Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I have a feeling that today (or yesterday) is probably a huge generational shift.
#21
(01-12-2021, 01:35 AM)mamabug Wrote: [quote pid='73308' dateline='1610424582']
Eric the Green Wrote:I don't know what "establishing Chaz" means. Is this some internet gaming term only millennials understand? Why assume boomers would know what it is? Don't worry, I'm not angry just sarcastic.

Hah!  I'm definitely not a Millenial, I am slap dab in the middle of Gen X which is probably why I have a 'pox on both your houses' approach to the current political situation.  

CHAZ = Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (or CHOP with the last two for Occupied Precinct or something? I only use the first because it captures the Monty Pythonesque, neo-60's vibe of the whole thing).  It was a 6 block occupied area of Seattle back around June or so that managed to push out the police and declare themselves independent of the USA.  Right wing media was full of condemnation and acted as if it was the rising of the South all over again.  Mostly, it was what happens anytime there's an open air festival in a nice Seattle summer - a bunch of earth children crawling out from their caves to dance in the sun, smoke weed, and talk about the coming utopia.  God, I miss Folklife Festival.  

There were some aspects to it that were disturbing, but I attribute that to the fact that the city essentially allowed the area to operate as an anarchy and the protesters, who had not really planned to occupy anything, were unable to self-govern effectively.  Four people were killed over the course of it, including one African American teenager who had chosen to go joyriding that the self-appointed militia thought was a Proud Boy.  Not exactly the city's finest hour, but the hands off approach was probably the best (although it didn't work as well for Mayor Wheeler down south).

Anyway, the whole thing ended after the self-professed communist council woman led the protesters to first occupy city hall and then march on the mayor's house.  Also, a bunch of businesses started suing the city for essentially providing services to support the protestors (who were also blocking traffic and pedestrians from freely entering the neighborhood) which was hard for the businesses already suffering under some of the stricter lockdowns in the nation.  Even though they supported the protesters ('cause Seattle), they wanted the city to take back control.  About a day after that, the city dismantled the barricades and moved the protesters out to little fanfare.

Anyway, that all occurred a short drive North from me so it was a major story from my perspective. 


Quote:I think Democrats on the Left are so used to buckling under and going along with the center-left that they will never change. They are used to it. These days, the issues are so pressing that the two wings are not that far apart. The times demand radical change after 40 years of regression and stalemate. The Democrats know they need to act as a bloc now, because the right-wing is so fanatical and so monolithic it's the only way they can win.

I hope so.  Maybe it is my Pac NW location, but we tend towards the more radical wing so they may seem to have more influence to me than they actually do.  I mean, the city trash collectors were authorized by the council to peek in people's recycle bins and leave polite little notes if they aren't doing it properly and, as I mentioned, there's an open communist on our city council.  Being close to Portland, I have seen antifa (and their anarchist predecessors from the 90's) up front at local protests and these guys are NOT an idea and they are NOT peaceful.  I don't like how, during an election year, the establishment appears to let them out of their box to play because I fear that one day they won't go back in.

Yes, I'm cynical about party leadership on both sides.  Did I mention I'm Gen X?


Quote:I don't know yet if this is a revolutionary era. If so, then it can only mean that the Left is able to foment and organize one. That would mean it takes over the Democratic Party, not get firm control exerted over it. How revolutionary it is will depend on the Right-wing, the Republican Party. How much they are able to block, will determine how far the Democrats need to push to get them out of the f**king way.

Agree that if this turns revolutionary, it will be the left.  How violent it gets is up in the air, I'm pretty sure the Bolshevik's didn't anticipate Stalin or the French Robespierre. The likely path would be a takeover of the Democrat party, but that doesn't mean only the Republicans will be on the chopping block.  They will come for Biden and Pelosi, they will come for Tulsi Gabbard, they will come for the libertarians, they will come for the classical liberals, hell - they will probably put Bezos' head on a pike in the middle of the former CHAZ for all we can guess.  That still remains my 'worst case' scenario but I can't yet take it off the table.


