posted
It doesn't have a good explanation, but it's not a mystery (not lecturing or anything-I think you probably meant 'good explanation' anyway). You can read 'kids these days' comments, literally written down, in the decades prior to the assassination of Julius Caesar. One generation bitches about the other, in frequently recurring ways.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been seeing videos and posts containing references to the Munich Pact and the deal between Clinton and NK while saying, "History repeats itself..."
I recently read a book called A Skeptic's Guide to American History that makes and backs up the point that history does not repeat itself. I wish there was a way to summarize this in a Facebook comment.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It doesn't have a good explanation, but it's not a mystery (not lecturing or anything-I think you probably meant 'good explanation' anyway). You can read 'kids these days' comments, literally written down, in the decades prior to the assassination of Julius Caesar. One generation bitches about the other, in frequently recurring ways.
Still.
This feels different. Maybe my judgment is colored by the fact that it's aimed at me (though honestly I feel like I have little in common with how millennials are often described these days, probably because I'm in the older part of the millennial spectrum).
I've heard a lot of "kids these days" throughout history. I've read it.
But I have a hard time remembering a situation where the current generation and the older one are so divided by culture, where the "kids" have so much stacked against them, and are still reviled the way Millennials are.
Previous generations were slammed but they were still by and large earning a decent living and getting their lives started right, or they were out fighting wars or something else we label an accomplishment. The youth of America today are the best educated but poorest in almost a hundred years. By and large they did exactly what they were told to do by their parents. And now they're being blamed for it not working out.
It just feels different.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I have a hard time remembering a situation where the current generation and the older one are so divided by culture, where the "kids" have so much stacked against them, and are still reviled the way Millennials are.
Heh. I was in the latter half of GenX. We had it hard. GenY needs to just get over it and stop whining. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be surprised if the poverty, unemployment and median wage numbers bore that out. But like I said, maybe I'm too close since I'm a part of the currently maligned generation.
I personally am not complaining much because things are finally starting to go well for me. But I'm a relative outlier to my generation as a whole. But I get my hackles up when I see just how crappy a hand we were dealt and then get blamed for not making better decisions as toddlers and teens when this mess was brewing. Like duh, I should have voted to keep Glass-Steagal instead of learning algebra.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's just the fundamental attribution error applied to generations instead of individuals. Stuff that went well for my generation was because we were awesome, stuff that sucked wasn't our fault. Inverted for the youngsters. Then confirmed/reinforced when one encounters really crappy examples of the younger generation. I'm even tempted to tell stories of terrible millennials, but I'm trying to remind myself that those people stood out for sucking, and it doesn't make them truly representative.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright. im an annoyed millennial but I don't have any of that.
Well, I've worked 45 hour weeks for more than half a decade in 120+ degree plus environments. But that's just the life of a cook.
But still.
That's pretty arduous as well, and not something I would ever want to do.
The point is you've worked incredibly hard to make it to a point where you're in a relatively comfortable, middle-class income job in your late 20s, and yet are often castigated as lazy, entitled, weak, and unmotivated by people who often as not walked into their careers right out college. I don't really understand where all the distain and contempt for our generation comes from.
The disdain and contempt is required so that the baby boomers and Gen-Xers can feel less guilty about systematically dismantling the educational and civil institutions that provided them the means to accumulate wealth, but threaten to undermine that wealth as they are aged out of their prime earning years. It's not really that complicated.
And anyway, all "good things" come to an end. As the boomer start dying (and that is happening already), there will be an acceleration of wealth transfer to younger generations. Part of the overall problem is that the baby boomers were too rich, too highly paid, too heavily entitled, and too politically powerful. As that has begun to wane, we've already seen some of the results. As they retire and begin their retirements, wages and labor demand will rise to fill that gap. We will probably never be as rich as they were in comparison to our own children and grandchildren, but we'll do better in other ways.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just goes to show how much we (society) don't care about police shootings. You only care about the black kids getting shot because the media wants you to think this is a race issue when it's not. It has everything to do with improper training and a lack of accountability. They literally tell you what you should and should not care about and when you should care about it and you don't even know it. Watching the news doesn't leave you informed, it shapes your values and morals into whatever is decided for you...
