People not accepting our Millennial theory
|
People not accepting our Millennial theory
|
05-25-2021, 10:01 AM
(05-25-2021, 06:30 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I'll say this about marijuana legalization - it's not nearly as much of a culture wars lightning rod as abortion, gun control, or even trans rights. There are few people left who strongly oppose it. Most of the Millennials have parents who used the stuff in the past, and some who still do.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
05-25-2021, 10:06 AM
(05-25-2021, 09:38 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:(05-25-2021, 12:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:(05-24-2021, 06:11 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Regarding marijuana.... Legalized, taxed, and probably unionized... and whether I like or dislike "sex work" as an activity matters not in the least. Taxation is one sign of legitimacy of an action... and I can't imagine an activity in which one could more need a union as protection from exploitation and abuse. The absolute worst abuse in prostitution is violence in which a 'client' brutalizes and even murders prostitutes out of some sick version of judgment. One serial killer admitted in an interview "I always killed prostitutes".
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
05-25-2021, 02:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2021, 02:50 PM by Eric the Green.)
(05-24-2021, 02:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(05-24-2021, 01:01 AM)X Marks the Spot Wrote: This is just wrong. On 9/11, police officers, along with firefighters, became heroes when they saved people's lives on that tragic day. Because of this event, Millennials became pro-police; they became very patriotic; and they became very pro-Bush. They rallied around the president and supported his wars. In fact, Millennials turning out to vote was a big reason Bush won re-election in 2004. The turnout of young millennials was massive in 2004 and 2008, and they voted for the anti-war candidate. By 2008 their numbers were great enough to get their guy elected. "Young voters preferred Obama over John McCain by a greater than 2:1 margin (66% vs. 32%). This is well above the margin given by young voters to any presidential candidate for at least three decades, if not at any time in U.S. history." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/its-offic...s_b_144357 https://demmelearning.com/obama-millenni...-election/ It depends to some extent on which part of the Millennial Generation we talk about. Young white men are pro-war by a small margin, it seems, if their support for Trump (over Biden) by a small margin is any indication. Those young white men in the South and rural areas are more-likely to be among those who see the "war on terror" wars as good versus evil, and more likely to volunteer. The armed forces are mainly staffed by young people, so of course in the 2000s they were Millennials. In other places, and in other demographics besides white men, young people are more likely to see the wars as an enormous drain on their future, and as an injustice they don't support.
05-25-2021, 02:33 PM
Eric, you're confused. In 2016, Trump was the antiwar candidate and Obama was the prowar candidate. By 2020, Trump had basically gotten rid of the wars, to the extent that war wasn't really on the ballot any more.
05-25-2021, 02:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2021, 02:52 PM by Eric the Green.)
(05-25-2021, 02:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Eric, you're confused. In 2016, Trump was the antiwar candidate and Obama was the prowar candidate. By 2020, Trump had basically gotten rid of the wars, to the extent that war wasn't really on the ballot any more. You mean Hillary in 2016, I suppose. It might appear so, but Trump, like Obama, the anti-war candidate before him, did not have the guts to actually end the wars. Biden is going further. Trump also beefed up the military and pursued wars with greater cruelty than Obama did. But the vote of young white men for Trump in 2020 (which is what I referred to in my links) may be an indication that they also voted Republican earlier, as polls have also found (e.g. for Bush, McCain, Romney). War is not the only issue for young people.