Quote:Banning seditionists and nazis from social media is hardly closing up society that artists will open up. Gen Z fully supports and will fully support liberation from the Trumpists and neo-liberals.

Many of the people caught up in the social media purges are neither seditionists (which, honestly, I think is a pretty high bar to clear in a country that believes in freedom to protest and free speech.  It is a law that has mostly been misused for political purposes or to boost a prosecutor's rep) nor white supremacists and all most of them are guilty of is unfavored speech.  Since these actions are being taken by private companies outside the protections of the first amendment, it makes everyone subject to their (and the twitter mob's) judgement of what groups should or should not be banned.  As economic actors, they are being pretty careful not to remove the biggest voices so they are only trimming the fringes (including some on the left).  We can't say when we will hit the low point in this pendulum swing so there is no guarantee that this, and no farther, is where things stop.

I seem to recall my Silent and Boomer teachers making us study this old poem that goes 'First they came for the Communists...' or something.  I'm sure whatever events it described ended well so I guess there's nothing to worry about.   Undecided

Artist generations are willing to extend whatever they see as essential human rights necessary for a just society first to people that are marginalized and then even to people they disagree with.  If access to social media is considered one of those rights, they will eventually let the actual white supremacists (if any still exist) back.  From the way my kid's cell phone appears to be surgically attached to his hand, they might actually end up believing that.

My Gen Z. kid considers Trump a horrible president but not actively evil and thinks most of the social justice things his friends instagram is ineffectual and kind of stupid, so the leading edge of the new Beatnik's are already out there.  Except for the alcohol and smoking, he is weirdly teetotalerish, but I swear that hi-fi/lo-fi/whatever-fi music he listens to is as incomprehensible to me as jazz was to my grandparents. (*round of snaps* Cool ).

Quote:I don't think there is any other vision than what has been described since the 1960s. It probably won't take a visionary. Just a likable Democratic candidate who gives the impression of being a leader. Several candidates are available. The biggest danger to our future today is that the Democrats might choose the wrong candidate (Kamala Harris).

At least we agree on something, Kamala Harris is the worst.  Actually, the one who kind of scares me the most is AOC - not for her ideas but because I honestly don't think she is all that smart and I get the vibe of a classic Queen Bee mean girl from her.  I'd take a grifting opportunist like Kamala over her any day.

And, yea, by Visionary I meant a likeable Democratic candidate that most people are willing to follow even if they may not 100% agree with them on everything.  Sadly, one of the only national level dems who I actually find likeable was completely stomped on by her party and I don't know of any others.  I have a similar hard time picking out likeable politicians on the right, aside from those who are also marginalized by their party.  

[/quote]
In your last paragraph you mentioned a female who was walked all over. Is that Elizabeth Warren?
Reply
#22
(01-12-2021, 09:48 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: [quote pid='73313' dateline='1610433357']
In your last paragraph you mentioned a female who was walked all over. Is that Elizabeth Warren?

[/quote]

Tulsi Gabbard. 

I disagree with her on almost everything, but she avoids the vitriol others more in the center of her party aim at their opponents and is smart enough to know both what issues would be the hardest for them to compromise on and how to speak in their language.   I feel that there are many on the Center-Right who would be able to live with her, even as she pushes through single player healthcare, UBI, and starts rolling out the first steps of a GND.  She also strikes me as one of the few politicians at the national level to have actual, independently derived at principles and is able to remove herself from the 'group think.'  So, yes, I find her likeable.

She was also walked all over by her party - Clinton called her a Russian asset and the corporate media and big tech (whose CEOs are very much in the democratic establishment inner circle) routinely twisted the narrative around her or engaged in shadowing banning practices to reduce her reach.  At least, that was my impression of how she was treated, along with Andrew Yang.  I'm really not sure why, both are flamingly progressive in their politics.  Maybe they are just out of the inner circle who, I think, was hoping for a Warren win.  I'm reasonably certain that Biden was not their end game.  Warren is much more imbedded in the east coast democratic machine, she just simply wasn't liked by the base.
Reply
#23
(01-12-2021, 12:06 PM)mamabug Wrote:
(01-12-2021, 09:48 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: [quote pid='73313' dateline='1610433357']
In your last paragraph you mentioned a female who was walked all over. Is that Elizabeth Warren?