This commentary followed a link about the unarmed white teen being shot and the parents wanting to know where the outrage is. I don't disagree that improper training and lack of accountability are a part of it. I also think statistics make it pretty apparent that it is also a race issue, since it disproportionately affects minorities two-to-one and it's not just the media only choosing to publicize the white officer on unarmed black man killings. I want to discuss this but I'm having trouble articulating why it's a race issue past the stats (those don't always seem to work on confirmation biases). How would you all address this issue?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone has already jumped in and accused the poster of being racist and now it's turned into a discussion of 'playing the race card'. I'm thinking about writing something along the lines of: Imagine someone complained about all the attention Jews got in the Holocaust since the Nazis killed other people too. They think the Holocaust turned into Jewish propaganda and no one cares about the other people the Nazis killed. Everyone that was killed is tragic, but the numbers also matter and the Jews were disproportionately killed in the Holocaust which is why it's mostly associated with them. The same way that in this country blacks are disproportionately killed by law enforcement. The white kid who was shot is of course a tragedy, but it doesn't take away from the systemic racism blacks face from law enforcement.
Does that comparison make sense?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
For the poor parents who just want to go to the store without being lectured to.
By all means tempt our children with labels that tell them what Mattel, Fisher Price, Lego, et all think about gender, but don't you dare get in on that action Target or Walmart!
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Will there be children who differ from the norm? Of course. Some girls are into sports, and some boys like to read.
...
Fun fact: This is the same woman who thinks that paid maternity leave is unfair to babies.
No joke, she says that the extra time with the baby will mean that bonds are deeper and returning to work is harder on the baby.
I'm sure she feels the same away about companies being generous to their employees and treating them like family. Clearly that makes it so much harder for everybody when it's time to fire them.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
Well, to be fair, it wasn't obvious to me that reading is mostly a girl thing. I needed someone to label that for me.
But yeah, that was my thought when she wrote:
quote: Parent whose children fall outside the norm are perfectly capable of buying their children whatever it is they’re interested in. They don’t need Target to hold their hand and lead the way.
But parents with normal children do?!
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
For the poor parents who just want to go to the store without being lectured to.
I was up all night so my sarcasm detector may be broken, but isn't removing the signs sort of doing the opposite of that?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
For the poor parents who just want to go to the store without being lectured to.
I was up all night so my sarcasm detector may be broken, but isn't removing the signs sort of doing the opposite of that?
Interesting... Here in the Czech Republic, I don't notice much gender specificity in the toy store. There must be some, but the majority of toys seem to be grouped around particular themes. There's a section with dinosaurs, cars, dolls, balls, etc. It seems to me that kids are fairly capable of signaling what interests them in all that. Our son, though he's only a year old, wants balls and cars, and will settle for picture books. But it's not like that's difficult to find.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
For the poor parents who just want to go to the store without being lectured to.
I was up all night so my sarcasm detector may be broken, but isn't removing the signs sort of doing the opposite of that?
I was being sarcastic. You aren't wrong, it's just these people see the signs coming down as a lecture just as surely as the signs going up.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
And mostly everything being described is illegal, including tax fraud, welfare fraud, disability fraud, and some other stuff.
Also... the guy buys a house? So he has 400 grand lying around to kick off this cycle of abuse? Does he not pay taxes on the property, the income from the property, etc? And does he not go to federal prison for defrauding the government by renting it to himself?
I've been posting that Snopes article as a response for a while now whenever it pops up.