05-25-2021, 05:49 PM
(05-25-2021, 02:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Eric, you're confused. In 2016, Trump was the antiwar candidate and Obama was the prowar candidate. By 2020, Trump had basically gotten rid of the wars, to the extent that war wasn't really on the ballot any more. Donald Trump is an unmitigated, unscrupulous liar with a huge mean streak. What he says is completely unreliable unless one can verify it. If he says that the sky is blue I need to see that the sky isn't some other color -- or even in an orange-and-yellow polka-dot pattern. Many people fall for his lies. As P. T. Barnum put it, there's a sucker born every minute -- although for obvious reasons the pace has accelerated. At least Barnum was entertaining people, and genuine entertainment has value.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
05-28-2021, 04:41 PM
Other Millennials are why I hate the term democracy. Democracy to me means tyranny of the majority
05-28-2021, 10:14 PM
(05-28-2021, 04:41 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: Other Millennials are why I hate the term democracy. Democracy to me means tyranny of the majority That is why we have constitutional protections against mob rule including prohibitions against a majority taking away the rights of helpless people. Majority rule is not enough; lynch mobs reliably make their decisions based on a majority vote. We cannot have votes that outlaw a religion or mandate adherence to any religion. It is worth remembering that the Nazi Reichstag unanimously approved the three Nuremberg laws.. well, the majority really did enact a law as decisively as possible. Obviously a legislature that the executive branch has picked has dubious credibility. Majority votes, even if 876-0, that destroy civil rights of others, are contrary to the human decency that, for example the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Pure democracy, one person said, is five wolves and one sheep deciding between them what is for dinner. It's terribly unstable, and as early as in the time of the Greek Golden Age the great thinkers disparaged that sort of democracy. Constitutional democracy means that the majority must respect the rights of the majority. The majority has no right to dispossess, enslave, or murder the minority.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
05-28-2021, 11:09 PM
(05-24-2021, 07:13 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I agree with other posters here arguing that Millennials are conformist. That's what cancel culture and the social media hivemind are all about. And yes, the authors did get some predictions wrong - specifically about early marriage (Millennials are the *latest* marrying generation ever) and possibly about gender roles (though one could argue that gender roles are being reconfigured not eliminated). But how could they not get some things wrong when they predicted so much? The authors wrote in MR: "To reduce the risk of disease and infertility and to conform to new peer social standards, Millennials will begin to reverse the trend toward later marriage and childbirth." I hadn't seen anything on them getting that wrong, so I assumed S&H got that right.
05-28-2021, 11:33 PM
Quote:Millennials are the most active in all demonstrations today just from the fact they are young and able. There is no doubt that Millennials are more diverse and more liberal, by a wide margin, over previous generations. Of course they came out and protested the Floyd murder, as they did for March for Our Lives for gun control, Climate School Strikes, and the anti-Trump women's marches. All of these are among the largest movements ever. I don't think you can arbitrarily decide that everyone in them was over 40. OK, but given what S&H say about the way generations work, and how good the authors' track record is, maybe there are some Millennials who are protesting for liberal causes but they're outliers for their generation? S&H say every generation contains all sorts of people. There are GI's like William Burroughs, tehre are Silents like John Ashcroft, there are Xers like Reese Witherspoon. So there can be Millennials who are "lefty" types but they can be in the "suppressed" group, acting against what's at the core of their generation. Quote:I don't know where you are coming from. This comment has nothing to do with the facts. Millennials came out in droves to vote against Bush in 2004. Bush got votes from the religious right. Some Millennials did sign up for the military after 9-11, I give you that. Colin Powell said "More people want to be all they can be", remember? There was a surge of enlistments not seen since WORLD WAR II after 9/11! Quote:Hillary was not the Establishment candidate; Trump was. Jeb Bush failed miserably in the primary in 2016. Millennials have voted strongly Democratic in every election and put Obama in the White House. Maybe Obama won because he spoke of "common purpose"? The whole idea of getting wtih the program. And yeah, maybe Hillary and Trump were both Establishment in a way. But if Millennials had really gone for antiestablishment, boat-rocking candidates, then given how high Millennial turnout is, Bernie Sanders would be beginning his second term today. Quote:More on Jeb Bush's failure: https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cass...gn-jeb-did OK, I'm not denying that Generation Jones has conservative, even neocon tendencies, but you gotta admit, Jeb sounds like the perfect Millennial choice for president: both conservative AND very Establishment. Quote:Powered by Millennials, Democrats increased their vote in the Southwest because hispanics opposed Trump's use of ICE and his immigration policy. We don't need ICE to pick up people off the street and deport them. We need the immigration bill passed by the Senate during the Bush administration but knocked down by the right-wing Tea-Party House. Don't forget that it was Bush himself who created ICE. I don't want my 6-year-old Homelander son or 4-year-old Homelander daughter to be murdered by an illegal immigrant. Quote:We don't need tyranny and injustice. We don't need more people in prison than other countries. We can be a free and fair country and still enforce the law. The thing is, we're still a chaotic country. We have chaos in 4T's, it's part of the package. We need all the law and order we can get in a time like this; it's not like we're in the Awakening or the High. Quote:Legalizing marijuana is a moderate idea that has been overdue for 50 years. Many states have passed some form of this. Millennials frequently like radical liberal policy positions. Did you read S&H's 2003 article in Axess? They say Millennials want "stability, not radicalism". Quote:The youth are voting overwhelmingly Democratic, but perhaps the circle you inhabit is young white men, who still preferred Trump in 2020 by a narrow margin. I'm not a young white man, I'm a Gen-Xer born in 1974. I am a middle-aged straight white man.