Tulsi Gabbard. 

I disagree with her on almost everything, but she avoids the vitriol others more in the center of her party aim at their opponents and is smart enough to know both what issues would be the hardest for them to compromise on and how to speak in their language.   I feel that there are many on the Center-Right who would be able to live with her, even as she pushes through single player healthcare, UBI, and starts rolling out the first steps of a GND.  She also strikes me as one of the few politicians at the national level to have actual, independently derived at principles and is able to remove herself from the 'group think.'  So, yes, I find her likeable.

She was also walked all over by her party - Clinton called her a Russian asset and the corporate media and big tech (whose CEOs are very much in the democratic establishment inner circle) routinely twisted the narrative around her or engaged in shadowing banning practices to reduce her reach.  At least, that was my impression of how she was treated, along with Andrew Yang.  I'm really not sure why, both are flamingly progressive in their politics.  Maybe they are just out of the inner circle who, I think, was hoping for a Warren win.  I'm reasonably certain that Biden was not their end game.  Warren is much more imbedded in the east coast democratic machine, she just simply wasn't liked by the base.

Tulsi is more appealing both to some on the left and some more-conservative. Her record is a mixed bag. I don't think Tulsi nor Andrew had enough status in government to win in the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is the one that nominates candidates without enough qualifications, generally speaking. She was fairly charismatic. But I objected to her strongly, and Hillary was right about her. She approved of the Russians bombing Syrian cities, and said the Syrian civil war and revolution was an American war of regime change. So she put down honest citizens seeking their freedom who were shot down and run over and gassed by their tyrant, whom she visited. She seems to agree with conspiracy theory, especially about foreign policy. She is very anti-Muslim and a Hindu nationalist. She was popular as a supposed anti-war candidate, but she approved of drone strikes.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#24
(01-12-2021, 01:35 AM)mamabug Wrote: [quote pid='73308' dateline='1610424582']
Eric the Green Wrote:I don't know what "establishing Chaz" means. Is this some internet gaming term only millennials understand? Why assume boomers would know what it is? Don't worry, I'm not angry just sarcastic.

Hah!  I'm definitely not a Millenial, I am slap dab in the middle of Gen X which is probably why I have a 'pox on both your houses' approach to the current political situation.  

Yes, I see that now.

Quote:CHAZ = Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (or CHOP with the last two for Occupied Precinct or something? I only use the first because it captures the Monty Pythonesque, neo-60's vibe of the whole thing).  It was a 6 block occupied area of Seattle back around June or so that managed to push out the police and declare themselves independent of the USA. 

OK, I remember that. I wasn't as aware of the details as you were, being a local.

Quote: Maybe it is my Pac NW location, but we tend towards the more radical wing so they may seem to have more influence to me than they actually do.  I mean, the city trash collectors were authorized by the council to peek in people's recycle bins and leave polite little notes if they aren't doing it properly and, as I mentioned, there's an open communist on our city council.  Being close to Portland, I have seen antifa (and their anarchist predecessors from the 90's) up front at local protests and these guys are NOT an idea and they are NOT peaceful.  I don't like how, during an election year, the establishment appears to let them out of their box to play because I fear that one day they won't go back in.

Yes, I'm cynical about party leadership on both sides.  Did I mention I'm Gen X?

I know, however, that the left-orientation of the PacNW only applies to the urban areas, especially Seattle and Portland.

antifa is anti-fascist. They show up to challenge fascists. They are far less-violent than those on the right. I don't agree with their tactics, but that does not make them terrorists or someone to be feared. They are not the equivalent of the right-wing militias, but they are being used to good effect to denounce the left. That is the problem with them; they play into their enemy's hands. They are certainly not in the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Quote:Agree that if this turns revolutionary, it will be the left.  How violent it gets is up in the air, I'm pretty sure the Bolshevik's didn't anticipate Stalin or the French Robespierre. The likely path would be a takeover of the Democrat party, but that doesn't mean only the Republicans will be on the chopping block.  They will come for Biden and Pelosi, they will come for Tulsi Gabbard, they will come for the libertarians, they will come for the classical liberals, hell - they will probably put Bezos' head on a pike in the middle of the former CHAZ for all we can guess.  That still remains my 'worst case' scenario but I can't yet take it off the table.

