control? Maybe we need to forestall such a possibility.       

Ethical failure creates more trouble than does a lack of creativity or technological prowess. 

Following one's passion is one potential way to bliss... if one is really, really good. Symphony orchestras hire more string players than do the pro sports teams. Sure, a string player makes much less as an employee of the Detroit Symphony than a regular for the Detroit Tigers, Lions, Pistons, and Red Wings combined... but there are 70-year-old violinists, cellists, and violists with great symphony orchestras. Most pro sport careers never get a real start, and those that do are typically over by age 32. 

Many will never achieve their passion... but maybe they will do well enough as traveling salesmen. Life is compromises, and some are worthy. 

Back to education. I remember when the ethos "Do what thou wilt" (Aleister Crowley) was in vogue. That means acting without concern for the well-being of other., looking for ephemeral (if costly and ultimately self-destructive) bliss instead of saving and planning, and having exploitative relationships if any, was in vogue. Nothing -- not education or economic reality -- stopped it for some. That explains much of the MBA and corporate-raider culture. Considering the mess that is our Multiversity as a norm, maybe we need to abandon the educational smorgasbord and revert of the Great Books approach. That's not to say that we need use the same Great Books from the old pattern (Confucius was not part of the Great Books, but in view of the success of Chinese-Americans he might be a good inclusion; you know how essential I consider Orwell) so that we can see what is wrong with political deceit. OK, science and mathematics can't well fit the Great Books approach. In view of cinema shaping minds, and not all for ill, maybe we need to look at the Golden Age of American cinema (and some others) from a Great Books approach. I see a connection between The Divine Comedy and Casablanca. 

Not everybody is college material, and many who aren't college material don't go to college. I can see college being more heavily subsidized if people see more control of the result -- people more likely to be mentors than exploiters, people worthy of shared conversations, and better leaders of local communities. We need local journalists willing to expose garbage ideas (including demagoguery, totalitarianism, and crank theories) for what they are. We need people who recognize that being a small-town clergyman is one way to improve life for a few hundred people -- you know, visiting the infirm in hospitals and nursing homes -- is a good thing to do.

[Eric the Green]

(06-17-2022, 09:51 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: I think you can be forgiven for not having a sense of duty in your early 20s. Almost no one really understands it at that age, including me. For people who have to come to their own conclusions (rather than people who just naturally follow orders, although society needs some of these too), the concept of "duty" doesn't make sense until they have something to protect or be responsible which they care about. For example, I think it's less useful to think in terms of "virginity" and more useful to think in terms of "does this person have the potential to be a supportive wife, or simply a person I can have a bit of fun with?". The former inspires men to be dutiful, the latter does not.

I think "caring about" is a more authentic and alive function than "duty."

Quote:, Eric the Green]
In our age, people are discovering that they can find the lifestyle that works best for them, and determine their own ethics, not just obey what family or society requires them to do as a duty

Quote:I guess to those people, I would ask "how is that working for you?" imo, the relevance of "duty" to the conversation of dating is less "who do you want to be with?" or "what conventional/unconventional roles do you want?" and more "do you actually have the patience, discipline and communication skills to make things last when you do find someone you're compatible with?". 

On a collective level, the question of "how is that working for you?" is still relevant, and it's even easier to answer: about as poorly as could possibly be expected. Sure, there are a lot of economic problems that are out of most people's direct control, and this is going to take its toll on mental health but we can and must control how we manage our most important relationships, both platonic and romantic. Too much "follow your passion" has led to a culture of lonely, unfulfilled and, quite frankly, mentally ill swings of serial monogamy. It turns out that most people have a tendency to choose people who are very bad for them, whether it's men being attracted to women with borderline personality traits or women being attracted to bad boy, sociopathic rebels (there is even a body of evidence that show that men find sex with "crazy" women more satisfying, and these are double blind, so the guy doesn't know he choosing a girl like this). 

As a society, we talk a lot about mental health issues, but frankly, most of what we encourage as a solution to such problems is just doubling down on what caused them in the first place. Decades of research have shown us the brutal effects that fatherlessness has on young boys, the positive effects of stable monogamous relationships on mental and physical health, the significantly higher happiness ratings of people who exhibit the combination of patience and assertiveness to work through nasty relationship problems, etc. 

Sorry, but...the undeniable truth is that American society needs a lot more work when it comes to doing your duty. Rising Civic generations begin taking the helm during 4th turnings for a reason. After 2/3 decades of only knowing shit not working, even more individualistic people start to think "ya know, maybe we should...actually develop some rules to follow".

I would prefer the idea of adhering to principle rather than doing your duty. That which is done out of love, is superior quality to that which is done out of duty. Real life has to spring from within, not imposed from without. That doesn't at all mean that life is only individualistic. I disagree with that approach. Real life is caring, and that includes caring for others. "What do you want" and "Can you act and behave according to virtue" are both worthwhile concerns. Monogamy may work better for the majority of people, if it is available to them. I don't consider that it was available to me, whether rightly or wrongly on my part. But I have heard the research that suggests married people are happier. I disagree that one size fits all, and I support people finding their own way. I agree with "follow your passion," but a passion for truth, virtue and caring is just as passionate as following sensual desires; if not considerably more so. I don't knock those who choose monogamy. I do knock those who knock those who don't, and who seek to impose the morality on others that was imposed on themselves.

[JasonBlack]

(06-18-2022, 07:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think "caring about" is a more authentic and alive function than "duty."

They need not be at odds with each other. Regardless of how "passionate" you are though, everyone has to grind through things they don't feel like doing, often for very long stretches. Passion alone isn't something that can sustain you through that, especially not through something like rearing children.

Quote:I would prefer the idea of adhering to principle rather than doing your duty. That which is done out of love, is superior quality to that which is done out of duty. Real life has to spring from within, not imposed from without. That doesn't at all mean that life is only individualistic. I disagree with that approach. Real life is caring, and that includes caring for others. "What do you want" and "Can you act and behave according to virtue" are both worthwhile concerns. Monogamy may work better for the majority of people, if it is available to them. I don't consider that it was available to me, whether rightly or wrongly on my part. But I have heard the research that suggests married people are happier. I disagree that one size fits all, and I support people finding their own way. I agree with "follow your passion," but a passion for truth, virtue and caring is just as passionate as following sensual desires; if not considerably more so. I don't knock those who choose monogamy. I do knock those who knock those who don't, and who seek to impose the morality on others that was imposed on themselves.

If you like the word "principle" better, go for it. Personally, I use them in the following manner
principle: adherence to my values
duty: my responsibility to other people 

Both are important concepts, but I feel the need to differentiate, because I know plenty of people who are high on one, but low on the other, and each comes with its own set of consequences.

I think the difference in perspective here is that just because duty involves something I owe other people doesn't mean other people get to define what "duty" is for me. If anything, I have zero desire to follow authority about 90% of the time, and the 10% of the time where I do think it's a good idea, I'm...just not very good at it (though it's probably a good thing most people aren't like me tbh. "too many chiefs, not enough Indians" if you will). 

Meanwhile, you can do something you're passionate about that's collectivistic, but if you're mostly running on passion...it's still about you. Passion is often good at getting other people to be receptive to you, but it's not good at being receptive itself. It's also not very useful when you agree to do something and need to hold up your end of the bargain even if you no longer desire to do so after better understanding the implications.