05-28-2021, 11:39 PM
Another editor who pooh-poohs S&H's gospel on Millennials:
https://sigmanublog.com/2015/09/08/gener...one-wrong/
Wow, you people genuinely have no idea about Millennials.
Probably 20% of the generation are Marxists who want to cast off capitalism- by which I do not mean some imagined brutal industrial age capitalism, but the whole affair, from the welfare State to commodity production for exchange altogether. More Millennials understand these notions than any past generation. The cancel culture bilge etc. is just noise obscuring a rapidly growing radicalism which translates only online for now, but which has just propelled a self-proclaimed Marxist (actually a hard red reformist social democrat) to the forefront of politics in Chile. The identity politicking neoliberals behind e.g. the 1619 Project are not representative of the cutting edge of Millennial thought. Marxism is. Does this mean ny generation will live to see revolution? No. But it will produce the theorists who influence it.
05-31-2021, 12:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2021, 12:23 AM by Eric the Green.)
(05-28-2021, 11:33 PM)X Marks the Spot Wrote: OK, but given what S&H say about the way generations work, and how good the authors' track record is, maybe there are some Millennials who are protesting for liberal causes but they're outliers for their generation? S&H say every generation contains all sorts of people. There are GI's like William Burroughs, tehre are Silents like John Ashcroft, there are Xers like Reese Witherspoon. So there can be Millennials who are "lefty" types but they can be in the "suppressed" group, acting against what's at the core of their generation.The outliers are those who are NOT for liberal causes. Liberals are the core of their generation. Every poll shows that. Quote:Maybe Obama won because he spoke of "common purpose"? The whole idea of getting with the program. The Millennials supported Bernie, but not in great enough numbers to overcome the huge primary-election Boomer and Xer vote for Joe Biden. Obama did speak of a common purpose. Millennials are like those who supported FDR and his common purposes. One thing noticable about Millennials; up until recently they were not living up to their civic potential. They copied and conformed to the cynicism toward government of their boomer and Xer elders, and failed to vote in midterm and primary elections. Not being well-educated about civics, they don't realize that civic duty consists of more than voting for the president. Millennials are not reliable voters, at least not yet. They did better in 2018, but they didn't get out and vote in great enough numbers in 2020 to get Bernie elected. Maybe some of them were also pessimistic that he could win, and gave up on him. Quote:OK, I'm not denying that Generation Jones has conservative, even neocon tendencies, but you gotta admit, Jeb sounds like the perfect Millennial choice for president: both conservative AND very Establishment. Well maybe, but he flopped big time. The perfect millennial candidate will be a progressive Democrat, but progressives support the common purposes of society; they are not libertarians like Xers. Quote:Don't forget that it was Bush himself who created ICE. I don't want my 6-year-old Homelander son or 4-year-old Homelander daughter to be murdered by an illegal immigrant. That's true; W. Bush started it. Don't worry about illegal immigrants though; they are more law-abiding than the average US citizen. Trump created lots of lies; you can't believe anything he says. ANYTHING. Quote:The thing is, we're still a chaotic country. We have chaos in 4T's, it's part of the package. We need all the law and order we can get in a time like this; it's not like we're in the Awakening or the High. We need social and political movements. It's happening all over the world. Tyranny is horrible, and the people don't like it. Especially young people. Call it chaos if you like, but it is a movement for justice, without which there can be no law and order. Only when the progressives win will there be a new consensus and a new order, and not one moment before. Quote:Did you read S&H's 2003 article in Axess? They say Millennials want "stability, not radicalism". I just don't conclude from one writer's statement that all of anybody thinks a certain way. Millennials are a huge generation. Some are radical and some are stable. Sometimes there no difference between the two. Some think that some radical ideas will create stability, like for example the fact millennials are so cash-strapped because of college debt, high prices and low salaries and wages. So they support "radical" policies like Bernie's ideas about free college and higher minimum wages and higher taxes on the wealthy, or Yang's idea of universal basic income, and stuff like that. Pretty radical, but the goal is stability and security (including greater social security). Marijuana legalization has been happening throughout the 4T. It is no longer a radical idea, and shouldn't be. Quote:I'm not a young white man, I'm a Gen-Xer born in 1974. I am a middle-aged straight white man. The point is that young white male millennials support Trump by a narrow margin, but all other millennials support progressive Democrats by wide margins. You being a core Xer straight white man are the conservative one, and you are projecting your own views onto the millennials. Polls show it is the Xers who are the conservatives; your own core Xer groups, and the younger "Jones" boomers, plus the oldest boomers and silents.