They will come for them, in the sense that they will assert their own positions and work for them. It is possible that the Democratic Party (it's NOT the "Democrat Party"), could veer to the left in this upcoming progressive decade. Some violence could happen, but as you know my prediction is that it will come mainly from the right, as we have just seen, especially if the Democrats or liberals have the state power. A leftward spiral or trend was the pattern especially in the 1930s and 1960s, other progressive decades. I just don't see now that it is likely to go very far left, given the make-up of the United States and its spread of current political opinion. But, in a 4T anything can happen.

Quote:Many of the people caught up in the social media purges are neither seditionists (which, honestly, I think is a pretty high bar to clear in a country that believes in freedom to protest and free speech.  It is a law that has mostly been misused for political purposes or to boost a prosecutor's rep) nor white supremacists and all most of them are guilty of is unfavored speech.  Since these actions are being taken by private companies outside the protections of the first amendment, it makes everyone subject to their (and the twitter mob's) judgement of what groups should or should not be banned.  As economic actors, they are being pretty careful not to remove the biggest voices so they are only trimming the fringes (including some on the left).  We can't say when we will hit the low point in this pendulum swing so there is no guarantee that this, and no farther, is where things stop.

I seem to recall my Silent and Boomer teachers making us study this old poem that goes 'First they came for the Communists...' or something.  I'm sure whatever events it described ended well so I guess there's nothing to worry about.   Undecided
The events described were the Nazis in Germany; it did not end well. I guess your symbol means you were kidding. But the oppression I worry about is obviously that from Trump and his ilk. Trump is a fascist and so are his followers.

There is a lot of speech on those platforms that are overtly violent, and others that incite the violent elements. I saw such a post on parler that was shown to me in one of my facebook groups. Certainly not something to be allowed. These companies have standards of conduct which customers must agree to. I am grateful for the takedowns, just as I am for the takedowns of the Islamic State and other violent terrorist groups. Those that took over the Capitol are threatening more violence. They are worse than seditionists; they are terrorists. I hope Gen Z doesn't allow the white supremacists back. White supremacy has to go. It's past time.

Quote:At least we agree on something, Kamala Harris is the worst.  Actually, the one who kind of scares me the most is AOC - not for her ideas but because I honestly don't think she is all that smart and I get the vibe of a classic Queen Bee mean girl from her.  I'd take a grifting opportunist like Kamala over her any day.

I like AOC and hope she becomes majority leader some day. I don't think she is quite presidential material. I expect her modus operandi to get more mature; she is a very young millennial. She obviously has star power, and she makes a good appealing leader for the left and a good foil for attacks from the right. Her faction so far is rather small in the House. I get it that sometimes she can get rather temperamental in her attacks.

Quote:And, yea, by Visionary I meant a likeable Democratic candidate that most people are willing to follow even if they may not 100% agree with them on everything.  Sadly, one of the only national level dems who I actually find likeable was completely stomped on by her party and I don't know of any others.  I have a similar hard time picking out likeable politicians on the right, aside from those who are also marginalized by their party.  

According to my prophetic method, I am looking at Mitch Landrieu, Terry McAuliffe, and Susan Rice, and later Gavin Newsom, and there may be others. I am not in favor of businessmen running for president, so Andrew Yang does not appeal, and in any case does not measure up on my method. None of the 2020 primary candidates measure up; it was a poor field. And Kamala was indeed the lowest-scoring of the bunch.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#25
(01-12-2021, 09:01 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I don't know if it is coincidence, but Sheldon Adelson, the biggest single donor to the Trump campaign, just died at the age of 87. Sudden feelings of guilt can precipitate death among any people with pre-existing conditions, and "age 87" is about as pre-existing a condition as there is.

