quote:'to miss' implies that you would, if you had the power, go back to conditions as they were then.
Not really; I miss Italy quite a bit, but I wouldn't want to apply Italy's immigration policies to the US.
quote:These are all things that cannot be reasonably concluded from me saying "whoever misses the 1950s has no heart". You're reading far more into my words than is there.
Your argument doesn't suddenly become reasonable just because you say it does. It needs, you know, reason.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:These are all things that cannot be reasonably concluded from me saying "whoever misses the 1950s has no heart". You're reading far more into my words than is there.
Your argument doesn't suddenly become reasonable just because you say it does. It needs, you know, reason.
I didn't say that my argument was or was not reasonable, I said that the things you conclude from my words are not reasonable things to conclude. You're free to disagree, of course, but I'd love to hear how you get from what I've said to your conclusions.
I also don't know what you mean by "I'm the one taking the liberal, inclusive view, here." What is that in reference to?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd love to hear how you get from what I've said to your conclusions.
You said: "given the misery of many groups of both Soviet Russia & 1950s America, I'd say that whoever does miss those times has no heart."
You do not appear to be amenable to allowing people to look back on that era with nostalgia; you seem to conclude that if they do miss those days, they lack a heart, because your view of that era seems to be wholly negative.
You are applying your view of an era to a general population, without considering that others have similarly strong feelings in the positive.
Thus my conclusion, supported by your explicit statements.
quote:She was not overreacting to the idea that the 50s were an idyllic time.
Correct. She was overreacting to BlackBlade's post. It was that overreaction I was addressing, and which you subsequently missed. Is it clear for you now, Tatiana?
quote:I also don't know what you mean by "I'm the one taking the liberal, inclusive view, here." What is that in reference to?
Well, I haven't said that anyone is stupid, or heartless. I allow that nostalgia for the 50s (or 60s, or 70s-- not the 80s--) is warranted; also that there were terrible things done in those times. And all times.
Generally, people think a traditionalist like me is supposed to be all 'up with the old!'
This is me, being inclusive. I'm taking all viewpoints into account, and giving those that are reasonable (as opposed to extreme) some consideration.
As for liberal-- I just said that one of the good things to come out of the '50s was Rock-n-Roll; that's, like, half of the Democratic platform to celebrities.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know you Scott, but if this whole "taking all viewpoints into account, and giving the reasonable ones consideration" is new to you, can I suggest you start off slow? You don't want to be getting too open-minded, your brains might fall out (haha, just a little joke for you there).
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am against nostalgia for any time, actually, not just the 1950s or Soviet Russia. Generally, I don't think nostalgia is a useful or good emotion.
"you seem to conclude that if they do miss those days, they lack a heart, because your view of that era seems to be wholly negative."
This is blatantly wrong, as I've already said that there are positive things from that era, and I have no problem with people missing those things. Thus, it is logically impossible that my view of that era be wholly negative.
There's a very large difference between saying
quote:That era, taken as a whole, had overarching negatives
and saying
quote:that era was wholly negative.
From the first you may conclude, that if the negative aspects are large enough (i.e. they run through the whole of the society) then it's important to not idealize or miss that era as a whole. This is, in fact, my conclusion. From the second you can conclude what you have above - but I have not said the second, so your conclusions don't apply.
Others may have strong opinions in the positive about that era as a whole - and I would judge those opinions to be bad ones.
Edit: to take a more extreme example, consider Spain during the height of the Inquisition. Now, I'm sure there were cool things happening in Spain during that era besides the Inquisition. For the sake of argument, let's say some form of art made great strides. I'm perfectly fine with people saying, "man, I miss the art innovation that took place during the Inquisition period in Spain." I'm not okay with people saying, "man, I miss the Inquisition period in Spain". And the reason why is because, while there may have been cool art innovation taking place during that era, the Inquisition was a key feature of that time period - and you can't escape the effect it had on the era as a whole.
Because basically all societies seen throughout human history have had extremely negative key components, I don't think nostalgia for any time period is a good thing.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haha, Jhai's against nostalgia, that means when they bring back slavery he's not allowed to be nostalgic for the pre-slavery days.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they bring back slavery, I'll be too busy fighting against it to have time to be nostalgic.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm sure you'll be able to spare a moment from fighting tyranny to reflect wistfully on the old days.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sort of agree with what 'boots wrote earlier. I can understand certain segments of the population feeling nostalgia for the 50s. Those segments, though, are behooved to remember that they achieved their prosperity, directly or indirectly, under a system of massive injustice. And, yes, that's worth noting, at least as a symbol of respect to those who suffered under that system, and to a much lesser degree, those who might've under different cicrumstances.
Speaking in a public setting, which I consider this to be, I think we all ought to take our audience into account. Part of that, I think, includes recognizing that others in the audience might not have the same experiences of a thing that you did. Obviously, this has reasonable limits, but I don't think this particular discussion is anywhere close to them.