05-31-2021, 12:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2021, 12:18 AM by Eric the Green.)
(05-28-2021, 11:09 PM)X Marks the Spot Wrote:(05-24-2021, 07:13 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I agree with other posters here arguing that Millennials are conformist. That's what cancel culture and the social media hivemind are all about. And yes, the authors did get some predictions wrong - specifically about early marriage (Millennials are the *latest* marrying generation ever) and possibly about gender roles (though one could argue that gender roles are being reconfigured not eliminated). But how could they not get some things wrong when they predicted so much? Millennials are a more conformist generation, in a way. But they are continuing and conforming to the trends begun by earlier generations. That's the point S&H missed. Social freedoms, such as later marriage and childbirth, once gained, are seldom reversed for long, if at all.
05-31-2021, 12:50 AM
(05-25-2021, 12:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: A 4T might have society relax on one old stricture (LGBT rights) while getting more rigid in enforcement on other matters of sexuality and marital life. People who got slaps on the wrist for messing with children now get long prison terms if they don't "off" themselves as did the late Jeffrey Epstein. Likewise we see more of a crackdown on domestic violence. I'm definitely seeing the conformism and conservatism coming. There's a peculiar sort of "new sexual conservatism" that has been rising for a decade now but has really taken off since about 2017 or so with the beginning of MeToo - except this is best described as a "left-wing conservatism." What this really reminds me of is this proposed cycle of language types: ![[Image: main-qimg-492a33193a8644da5cb6f1a9f9fb45f0.webp]](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-492a33193a8644da5cb6f1a9f9fb45f0.webp) Basically, there's a theory that languages proceed through these types in order over centuries and millennia. Yet, at the same time, people feel like languages are "always getting simpler." Despite seeming contradictory, these two things are not mutually exclusive, because each step in the process can be thought of as a "simplification" for the speakers of the language, even if later on it will look like a complexification (is that a word?). I can explain it in more detail if anyone is curious, but the point is this: What we are experiencing is the rise of a new kind of gender and sex conservatism, in the name of greater liberalism and justice, supported primarily by the political left. It's a conservatization that looks like a liberalization, like how languages can become more complex while looking like they're simplifying. People are now thinking of greater cultural (and possibly legal) restriction on aspects of gender and sexuality as the "more liberal" position, and the "rules" governing the way genders/sexes interact are increasing in both number and strictness. For example, consider the death of "hookup culture" over the last decade, because it came to be viewed as superficial and misogynistic. Groups are separating themselves, and separate sets of rules for each group are beginning to develop. See also: the strange new left-wing segregationism (well, maybe that's too strong of a word, but you get the point) and the increased cultural separation and "different sets of rules" for races. For example, in the early 90s (3T), newscasters would say what "N.W.A." was an abbreviation for on TV, hard R and all. If a non-black reporter did that today, it would be an instant career-ender. In a way, this is the dark side of a 1T: it's a peaceful and prosperous era, but it's also the "stay in your lane" and "know your place" and "follow the rules (or else)" era. The connotations of the names given to the turnings (high, awakening, unraveling, crisis) sometimes lead us to forget that all eras are "morally neutral" and have good and bad points in equal number, and no one era is "better" or "worse" to live in than any other. They are all a product of humanity's total inability to find any kind of healthy middle ground, instead overcompensating for every past mistake in turn, and making new mistakes to overcompensate for in the future in the process. (I now feel a need to point out that my political views are pretty consistently left-wing on most issues and I (cautiously) support most of these causes, because this post makes me sound very...well, it makes me sound very 3T, doesn't it? I guess this is the increasing conformism in action, right here right now).
