|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism?
mother terasa was not a good person, so I'd prefer something more like Gandhi of authoritarianism. Covid has been a wake up call that our cultural knee jerk reaction to authoritarianism is morally deficient. We should strive higher than "ALL YES or ALL NO". Our culture's inability to work with nuance is causing us big problems. Go browse Facebook for half an hour and you are faced with the cold reality of the fuel we are dumping into our democracy. It ain't good.
On August 30 2021 20:58 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism? In my headcanon he’s the Stalin of Stallin’ the Virus. Or Chairman Maodoo. I think he’s (largely) correct on boomers to be fair. The portion of ‘I’ve got mine’ who then moan about millennials doing x y or z is way higher than the portion who think it’s a bit off that some of what they obtained is borderline completely unobtainable for an equivalent millennial today. Now the boomer battlefield in this country is protecting their pensions from being touched. Going to go out on a limb and say they’re going to be considerably more generous than what our generation get. Of course, nothing wrong with that, that’s what’s been paid into after all. But it’s illustrative that as a political bloc they fight basically anything that merely seeks to equalise conditions for coming generations. Off to Mohdoo island with them too I say! I mean no, I’m broad-brushing to the extreme here too, it’s a crude generalisation but I don’t think he’s entirely off the reservation there if you get down to brass tacks.
Just wanted to point out this is very good and clever.
|
On August 31 2021 01:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2021 00:43 Acrofales wrote:On August 30 2021 20:58 WombaT wrote:On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found.
Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked.
They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism? In my headcanon he’s the Stalin of Stallin’ the Virus. Or Chairman Maodoo. I think he’s (largely) correct on boomers to be fair. The portion of ‘I’ve got mine’ who then moan about millennials doing x y or z is way higher than the portion who think it’s a bit off that some of what they obtained is borderline completely unobtainable for an equivalent millennial today. Now the boomer battlefield in this country is protecting their pensions from being touched. Going to go out on a limb and say they’re going to be considerably more generous than what our generation get. Of course, nothing wrong with that, that’s what’s been paid into after all. But it’s illustrative that as a political bloc they fight basically anything that merely seeks to equalise conditions for coming generations. Off to Mohdoo island with them too I say! I mean no, I’m broad-brushing to the extreme here too, it’s a crude generalisation but I don’t think he’s entirely off the reservation there if you get down to brass tacks. I fail to see how that is different from any other "generation" in modern history? Are millennials somehow altruistic because they fight for the future? Or are they selfish, because they'll be around for more of that future? The most clear difference is that our government is older than any other time period in history. Modern medicine is a major contributing factor to this obviously, but voter apathy and demographic shifts are also a major consideration. We have a population that is shrinking sans immigration for the first time in history and this has resulted in a generation of politicians that refuse to cede power to the next. Show nested quote +In 1981, the average age of a Representative was 49 and the average of a Senator was 53. Today, the average age of a Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61. Data is from the 115th congress from 2017, but they haven't gotten younger. Show nested quote +On August 31 2021 00:43 Acrofales wrote:
But hey, I'm sure the greatest generation weren't some kind of super altruists either. They just fought for themselves as well. They just hadn't reached the limits of the economic Ponzi scheme they set up yet.
I think calling it a ponzi scheme is being a bit too harsh. That is an intentional level of fraud and malice that I hope wasn't present.
Is it politicians who don't want to give up power? Or voters who just keep (dumbly) voting for the incumbent. That aging politicians problem is also a uniquely American thing, whereas Boomers are also a European thing. Let's face it, tho, if millennials keep voting for the incumbent boomer, AGAINST their own self-interest, and the Gen Z kids just don't vote at all, then why is it exclusively the boomers' fault?
Calling it a Ponzi scheme might be a bit harsh, but looking at some aspects (e.g. big oil, or big agriculture), it's hard not to think they knew from very early on that this was fucking up the planet for short term growth.
|
On August 31 2021 01:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2021 01:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On August 31 2021 00:43 Acrofales wrote:On August 30 2021 20:58 WombaT wrote:On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical.
Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism? In my headcanon he’s the Stalin of Stallin’ the Virus. Or Chairman Maodoo. I think he’s (largely) correct on boomers to be fair. The portion of ‘I’ve got mine’ who then moan about millennials doing x y or z is way higher than the portion who think it’s a bit off that some of what they obtained is borderline completely unobtainable for an equivalent millennial today. Now the boomer battlefield in this country is protecting their pensions from being touched. Going to go out on a limb and say they’re going to be considerably more generous than what our generation get. Of course, nothing wrong with that, that’s what’s been paid into after all. But it’s illustrative that as a political bloc they fight basically anything that merely seeks to equalise conditions for coming generations. Off to Mohdoo island with them too I say! I mean no, I’m broad-brushing to the extreme here too, it’s a crude generalisation but I don’t think he’s entirely off the reservation there if you get down to brass tacks. I fail to see how that is different from any other "generation" in modern history? Are millennials somehow altruistic because they fight for the future? Or are they selfish, because they'll be around for more of that future? The most clear difference is that our government is older than any other time period in history. Modern medicine is a major contributing factor to this obviously, but voter apathy and demographic shifts are also a major consideration. We have a population that is shrinking sans immigration for the first time in history and this has resulted in a generation of politicians that refuse to cede power to the next. In 1981, the average age of a Representative was 49 and the average of a Senator was 53. Today, the average age of a Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61. Data is from the 115th congress from 2017, but they haven't gotten younger. On August 31 2021 00:43 Acrofales wrote:
But hey, I'm sure the greatest generation weren't some kind of super altruists either. They just fought for themselves as well. They just hadn't reached the limits of the economic Ponzi scheme they set up yet.
I think calling it a ponzi scheme is being a bit too harsh. That is an intentional level of fraud and malice that I hope wasn't present. Is it politicians who don't want to give up power? Or voters who just keep (dumbly) voting for the incumbent. That aging politicians problem is also a uniquely American thing, whereas Boomers are also a European thing. Let's face it, tho, if millennials keep voting for the incumbent boomer, AGAINST their own self-interest, and the Gen Z kids just don't vote at all, then why is it exclusively the boomers' fault? Calling it a Ponzi scheme might be a bit harsh, but looking at some aspects (e.g. big oil, or big agriculture), it's hard not to think they knew from very early on that this was fucking up the planet for short term growth.
What young person was I supposed to vote for? You're asking me why I didn't vote for the young candidate that doesn't exist. I suspect that has a lot to do with the two party system in America.
|
UK has a 2 party system, yet the average age of MP's from 1981 hasn't noticably risen. The rising age of politicians in USA, appears to have nothing to do with the two party system. Anyhow I can barely see how a discussion that uses epithets such as "boomers" as a central descriptor as being particularily useful or interesting to me.
|
Portland is beginning to have major issues with burning RVs. There's just a shit load of meth RVs out there and by virtue of there being so many, there are burning events often now. Just a couple weeks ago my friend's apartment building and the one next door had to be evacuated due to fumes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/pe3bnw/rv_fire_at_a_homeless_camp_across_from_the_amazon/
When an RV is on fire like this, it generates extremely fine particles that are carcinogenic. It is extremely unsafe to be anywhere near these RVs when they burn. Even mild exposure can cause respiratory illness or cancer down the line. This is a really uniquely bad situation. These fumes are crazy toxic. This is actually very bad. It is likely that many people have already been exposed to toxic levels of this stuff that will suffer down the line. This is a public health issue.
|
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
On August 31 2021 01:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism? mother terasa was not a good person, so I'd prefer something more like Gandhi of authoritarianism. Covid has been a wake up call that our cultural knee jerk reaction to authoritarianism is morally deficient. We should strive higher than "ALL YES or ALL NO". Our culture's inability to work with nuance is causing us big problems. Go browse Facebook for half an hour and you are faced with the cold reality of the fuel we are dumping into our democracy. It ain't good. Show nested quote +On August 30 2021 20:58 WombaT wrote:On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism? In my headcanon he’s the Stalin of Stallin’ the Virus. Or Chairman Maodoo. I think he’s (largely) correct on boomers to be fair. The portion of ‘I’ve got mine’ who then moan about millennials doing x y or z is way higher than the portion who think it’s a bit off that some of what they obtained is borderline completely unobtainable for an equivalent millennial today. Now the boomer battlefield in this country is protecting their pensions from being touched. Going to go out on a limb and say they’re going to be considerably more generous than what our generation get. Of course, nothing wrong with that, that’s what’s been paid into after all. But it’s illustrative that as a political bloc they fight basically anything that merely seeks to equalise conditions for coming generations. Off to Mohdoo island with them too I say! I mean no, I’m broad-brushing to the extreme here too, it’s a crude generalisation but I don’t think he’s entirely off the reservation there if you get down to brass tacks. Just wanted to point out this is very good and clever.