He got the US embassy moved to Jerusalem, and another wave of peace treaties between Israel and Arab countries.  Time to go out on a high, I guess.
Reply
#26
(01-12-2021, 02:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-12-2021, 01:35 AM)mamabug Wrote: At least we agree on something, Kamala Harris is the worst.  Actually, the one who kind of scares me the most is AOC - not for her ideas but because I honestly don't think she is all that smart and I get the vibe of a classic Queen Bee mean girl from her.  I'd take a grifting opportunist like Kamala over her any day.

I like AOC and hope she becomes majority leader some day. I don't think she is quite presidential material. I expect her modus operandi to get more mature; she is a very young millennial. She obviously has star power, and she makes a good appealing leader for the left and a good foil for attacks from the right. Her faction so far is rather small in the House. I get it that sometimes she can get rather temperamental in her attacks.

I watched AOC interrogate one of the Trump minions who was foolish enough to actually testify before the House, and she was a excellent litigator. In short, she played him like a fiddle, not that it did any good. She's smart but brash. Brash will calm with time, and the brains will still be there.

Her forte is stirring things up, so, for now, she'll be a thorn in the side of Democratic Party. That's OK. It needs a little serious needling.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#27
Dangit I got far behind on this great post!

Cocoapuff- 100%, the attemped capital massacre is my current frontrunner for “national mood turning point” that leads to the start of Alphas being born, but lets see how inauguration goes before finalizing that as things can still get much much worse.

Mamabug- Welcome back! I disagree 100% with Strauss/Howe’s timing of Boomers to starting 2 years before the end of WWII. That makes no sense. The boom didn’t start, and the mood of the nation didn’t change, until the war ended. Boomers start in 1946. Strauss/Howe got many things write conceptually, but their date selections are all largely made up crap. Relatedly, I’ve been trying to figure out the years of the Civil War 4th Turning and have become convinced that the Civil War wasn’t the END of the turning, it was the START. The true resolution of the conflict came in 1877 as the racists retook the South and have held it since. So that Turning I would argue was 1860-1877 (which is a very neat 18 years). I also agree the Democrats internally have some issues down the line, but I think Biden is going to make them so big tent in the next few years that they pull off total control for much of the decade. But then AOC is gonna get real fed up and third party the fuck out of them in the 2030’s (and win :/ ).

End of the crisis?
I’m in the camp (probably with Cocoapuff pbrower) that the 4th turning Is likely at its end. Trump is about to go to war with the Establishment R’s which will only empower the Democrats. In political science terms, this will likely be looked at as a critical election that ended the Sixth Party System ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Part...d%20beyond. ) . I can see in the short run things getting worse, but as the pandemic ends happiness may yet wash away the tired resentments we’ve all been stewing in since the start of this Turning ( which was 9/11).
My bet is that the Democrats are about to become the party of big business (which is Silicon Valley now) and much of the Mitt Romney type Republicans will realign to the Democratic Party. As Trump primaries Establishment R’s those R’s and their voters won’t turn around and support Trump, they will most likely just become Democrats like we’ve seen with the Lincoln Project.
Without any legitimate route to a majority, Trump’s existential threat to the country has effectively ended. And if Biden can actually pull off a realignment, then the true crisis ( hyperpolarization) will also end.

Besides, Millennials are all about to take over society from the Boomers and all their drama is gonna be pushed aside. The old scars and battles just won’t be relevant as the new controlling generation starts fighting its own internal battles and creating its own party identities. Every crisis has been caused by the Prophet Generation, and this crisis may be the first one that ends because this is the first Prophet Generation to make it to retirement without starting an existential war.
As anticlimactic as it is, the clock just ran out of time. Trump is the last Boomer President, and with Pete in the primary and Jon Ossoff becoming the first Millennial Senator the Hero Generation is finally taking the keys away from the Boomers.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Can Generational Boundaries Shift Over Time? Anthony '58 3 682 06-21-2020, 06:23 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)