SunXia wrote:There will always be problems and those problems will take on new appearances but instead of "society is hitting the pits" or "in my day people didn't do this" arguments why not focus on the positive things people are doing, the positive ways young people are using social media to promote and raise money for causes. Or even tackle problems by helping to open other options for the future generations. If we only focus on the negative then the negative spreads and comes full circle on itself.
Bush Leagues wrote:I don't try to argue down people if they take reasonable positions on things, even if I disagree - this is why you see me say "OK, that's a reasonable position" or what-have-you. Do a little act of kindness here and there. Be sincere; humans detect falseness really well. One should also be willing to accept the generosity of others. How do you feel when you give? We usually feel good. Well, other people want to feel good, too. The best thing to do when offered a gift is to accept it graciously. There's plenty good to be found, you just have to look, and be willing to give as well as get.
Speaking of this topic, I recently read Daniel Schwindt's new book
. He comes at a lot of these questions in a way neither of you will likely agree with, but he does see a lot of good things coming out of the present generation of young people; he thinks we're a lot less fake and are willing to put up a lot less with things that strike us as hypocritical or self-defeating. That's a strength, and although he laments the social and economic situation young people find themselves in nowadays he seems to have a lot of faith in our potential
to renovate our economy and society, even if he thinks it's unlikely that we'll complete the job by ourselves.
SunXia wrote:And Sex is overrated in terms of how the media presents it I honestly think it should be discussed openly instead of with blushes or whispers and hush hushes!! When kids and teens are told not to do something an then society and media makes it look cool despite what is being taught then it becomes "forbidden fruit".
You're right on one level, I think - the media does present sex in an immensely skewed way. (I was discussing this earlier with regard to how sex is used as an enticement to consume; as the ultimate reward promised in advertising to the 'successful' consumer.) The problem is that sex has been
'discussed openly' since at least the '70's, and our attitudes toward sex are more messed up than ever.
No matter how much the social engineers try, no matter how many technical contraptions and contraceptive methods and STD prevention measures they come up with, they're never going to actually make sex 100% safe, especially
on an emotional level. Sex neurochemically wires us to procreate and to recreate, and to create new bonds with a partner; trying to artificially break up those bonds is only going to make the vast majority of young people (who in particular want and crave human connexion) even more confused and miserable than they already are. More than anything else, on both political sides of the aisle, a truly 'open discussion' means that we stop pretending sex is something which only exists for pleasure. Liberals need to stop promoting the creepy, falsely-transhumanistic lie of 'safe sex'. And conservatives really
need to stop
shaming and scaring young women who have sex.
SunXia wrote:Also hand-holding in public, hand slapping away hands trying to do that is more like it. I'm nobody's property and I certainly don't have the desire or need to promote to the world "this person is mine". I keep my affection private in that regard. I've seen too many people stand in public like that or with their hand in each others back pockets and looking around for attention. I know its not the only reason for some but I've seen many do it out of insecurity and like "this public display validates my lack of singlehood" or something. I much prefer a private tension so that when the door closes to the world it all come toppling out!!
Mmkay. I've got no objection to this - Chinese people don't generally do PDA either, for cultural reasons, and that's completely cool - but just remember that different people are different.
PDA and 'I own you' are two very different things; there's a world of difference between hugging someone and grabbing them. I know that there are people who can't tell the difference, and those are usually people who have difficulty understanding all kinds of relationships with other people generally. And there's also a difference between self-conscious status-affirming PDA and people just genuinely enjoying each other's company and not caring what other people think. Both kinds of people do exist. Also, speaking as I've found, frequency of PDA has very little correlation with bedroom performance.
Bush Leagues wrote:I feel that in earlier times (specifically the 19th and early 20th centuries here in America), IR was through the roof as compared to now. When you look at what the situation was like at this time, you can see why. Total government spending at all levels was about 10% of the national income. Government spending at the federal level was only 3% of the national income, and most of that was for the military. Regardless of if you think that's desirable or not, the fact of the matter was that you could not count on the federal government to bail you out. There was no welfare, no Medicare/Medicaid, no food stamps, nothing like that in terms of programs for helping the poor. But likewise there were no programs helping the rich either; those who earned wealth had to truly work for it. [...]
So what happened over time? As time passed - it started in the Civil War, but particularly in the time of the Great Depression and beyond - things shifted. There became a shift to where government took a larger role in public policy - suddenly, laws regarding moral issues were passed. Drugs became illegal. Laws regarding what you could say or show on a broadcast appeared. It became that the majority of values the people held became the government's official position. This has the effect of forcing that value upon the minority. There's only a few options for the government when they wish to disallow something, and all of them involve coercion. It's either "wear a helmet on a motorcycle or pay a fine", or "if you disseminate communist propaganda, you go to prison", or "if you take marijuana, you will have your assets seized and be sent to prison".
Yeah. That deregulated setup got us into
a Depression. And then, of course, it didn't matter how hard you worked, if you could even manage to find work at all. You were generally well and truly screwed. Of course, before then, children who worked hard in factories didn't make that much at all, and usually ended up losing more than just money: fingers, feet, limbs, social skills, educational opportunities. So, do you really
think ending child labour laws was 'coercion', that it decreased their individual responsibility, and that they are decadent and antisocial as a result? And of course, before the Civil War people could own slaves. Do you really think that ending slavery was 'coercion', that it decreased black people's individual responsibility, and that they are now decadent and antisocial as a result?
I grant you, if children were sent to work in sweatshops, they probably wouldn't have sex at young ages, vandalise or steal. They might still use drugs, because that's what people in desperate situations do as a means of escape. But I highly doubt most people in the US would highly desire to return to Upton Sinclair's world. But the historical facts indicate, though, that individual responsibility and social morality among black people drastically improved
when slavery ended and when the '40 acres and a mule' policy was passed. And I can guarantee you that the vast, vast majority of black people don't want a return to legalised slavery.
Be very careful when you talk about history, Bush Leagues
. For most people the past isn't over. It isn't even past.