Why thank you good sir, was 5 coffees and 3 hours in the writers room and that was the best I could do.
|
On August 31 2021 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
UK has a 2 party system, yet the average age of MP's from 1981 hasn't noticably risen. The rising age of politicians in USA, appears to have nothing to do with the two party system. Anyhow I can barely see how a discussion that uses epithets such as "boomers" as a central descriptor as being particularily useful or interesting to me.
The US in uniquely bad in how many persons each representative represents so that is probably a good starting point. I think dinosaurs like Feinstein rely on the two party system to get reelected though. It may not be the only reason, but it is contributing factor.
|
On August 31 2021 05:32 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2021 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
UK has a 2 party system, yet the average age of MP's from 1981 hasn't noticably risen. The rising age of politicians in USA, appears to have nothing to do with the two party system. Anyhow I can barely see how a discussion that uses epithets such as "boomers" as a central descriptor as being particularily useful or interesting to me. The US in uniquely bad in how many persons each representative represents so that is probably a good starting point. I think dinosaurs like Feinstein rely on the two party system to get reelected though. It may not be the only reason, but it is contributing factor.
Its probably more about how the US has regularly scheduled elections, and very expensive elections (and the campaign finance rules we have are all strongly pro-incumbent, which is the point).
This means you have to raise lots of money, in a very specific way, but also at regular intervals. This is most easy for someone who's already doing it. Almost all our old politicians are people on rinse-repeat.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
On August 31 2021 00:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2021 20:58 WombaT wrote:On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism? In my headcanon he’s the Stalin of Stallin’ the Virus. Or Chairman Maodoo. I think he’s (largely) correct on boomers to be fair. The portion of ‘I’ve got mine’ who then moan about millennials doing x y or z is way higher than the portion who think it’s a bit off that some of what they obtained is borderline completely unobtainable for an equivalent millennial today. Now the boomer battlefield in this country is protecting their pensions from being touched. Going to go out on a limb and say they’re going to be considerably more generous than what our generation get. Of course, nothing wrong with that, that’s what’s been paid into after all. But it’s illustrative that as a political bloc they fight basically anything that merely seeks to equalise conditions for coming generations. Off to Mohdoo island with them too I say! I mean no, I’m broad-brushing to the extreme here too, it’s a crude generalisation but I don’t think he’s entirely off the reservation there if you get down to brass tacks. I fail to see how that is different from any other "generation" in modern history? Are millennials somehow altruistic because they fight for the future? Or are they selfish, because they'll be around for more of that future? Meanwhile the generation Z or post-millennials are coming of age and realising their future is irredeemably fucked, but neither boomers nor millennials are all that interested in tackling the sustainable economy is issue (at least, not when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is). Boomers don't give a shit, because they'll be dead when the consequences of the unsustainable economy start to really impact their lifestyle. And millennials are more worried about having the lifestyle that their parents had (e.g. your focus on PENSIONS rather than climate change right here in your criticism of boomers) than leaving a planet their children can live on. But hey, I'm sure the greatest generation weren't some kind of super altruists either. They just fought for themselves as well. They just hadn't reached the limits of the economic Ponzi scheme they set up yet. Rather than shitting on boomers for being selfish, Mohdoo needs to realise that most people are selfish. And, tying this into ChristianS' astute post, that has only gotten worse with the elevation of individualism onto a pedestal in Western society.
Yes fair points.