05-31-2021, 07:17 AM
(05-31-2021, 12:50 AM)galaxy Wrote:(05-25-2021, 12:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: A 4T might have society relax on one old stricture (LGBT rights) while getting more rigid in enforcement on other matters of sexuality and marital life. People who got slaps on the wrist for messing with children now get long prison terms if they don't "off" themselves as did the late Jeffrey Epstein. Likewise we see more of a crackdown on domestic violence. Interesting analogy. I suspect that when a language starts getting irrelevant for expressing the environment, it seems to make changes to better fit that environment. Proto-Indo-European seems to have been the result of an agglutinating language that sticks particles together to complete a verb in expressing who does what at a time and at what level of completion and perhaps such attributes as starting or desiring, and nouns (and related adjectives) that relate the noun to other things. Sometimes things go too far, and one might end up for elaborate conjugations of verbs (classical Greek and Latin) or fifteen cases for nouns. Latin has seven cases, one of them applicable only to only a part of its nouns (the vocative as in Et tu, Brute!)*, and of the other six, another, the locative, applies only to places and a few words such as "ground", "home", and "country". Modern German, which Martin Luther tried to make as "classical" as Latin has four noun cases, but those are usually signaled by the definitive article. Without the distinction between the nominative (subject) and accusative (mostly direct object), some sloppy locutions become possible in English, so "Does Frank enjoy music more than his cat?" could be a comparison between whether he prefers music to his cat or whether he doesn't like music as much as does his cat. (Our family once had a cat who loved classical music). Oddly, one fellow (Zamenhof) solved that problem in Esperanto, which does everything possible to simplify and regularize language -- and it has a distinction between the nominative and accusative cases. The cat who loves classical music will be in the nominative case and if the cat is the object of enjoyment it will be in the accusative case. Quote: I can explain it in more detail if anyone is curious, but the point is this: People went as far as they could by denying the significance of gender, and in denying it they discovered the reality of gender. Although the shades from white to black are gender-neutral, I find myself wearing much in the blue-to-yellow-through green (but the green is a yellow-green or a blue-green, and my favorite color for myself is teal), purple is seeming for only the pretentious and orange looks good on nobody (which explains its use in prison attire). "Red" has political overtones, suggesting more totalitarianism (the GOP adopted it) than socialism these days. People went as far as they could in denying ethnicity and then they found that "mixed" marriages (this includes interfaith) aren't as reliably harmonious as people once thought. Ethnicity manifests itself in cuisine, and "Italian" isn't "Mexican" even though the Spanish and the Italians have equal claims to carry the heritage of Imperial Rome. People have been sorting themselves out on many things, and politics is one of them. That may now be the most polarizing. Do not set me up with someone who really believes the Qanon cult. As for guns -- I am satisfied that any idiot can fire a gun, and that is what makes firearms so dangerous. People can shoot something with little thought, which is something that they cannot do with math. Quote:In a way, this is the dark side of a 1T: it's a peaceful and prosperous era, but it's also the "stay in your lane" and "know your place" and "follow the rules (or else)" era. And we go farther and more efficiently -- and far more safely -- if we stay in our lane and don't do crazy stuff while driving on I-57 between I-80 and Effingham, Illinois. The problem is that this highway is deathly boring to drive, and the only way in which I can imagine driving it is to have something on the car's radio/CD player. (Obviously nobody wants the dubious thrill of facing a wrong-way driver headed north in the southbound lanes of a freeway!) Eventually, 1T life becomes platitude, and people want something stronger -- especially if (as will be so of the first wave of the next Idealist generation that might be arriving in maternity wards in a couple of years if COVID-19 is the Crisis) one had no role in establishing the norm and the norm was set on your behalf. "Knowing one's place" often means accepting subordination (unfulfilling jobs with severe poverty, as in domestic work) because one is a victim of discrimination is almost never satisfying. One bad feature of the 3T, one that few people will seek to maintain or to which to revert, will be the social stratification that appeared as a consequence of neoliberal economics of the Reagan-Trump era of the Skowronek cycle. Economic success related largely to being connected to economic elites, and unless one was able to avoid getting trapped in some bureaucratic structure (Corporate America) by being a business owner, creative person, skilled worker, or recognized professional, one was likely to have the opportunity of starting a career on the ground floor and getting stuck there. One was expected to make others already filthy-rich even more filthy-rich while remaining poor and pretending to see one's poverty as bliss. The 3T economy was insane and absurd. Entrenched elites have done everything possible to maintain the paradise for themselves and the Hell for nearly everyone else, but that fails in a Crisis. People lose their faith in pie-in-the-sky promises. Quote:The connotations of the names given to the turnings (high, awakening, unraveling, crisis) sometimes lead us to forget that all eras are "morally neutral" and have good and bad points in equal number, and no one era is "better" or "worse" to live in than any other. They are all a product of humanity's total inability to find any kind of healthy middle ground, instead overcompensating for every past mistake in turn, and making new mistakes to overcompensate for in the future in the process. Well, people will have different ideas of what is the best time in life based upon their moral and