Say, for example, that my girlfriend and I are both nature buffs. So I take her out camping. We hike to the top of a mountain, and at the peak I propose. She says yes, and giddy with excitement we head for home. Once back in civilization we realize that terrorists have flown airplanes into the WTC. Many years later, it would be perfectly understandable to feel nostalgic about that day, but any of us would be shocked to hear "that September 11th was a magical and wondrous day. I sure miss it."
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Oh, I'm sure you'll be able to spare a moment from fighting tyranny to reflect wistfully on the old days.
See, that's the thing - I don't think it's productive to "reflect wistfully on the old days". I don't think it's a useful or good thing to do. I might miss not have slavery - but going "gosh darn, the old days were so good and nowadays it just sucks" isn't something I can ever see myself doing.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This feels a lot like "You should feel really guilty about your nice house and fancy car because there are starving children in Africa." We all have selective empathy and arguably every well-fed middle-class westerner alive today owes their good fortune to the bad fortune of others to some extent and most of us could exchange a minor portion of our position of wealth to, at least on paper, save a number of lives. From this perspective, every luxury item from an Xbox to an electric griddle is a choice to enrich our own lives when we could be saving others.
Our sense of nostalgia, like our sense of present happiness, is extremely contextualized. Indicating longing for the good old days is generally an expression of happiness associate with specific elements that of those days that were experienced, not an endorsement of some sort of synthesis of all the postive and negative factors present in the world at that time.
I feel nostalgia about my childhood, not because the world was wonderful, but because I enjoyed the lack of responsibility and relative freedom. I would never choose to go back, because I have so many other things now that I value more. I also have nostalgia about the early days of my marriage and career. Learning how the world works and how to work with it as an adult was an amazing experience, but again I have other things to learn now and I wouldn't trade now for then.
I don't think the 9/11 example is a fair analogy, as few people in the world associate that date with anything but the terrorist attacks, whereas the 50s have many associations - food fads, dress and music tastes, the mainstreaming of certain new technologies, and yes, a horrible civil rights situation.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Oh, I'm sure you'll be able to spare a moment from fighting tyranny to reflect wistfully on the old days.
See, that's the thing - I don't think it's productive to "reflect wistfully on the old days". I don't think it's a useful or good thing to do. I might miss not have slavery - but going "gosh darn, the old days were so good and nowadays it just sucks" isn't something I can ever see myself doing.
Well sure, but who says "gosh darn" nowadays, anyway?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
I also think that personal nostalgia (my childhood was great) is different from a generalized nostalgia (America was better in the 1950s).
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also think that personal nostalgia (my childhood was great) is different from a generalized nostalgia (America was better in the 1950s).
True. But if an individual who lived in the 50s is making the claim, then I think it's hard to separate the personal element from that. I hate hypothetical nostalgia though - the desire to return to a time which one has never experienced.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I hope you are not including personal nostalgia in your critizism. When I go back to the beautiful canyon where I learned to hike in the 50's. And I have to sneek past rows of hugh sudo-Tudor mcMansions to even find the trail head. Then pass piles of chip sacks and beer bottles to reach the trees, stripped, broken and scarred. I sometimes have a little bit of longing for the old days.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP, I don't really think it has to do with guilt, nor do I think it ought to. It has to do with, to put it broadly, exhibiting sensitivity for others in the way we communicate. I think we agree to a large extant in our views on nostalgia, for what it's worth.
With regard to my example, I chose something hyperbolic to express my point. I think you could choose a marginally less famous, undeniably catastrophic event, and it would still hold true though. And so on, until you got to "Life in North America in the 1950's". I don't consider the 9/11 example perfect, but I do think it's fair. If it helps, I'd have a similar problem with someone condemning the '50s in an absolute fashion.
quote:I also think that personal nostalgia (my childhood was great) is different from a generalized nostalgia (America was better in the 1950s).
This too. Again, it pays to be careful in your language.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a great movie that came out about six or seven years ago called "Songcatcher." The story concerned some mountain people in early twentieth century Appalachia. I like how the movie captured how close the charm and the beauty was connected to the vileness exhibited in the culture of the people. I don't know if one can separate the good from the bad. I think that some of the most beautiful gestures can flow from appalling prejudices.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think nostalgia is generally useless, too, Jhai, but I also think yelling at people for doing something very human, very normal, and well-intentioned is a great deal worse.
Nostalgia is useless but ubiquitous and generally harmless. Freaking out about it and labeling people with terrible labels because they do it is an active evil.
posted
Kat, I never labeled any person anything. Go back and reread what I said, as you obviously haven't closely enough.