Although I’m not sure I’d characterise people as inherently selfish, something gets lost in translation when extrapolating out to a wider, abstract society. Probably due to it being through the lens of a culture of individualism and an invisible hand converting an aggregate of selfish interactions into a wider social good. As ChristianS alluded to.
My point on pensions, wasn’t a particular focus of mine in the wider scheme of things. The Tories fault for making their triple lock a manifesto pledge, equally the spirit of that pledge was to protect pension value, not lock it to an artificially high increase due to Covid.
On climate yeah, absolutely although we’re very much stuck in ye olde tragedy of the commons with that one.
At least from my friend circle, I’m assuming people here too are (relatively) conscious and if Satan (as it’s usually him for some reason) popped down and gave us a deal that if we stuck to x y and z, he’d sort the rest of humanity to do the same, then we’d sign on the dotted line.
In the absence of Satan, or his non-Union equivalent we’re a bit stuck.
But yes millennials aren’t exactly great on this, we’re still extremely consumerist, maybe with the occasional ode to a ‘green’ product, and until that changes good luck averting a climate catastrophe.
|
On August 31 2021 02:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2021 01:59 Acrofales wrote:On August 31 2021 01:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On August 31 2021 00:43 Acrofales wrote:On August 30 2021 20:58 WombaT wrote:On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere...
Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism? In my headcanon he’s the Stalin of Stallin’ the Virus. Or Chairman Maodoo. I think he’s (largely) correct on boomers to be fair. The portion of ‘I’ve got mine’ who then moan about millennials doing x y or z is way higher than the portion who think it’s a bit off that some of what they obtained is borderline completely unobtainable for an equivalent millennial today. Now the boomer battlefield in this country is protecting their pensions from being touched. Going to go out on a limb and say they’re going to be considerably more generous than what our generation get. Of course, nothing wrong with that, that’s what’s been paid into after all. But it’s illustrative that as a political bloc they fight basically anything that merely seeks to equalise conditions for coming generations. Off to Mohdoo island with them too I say! I mean no, I’m broad-brushing to the extreme here too, it’s a crude generalisation but I don’t think he’s entirely off the reservation there if you get down to brass tacks. I fail to see how that is different from any other "generation" in modern history? Are millennials somehow altruistic because they fight for the future? Or are they selfish, because they'll be around for more of that future? The most clear difference is that our government is older than any other time period in history. Modern medicine is a major contributing factor to this obviously, but voter apathy and demographic shifts are also a major consideration. We have a population that is shrinking sans immigration for the first time in history and this has resulted in a generation of politicians that refuse to cede power to the next. In 1981, the average age of a Representative was 49 and the average of a Senator was 53. Today, the average age of a Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61. Data is from the 115th congress from 2017, but they haven't gotten younger. On August 31 2021 00:43 Acrofales wrote:
But hey, I'm sure the greatest generation weren't some kind of super altruists either. They just fought for themselves as well. They just hadn't reached the limits of the economic Ponzi scheme they set up yet.
I think calling it a ponzi scheme is being a bit too harsh. That is an intentional level of fraud and malice that I hope wasn't present. Is it politicians who don't want to give up power? Or voters who just keep (dumbly) voting for the incumbent. That aging politicians problem is also a uniquely American thing, whereas Boomers are also a European thing. Let's face it, tho, if millennials keep voting for the incumbent boomer, AGAINST their own self-interest, and the Gen Z kids just don't vote at all, then why is it exclusively the boomers' fault? Calling it a Ponzi scheme might be a bit harsh, but looking at some aspects (e.g. big oil, or big agriculture), it's hard not to think they knew from very early on that this was fucking up the planet for short term growth. What young person was I supposed to vote for? You're asking me why I didn't vote for the young candidate that doesn't exist. I suspect that has a lot to do with the two party system in America.
I have no clue what young person you were supposed to vote for, but presumably there was a primary where a young(er) person may have run.