cultural values and their economic means. Dangerous and full of hardship as a 4T can be, some people find great fulfillment in saving the world from a calamity not of their making. At one time many British saw the Blitz as the peak of their lives. The factory when one knows that the armaments that one makes can save one's world from conquest by Satan Incarnate (Hitler) has a great purpose. A prosperous High whose hedonism comes largely from buying things that were recently unavailable gets very stale very fast, and the factory that makes the stuff becomes "just a living". An Awakening era affords much scope for deep thought and for impulsive behavior... but many people have little talent for introspection and far more follow their impulses into a gaping hole. A 3T allows people to live without pretense to any high principle and without any social cohesion. If one is well off, it is a great time for expanding one's world in travel or into the appreciation of archaic culture. On the other hand, the lack of structure comes with every man for himself except for bureaucratic elitists (themselves often extreme narcissists) who make the world all about themselves. A 3T world becomes inequitable and unjust before it collapses economically in some speculative bubble (1857, 1929, 2008)... and prior arrangements become catastrophically unworkable. With the appropriate leadership and a cooperative populace, a society gets through the Crisis Era better than it went into it. With really-bad leadership the end of a Crisis Era is a huge hole that the living dig themselves out of. That is the difference between Churchill and Hitler. Quote:(I now feel a need to point out that my political views are pretty consistently left-wing on most issues and I (cautiously) support most of these causes, because this post makes me sound very...well, it makes me sound very 3T, doesn't it? I guess this is the increasing conformism in action, right here right now). Political descriptions get their own redefinition. America at its best is some balance of conservative traditionalism and the flexibility with which to change through effective reforms. Some of what used to be strictly conservative practice, like rule of law, law and order, and respect for protocol and precedent seems to have drifted into the mainstream of the Democratic party as the populist demagogues have gone Republican. In some respects Barack Obama is the conservative and Donald Trump is the radical. Trump still expresses reactionary economics and an ugly combination of ethnic and religious bigotry. Still, tradition seems to have won against postmodernism. That is because America has many different traditions in place, and none of them is able to overpower competing traditions. None, except for the quasi-WASP identity that Trump is, seems to have any desire to establish itself as the norm for all of us. It is just as well. Trump melded Ayn Rand's plutocracy with Hugh Hefner's fantasy of a plush harem -- and that failed ethically, spiritually, and economically. * This is used only with nominative singular masculine noun, most of which end in -us or -ius; thus Brute and Corneli from Brutus and Cornelius. Et tu, Brute is supposedly the last words that Julius Caesar expresses as he dies while being stabbed to death by what he thought to be his most reliable friend. It is never used for plural nouns or singular nouns not ending in
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
06-02-2021, 11:15 PM
(05-31-2021, 12:50 AM)galaxy Wrote:(05-25-2021, 12:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: A 4T might have society relax on one old stricture (LGBT rights) while getting more rigid in enforcement on other matters of sexuality and marital life. People who got slaps on the wrist for messing with children now get long prison terms if they don't "off" themselves as did the late Jeffrey Epstein. Likewise we see more of a crackdown on domestic violence. Very interesting to see someone else say a trend I started noticing in years leading up to COVID-19. To me, it seems like this new conservatism began with the concept of safe spaces, namely who is allowed in. I feel weird calling it conservatism because usually the only environments I have encountered safe-space terminology is in heavily liberal-voting circles. I am familiar with safe spaces in the LGBT community, but I imagine it exists in other groups of society too. A conference I attended every summer in the 2010s had some workshops that were open only to 'People Of Colour' (POC). It wasn't like there was anyone checking any official documentation, but I wouldn't be surprised if once the pandemic is over & large indoor events like this could safely happen, they may start to get more strict about who they allow in such workshops. Identifying as <ethnicity>/<sexuality>/<gender> won't be enough anymore. How it's enforced in an environment where people are just accepted by identifying as XYZ (placeholder - gender/sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, ...) remains a question. In the new environment, where do for instance people of mixed ethnicity go? Will they have to choose a side & reject half their background? Are bisexual people expected to deny half their sexuality? Will non-binary people be expected to choose between just cisgender & transgender and that's it? Looking out a tiny bit wider: Will hetero/cis allies be welcome at LGBT events? Then we have the worlds of work & school: If this new round of segregation plays out, will we end up seeing official policies where companies & schools/universities will only take on people of minority group XYZ? So in that type of system, one example would be an HBC/U will not allow someone who's not black to enroll. This type of segregation may be a bit different than what was the case pre-1960s USA in that it will be enforced by each minority group on their own, but it would still be segregation overall. I was taught in school & raised to think of our fellow humans in a sort of universalist way. Critics sometimes use the word colourblind depending on context. It seems we as a country (the US for me anyway) are now far away from that line of thinking. The days of inclusiveness seem to be coming to a rapid end, if not have already ended thanks to COVID accelerating the general pattern that was on its way.