I also did not "freak out". I reacted strongly because I felt it was warranted. And I disagree that nostalgia for past time periods is generally harmless. I think it's actually a very large problem because it is created from and then reinforces biases that do great harm in society.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You did freak out. You strongly over-reacted to the original comment. That's what freaking out is.
I'd like to see you prove the actual harm nostalgia is. Not that it sometimes may possibly contribute to other harmful actions - you could say that about lots of things, including love, driving, and the ability to communicate.
It is a ubiquitous, universal, timeless human activity that the vast majority of time is done with benign intentions. In order to justify your freaking out, then you need to prove actual harm from the action itself. If you want to say that it is kind of like rascism, then your actual problem is with racism (you know they are not equivelent, right? Not even close?) and that doesn't count.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I'm not going to get into an argument with you about definitions. You can call it whatever you like, but you're wrong to call it freaking out.
Nostalgia (about past eras) causes us to close our eyes to the negatives of past eras. If you say "the 1950s, as a whole, were so great" then you're clearly ignoring the fact that, actually, the 1950s, as a whole, was not so great. Putting aside the fact that you're not being mentally rigorous (which I think is a large problem), by failing to acknowledge the problems of the past you're far more likely to repeat them.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can call it whatever you like, but you're wrong to call it freaking out.
I don't quite understand this sentence. Are you saying that Katie can use whatever words she wants, but that certain usages are empirically wrong?
In all honesty, Jhai, you've been unusually hostile and pedantic lately. I've noticed it, and so have a bunch of other people. Is something wrong?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that I didn't freak out. I should know, since I'm the one doing the action. She can call what I did freaking out, but I say she'd be wrong to do so. I'm not saying certain usages are "empirically wrong", but they are wrong. If a baby crawls across the carpet, you'd be wrong to say "the baby is running down the street." It's not "empirically" wrong to say that the baby is running, but it's nonetheless wrong.
And no, nothing is wrong in my personal life. If anything, life is particularly good with spring on the way & the backpacking season really starting. Might go out this weekend, even.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* I think what she's saying is that, from her perspective, your reaction was harsher and more hostile than it needed to be. I don't think Katie's distinguishing the symptoms of "freaking out" from the emotional sensation of "freaking out." So while I'm sure it's true that the latter did not occur, you also have to understand that from her perspective there is no obvious difference.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, again, I don't agree that the symptoms she lists as "freaking out" (i.e. "You strongly over-reacted to the original comment.")actually occurred. I would say I reacted more than I could have, but it was not an "over-reaction". For instance, when someone steps down hard on your foot by accident, you can say "Dear Sir, would you kindly remove your foot from the top of mine? I feel a little pain." or you can say "Owww! That really hurt!". The first is less of a reaction the second, but the second is not an "over-reaction".
Obviously, kat and I disagree about whether what I said was an overreaction. That's fine, but I believe she's wrong. I'm not going to argue about it, since that's a conversation that will go no where fast, but neither am I going to say something like "agree to disagree" just to smooth things over socially or whatever. Just like I don't tell Christains "agree to disagree" when they talk about the existence of their god. I say, "you're wrong." (Obviously, I don't just go around telling any Christian I meet on the street that they're wrong - it only occurs in the context of a discussion relating to religion.)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:neither am I going to say something like "agree to disagree" just to smooth things over socially or whatever
You might want to reconsider that. Seriously. Because here's the thing: kat's going to disagree with you whether you give her permission to or not. If you choose not to "agree to disagree" on it, you have two choices: you can either successfully convince her that she's wrong, or you can flatly contradict her. I don't see what good flatly contradicting her does you, and it certainly costs you some goodwill.
In the same way, I wouldn't recommend telling every Christian with whom you're having a theological discussion that they're wrong about their God. There's certainly a place for that kind of frankness, but I think you'll find that an approach like this one comes at a cost which often outweighs any benefit.
Note that even saying "let's just agree to disagree" is offensive for much the same reason that saying "I won't allow you to agree to disagree with me" is offensive, albeit slightly less so. In both cases, you are claiming for yourself an authority that you are not extending to the other person. In reality, Katie is perfectly entitled to consider your reaction to be an overreaction; you, for your part, are perfectly entitled to appraise it differently, and even to try to convince her otherwise. But you do not have the right to tell Katie she is not permitted to perceive your behavior the way she does.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not telling her that she's not permitted to do anything, Tom. I'm just not going to say I think she's right when I don't think so. She's free to disagree with me, and I will "flat out contradict her". If she thinks that arguing about it will result in anything other than arguing, I would be willing to consider continuing to argue about it, but I doubt either one of us thinks we're going to win the other over, so I'd be quite surprised if she says she wants to continue to discuss it. If it costs me her goodwill, or the goodwill of others, well, *shrug*. I doubt I have much of kat's goodwill, anyways, and I'm fine with that situation.
I screen people before I enter into theological discussions with them. I would not, for instance, enter into one with my boss.