Also, the money in politics is a very good point, as well as the severe skew of Congress people to citizens. Electoral reform may be needed to get a fairer representation. That still doesn't change anything about my initial point that the hating on "boomers" is about as well argumented as hating on "immigrants" or hating on black people, Jews, or whatever other large segment of the population you feel like substituting in there. Calling "boomers" (as a group) amoral scum needs considerable more justification than that your electoral system sucks and you can't get rid of septagenerarian politicians.
|
Now that we're all done pulling Americans out of Kabul, I will tip my hat to Biden and say I underestimated him.
|
United States43598 Posts
On August 31 2021 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that we're all done pulling Americans out of Kabul, I will tip my hat to Biden and say I underestimated him.
Was he involved beyond a very high level policy direction (and even that was largely inherited)? My assumption was that all the logistics was done by career state department and military officials that aren’t meaningfully part of his administration.
I didn’t agree when he was getting blame for the withdrawal and I don’t much agree with him getting credit either.
|
On August 31 2021 13:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2021 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that we're all done pulling Americans out of Kabul, I will tip my hat to Biden and say I underestimated him. Was he involved beyond a very high level policy direction (and even that was largely inherited)? My assumption was that all the logistics was done by career state department and military officials that aren’t meaningfully part of his administration. I didn’t agree when he was getting blame for the withdrawal and I don’t much agree with him getting credit either.
Ultimately I think a leader sets the stage for how things happen by choosing who does what. I think Biden told person x, who told person y, and ultimately person z executed.
From everything we have seen and heard, Biden basically told the military to shut up and do what he said. At the very least, we know Biden was very determined to not listen to any skepticism of his plan, likely because he looked at the fact that Obama could have pulled the same trigger.
|
The US left behind more military resources then some middle sized European armies have at their disposal. Seems like a collosal waste of money. Not to mention that is certain that at least part of it will end up in hands of jihadists.
|
On August 31 2021 19:47 Silvanel wrote:
The US left behind more military resources then some middle sized European armies have at their disposal. Seems like a collosal waste of money. Not to mention that is certain that at least part of it will end up in hands of jihadists.
Can't let sunk cost fallacy cost more life. If you do something incredibly stupid 20 years ago, it doesn't mean you keep doing it for an additional 20 years. Either way, this is literally what all the anti-imperialists screech for, so it appears it is impossible to please everyone. Afghanistan will be allowed to flourish as everyone insisted they would if the US would just hurry up and leave.
|
|
|
WaPo article is behind paywall.
Dunno about 83 billion, this is first time I see this number, but it is obvious that US left around a lot, You can see it on videos from Afganistan.
|
On September 01 2021 03:08 Silvanel wrote:
WaPo article is behind paywall.
Dunno about 83 billion, this is first time I see this number, but it is obvious that US left around a lot, You can see it on videos from Afganistan.
I struggle with the question of what the right thing to do was. We had a lot of reason to think the Afghanistan military would shit the bed. The odds weren't good. But would it be inhumane to take everything back and essentially leave them to the dogs? Hard question to answer. If we pulled all of our equipment and Afghanistan military gets slaughtered, makes us look terrible and stingy. But by leaving it, we left it for the Taliban. Either way sucks but one of them is more humane.
And honestly, look back at the history of the Middle East. Less people were dying when the dictators held power. You could argue that leaving the Taliban a bunch of equipment allows them to be dominant. I dunno, I'm no general, I don't have a clue what I'm saying. Just giving my ignorant perspective.
|
On September 01 2021 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2021 03:08 Silvanel wrote:
WaPo article is behind paywall.
Dunno about 83 billion, this is first time I see this number, but it is obvious that US left around a lot, You can see it on videos from Afganistan. I struggle with the question of what the right thing to do was. We had a lot of reason to think the Afghanistan military would shit the bed. The odds weren't good. But would it be inhumane to take everything back and essentially leave them to the dogs? Hard question to answer. If we pulled all of our equipment and Afghanistan military gets slaughtered, makes us look terrible and stingy. But by leaving it, we left it for the Taliban. Either way sucks but one of them is more humane. And honestly, look back at the history of the Middle East. Less people were dying when the dictators held power. You could argue that leaving the Taliban a bunch of equipment allows them to be dominant. I dunno, I'm no general, I don't have a clue what I'm saying. Just giving my ignorant perspective. I don't think this is about leaving it for the Afghan army. But more that if the US was going to leave the country before the end of the month they simply wouldn't be able to take everything with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