06-03-2021, 12:22 AM
It is obvious that straight people made the majority decision on establishing LGBT rights. Much of it revolves around decencies of behavior. Gays and lesbians knew well that they could not convert straight people into homosexuals, but they could win sympathy when creeps attacked people for real or imagined homosexuality.
It's the attacks on people for imagined homosexuality that may have done more to convert straight people on LGBT rights... as in my case. I was able to tell rather conservative people -- free-enterprise true believers and fundamentalist Christians -- that (1) homophobia was not good for business, and (2) however much one might want to lead gays and lesbians away from the 'sin' of homosexuality, fists and baseball bats are the worst possible tools. You could lose a desirable employee or customer to gay-bashing. An element of robbery often goes along with gay-bashing, and robbery is one of the most odious crimes to business owners. Crippled gays and lesbians (or people that fools think are such) cost tax money for medical care and disability payments. As for religion... dead people don't change their ways. For me it is even simpler. The problem with a gay-bashing of a straight person is not that the violent fool misjudges homosexuality; we can all do that (and with me my judgment is "so what?"; it's that someone thinks (as if that were the operative word) that it is acceptable to attack people for homosexuality. It is not my responsibility to satisfy some one-person lynch mob that I am straight. Law and order is essential to liberty; without it all the enumerated rights on some sheet of paper are bunk. It may be a couple days late, but I am reminded of the Tulsa race riot https://apnews.com/article/tulsa-race-ma...c81db9d70c in which white people rioted against successful black people. I compare this in some ways to Kristallnacht, the infamous day of beatings, lootings, and arson against Jews unfortunate to live in the midst of a political order hostile to everything Jewish. Did the KKK have anything to do with the Tulsa riot? Definitely!
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
06-09-2021, 01:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2021, 01:19 PM by Captain Genet.)
Millennials are definitely conformist, and more interested in security than in freedom. They are politically conscious and more interested in science and tech than in spirituality. So far, S&H are correct.
But I cannot call Millennials "socially conservative". Many of them wear very provocative clothes, have a lot of tattoos, cohabit without marrying their "significant others", and think that using porn and illegal drugs is nothing wrong. MeToo and "cancel culture" don't seem to impact those behaviours a lot. Old Christian West was definitely too socially conservative, and the sexual revolution was intended as a correction, though it soon become a harmful overcorrection. Maybe things are heading to get more balanced now, though I imagine one Apollonian awakening more is needed to attain the balance.
06-10-2021, 08:21 PM
(06-09-2021, 01:17 PM)Captain Genet Wrote: Millennials are definitely conformist, and more interested in security than in freedom. They are politically conscious and more interested in science and tech than in spirituality. So far, S&H are correct. Isn't what is being considered socially conservative changing? I'm a Millennial & have noticed that people at least in my circles frown on 'hook-up culture' even before COVID. Maybe hooking up was more common in the 2000s into early 2010s, but many Millennials are now entering/in their 30s, a time when people usually want to figure out more long-term goals, including finding a permanent romantic partner. Cohabitation nowadays probably is more of a stand-in for marriage only due to the finances involved in going fully legal (not the wedding but the other impacts like taxes, government benefits, etc). Drugs laws are changing or just not being enforced in some places. Porn is being viewed as less an entertainment category & more in the exploitation/trafficking contexts. Maybe this is only in my circles or geographic area. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