But the rent one is truly ridiculous. We actually intend on purchasing a house here in January with the VA Loan program and then renting it out whenever we leave. It'll be a good, stable investment (especially since our in-laws intend to live here for the rest of their lives, and my FIL has agreed to manage the property if/when we do this), but after doing the math we realized we also wouldn't be able to draw an income from it for 30 years. Between general excise tax (a special tax on rental properties), capital gains tax, property tax, property management fees, maintenance fees and of course the mortgage... we got it to the point where we could just break even. And that's only because of the artificially low mortgage rates we can get.*
*There are, of course, other restrictions with this. You have to live in the property as your primary residence for at least 2 years before renting it, or you're required to refinance the mortgage. You can also only have one outstanding VA loan at a time, so no jumping from house to house every 2 years.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Other than that, though, and something a lot of people who don't own guns don't realize: you don't need a license or anything to buy or own a gun. You just go and buy one. Some states make the store perform some sort of background check with a 3 day waiting period first, a handful (like mine) make you register the weapon with the police department after you purchase it, but AFAIK none of them require you to obtain a license first. (from what I understand, such a requirement would probably be considered unconstitutional)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The meme was a joke (trolling), the existence of the meme was a joke, or you were poking fun the meme?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm aware that a clerk doesn't issue gun licenses. I'm aware that you only need a license/permit for concealed carry. I'm also aware that this wouldn't be a 'religious freedom' issue. I just thought it was mildly amusing to imagine the same people defending her flipping out if she denied someone trying to buy a gun. It's not a realistic scenario and there's no political point behind it and it's not even pointing out hypocrisy. I just thought it was funny, though not really anymore Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was watching this and I'm wondering why it matters if someone considers themselves a feminist or not as long as they agree with the underlying beliefs. Who cares if they have an incorrect understanding of what the label is? Isn't believing that women deserve equal rights what matters? I sometimes see discussions on "equal pay for equal work" devolve into an argument about what feminism means (with one side preferring the moniker "feminazi"). Why not just ask "Do you believe that women deserve equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work, etc?"
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's because the "etc" is potentially long, so we need a label - a category to which we can refer, rather than describing it in full each time. And those who are opposed to the goals included in that category will learn to associate the label - whatever it is, even if we switched from feminist to "gender fairness" or something - with the associations they would have had to feminism.
So I don't blame people for trying to defend and demystify the label that already exists, instead of going to all the work of listing all of their beliefs and goals every time, or finding a new label which would also become contested semantic space.
I'm obviously ignoring various complications like differences in what various feminists believe/want/do. When it matters to narrow it down, I think narrowing it down and being explicit about beliefs or goals or methods is a good idea.
I'd be interested to know whether anybody who says feminazi will agree that equal pay for equal work is not only desirable, but also that we should collectively do something about it. I don't think I've ever seen that.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, it's because the "etc" is potentially long, so we need a label - a category to which we can refer, rather than describing it in full each time. And those who are opposed to the goals included in that category will learn to associate the label - whatever it is, even if we switched from feminist to "gender fairness" or something - with the associations they would have had to feminism.
Would "Do you believe that women should have an equal place in society as men?" cover it?
quote: I'd be interested to know whether anybody who says feminazi will agree that equal pay for equal work is not only desirable, but also that we should collectively do something about it. I don't think I've ever seen that.
I have very limited experience in these discussions, mainly just passing through on the internet, but I mostly recall them at least trying to pretend they think women should be (or already are) treated equally, but that feminists want women to be treated better than men, or something.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Every firearm Mercer had was legally obtained. This shows that background checks don't work, now do they? Here's a plan, everybody (even the people who don't want a firearm) over 18 needs to have the background check and when you pass, you are required to purchase a firearm, have the proper ammunition, take a safety class, have it on your person when you leave the house to get a gallon of milk, and no more gun free zones (they're turning out to be target ranges). Now, the crazies, the criminals, and ones wanting to make a statement (like Mercer) will know that they'll get less shots off due to the possibility that someone will drop them like a bad habit.
Big government ftw.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umpqua Community College is not a gun-free zone. Oregon state law prohibits them in colleges and universities. They did require concealed carry permits, but there were people on campus during and after the shooting carrying legal weapons.
REALLY tired of talking heads blathering about this without getting challenged.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If in case it was all too confusing for you, here's a summary:
President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) while some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)
So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
There is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is good) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so the U.S. says they are bad while secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin (who is bad because he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks, including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi, has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing (!?).
But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons with which to bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad which is good, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
Now the British (obviously good, except that silly anti-Semite who leads the Labor Party, Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (super bad -- see Paris, November 2015).
So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS and, because Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good?) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only consistently bad).
To Sunni Muslims an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War. Therefore, the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (duh).
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point?) and hence we will be seen as bad.
So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad ) many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad ) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (now, straining credulity, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started.
Got it?
In case anyone isn't aware global politics are complex.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