I've not said either "let's just agree to disagree" or "I won't allow you to agree to disagree with me". The first I believe is inane, and the second is stupid, since I don't have the power to stop people's thoughts. I'm saying I won't "agree to disagree". I simply disagree.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it costs me her goodwill, or the goodwill of others, well, *shrug*.
I've tried this attitude. What I eventually realized was that I care a great deal about the goodwill of others.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it all depends on what you mean by "others", right? I care about the goodwill of my close friends and family, for instance. If I ever lost the goodwill of my dogs, I hope I'm still at least honest enough to deem myself a horrible person, because I sure as heck would be.
If I lose the goodwill of people who are upset because I dare to disagree with kat, and dare to state that I disagree with kat, I think I'll be okay.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I notice that you keep bringing up the religiosity of people with whom you disagree and habitually offend.
Is this something you are trying to do? Do you justify your poor behavior by thinking it is okay to be rude to religious people?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's rude to tell religious people of the Abrahamic faiths*** that they're wrong that a god exists. That's what all atheists/strong agnostics believe. If I'm in a discussion with someone about religion, I think it's reasonable to state what is probably my most fundamental assumption going into the discussion. Like I said, I don't bring it up to random people on the street who I believe to be Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim).
I haven't brought up the religiosity - or lack thereof - of anyone in this thread. All I've said is the following:
quote:Just like I don't tell Christians "agree to disagree" when they talk about the existence of their god. I say, "you're wrong." (Obviously, I don't just go around telling any Christian I meet on the street that they're wrong - it only occurs in the context of a discussion relating to religion.)
as an example of being frank within another context. In the above quote I'm not discussing anyone on this thread, or really, anyone on Hatrack at all. When I wrote that, actually, I was thinking on a philosophy class I took in undergraduate which was basically on the existence of god, or lack thereof. We had a full range of people from atheists to "hardcore" Christians, and everyone got along peaceably enough, although I (and everyone else) was extremely frank about how I thought others were wrong or right within our discussions.
***I make the qualification of Abrahamic religions because I am less certain about the non-existence of gods which are not all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You talked about your friends have "thicker skin", and then said the other difference is that your friends are not religious. That's twice you've brought up religion on your own when the discussion has been your behavior.
It certainly makes me wonder if your behavior is actually connected to your opinion of religion and if the bad behavior is justified in your head by disdain for the beliefs of the people you are habitually rude to.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said it to show that my IRL friends have a different demographic than Hatrack, by in large. They also skew more brown & yellow (am I anti-white folk now?), young (anti-older-people?), and international (anti-American?). Out of the 50-odd people at work & personal life whom I have regular contact with (i.e. weekly decently-long conversations with), all of two of them are white Americans.
I come to Hatrack in part because it has a greater diversity of people than I run into in my daily life. If I didn't want to talk to people different from me & my close friends, there are plenty of places I could go to hear an echo chamber.
Edit: and since the quote you're referring to didn't even happen in this thread, here it is for anyone wondering:
quote:I do appreciate your remark, and as I've mentioned earlier, I will consider such remarks in the future. I already realized that I have a much, much thicker skin than the vast majority of people posting here, but the shocker is that apparently the vast majority of people I regularly associate with also have a much thicker skin than the denizens of Hatrack. I suppose the two populations aren't all that alike, though - for example, I can't think of one person I hang out with IRL who attends church.
I think, with the quote given in full, others can give your suppositions about me the exact amount of value they deserve.
Edit the second: oh, about five or six out of the people I closely associate with attend mosques regularly. And many attend Hindu temples for the major celebrations, including my husband and myself. So it's not like I don't hang out with religious folk IRL, either. I just don't know many Christians.
posted
That you have friends who go to Hindu temples on holidays doesn't take away from your apparently associating comments on your bad behavior as connected to the probable Christianity of the people saying it.
Now that you've brought it up twice, I really wonder. It would explain a lot.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I believe the customary response to such a post would be something along the lines of, "You don't know me. You can't speculate on my motivations. I refuse to have this conversation with you."
Throw in a flounce in you can.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That you have friends who go to Hindu temples on holidays doesn't take away from your apparently associating comments on your bad behavior as connected to the probable Christianity of the people saying it.
Now that you've brought it up twice, I really wonder. It would explain a lot.
No, I actually haven't brought up Christians twice. I once brought up "church goers" and once brought up believers in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity. While those groups may intersect, they are not identical to one another.
And I don't have friends who "go to Hindu temples on holidays"; I have friends who go to Hindu temples for major celebrations. Not the same thing.
Perhaps you should try to be a bit more careful when reading.
kmboots - sadly, my flouncing ability is a bit rusty. It's one of those things I find difficult to avoid laughing at when performed by anyone over the age of, oh, eight or so.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
