"Moral Narcissism and the Least-Great Generation"

[ro9ue]

TLDR: People will always behave relative to the era in which they are born.

[primalmatter]

Why don't you viziers of what "made America great" speak in fucking vague platitudes all the time? Just tell us simpletons "what made the country strong"?

A strong moral center and stable families.

We need the country to retake the moral attitudes of roughly 1950. We have to weed out a lot of degeneracy. Even then it will take time for things to get as good as they were. We also have to remember the power of violence, We have become far to timid as a people.

[Daelak]

A strong moral center and stable families.

We need the country to retake the moral attitudes of roughly 1950. We have to weed out a lot of degeneracy. Even then it will take time for things to get as good as they were. We also have to remember the power of violence, We have become far to timid as a people.

What the fuck is a strong moral center? There are more 'stable' families today, than in the racist and segregationist 1950's.

[Endus]

A strong moral center and stable families.

The former is a term with no meaning, and the latter isn't actually true in any appreciable sense.

We need the country to retake the moral attitudes of roughly 1950.

So I'm betting you're white?

Go ask African-American seniors about how awesome the '50s and '60s were, for them.

[primalmatter]

What the fuck is a strong moral center? There are more 'stable' families today, than in the racist and segregationist 1950's.

There are not.

Actually look at single parents and how poorly children from none nuclear families preform compared to their peers on average.

Your denial is part of the problem sadly.

- - - Updated - - -

The former is a term with no meaning, and the latter isn't actually true in any appreciable sense.



So I'm betting you're white?

Go ask African-American seniors about how awesome the '50s and '60s were, for them.

Again my point on families is sadly powerfully true though you can bury your head in sand I can't force you to accept reality.

Have you ever asked them? Or is this the famous I speak for all minorities speech but you can't?

[Daelak]

There are not.

Actually look at single parents and how poorly children from none nuclear families preform compared to their peers on average.

Your denial is part of the problem sadly.

- - - Updated - - -



Again my point on families is sadly powerfully true though you can bury your head in sand I can't force you to accept reality.

Have you ever asked them? Or is this the famous I speak for all minorities speech but you can't?

There are more of every type of family now than there was in the racist, segregationist, 1950s. You are the one in denial, which is why you have to speak in empty bullshit platitudes because your belief system is devoid of any empirical evidence, just your wittle fweelings.

[Endus]

Again my point on families is sadly powerfully true though you can bury your head in sand I can't force you to accept reality.

No, you're using unquantifiable terms and trying to make a quantified argument based upon them, which fundamentally cannot work.

Have you ever asked them? Or is this the famous I speak for all minorities speech but you can't?

I've spoken to people who grew up in that era, yes. And I wasn't suggesting I was "speaking for" anyone.


In pretty much every quantifiable manner, the world of today is objectively better than it was in the 1950s.

[primalmatter]

There are more of every type of family now than there was in the racist, segregationist, 1950s. You are the one in denial, which is why you have to speak in empty bullshit platitudes because your belief system is devoid of any empirical evidence, just your wittle fweelings.

There are more types and each one has been proven to be worse for children then the nuclear family...

- - - Updated - - -

No, you're using unquantifiable terms and trying to make a quantified argument based upon them, which fundamentally cannot work.



I've spoken to people who grew up in that era, yes. And I wasn't suggesting I was "speaking for" anyone.


In pretty much every quantifiable manner, the world of today is objectively better than it was in the 1950s.

No I am not sadly... The nuclear family has been proven time and time again to be superior you just don't like what that signifies.

Not in wages, crime, poverty, and stability.

Who needs those though right?

[Deleted]

Right. It's the root of the "these kids today don't know how to be" complaints that are an inevitability of humanity.

People who grew up in the Great Depression/WWII knew what horror and hardship were, so they (I'll be speaking in deliberately broad strokes; exceptions abound) were mostly fairly fiscally conservative in their own spending habits, buying modest houses that they could pay off, keeping jobs that were steady paychecks, etc. Stability was prized, because they'd had so little growing up, rather than pushing for the highest achievement and risking failure. Their kids, the Baby Boomers, grew up in that stable environment, and saw their parents passing on opportunities that carried risk, and so they rebelled and tried to upset that stability to take those risks, to make things "better". Gen X/Y are now dealing with the fallout from that, and going their own way. And "going their own way" is probably the best way to put it; there's been a pretty heavy rise in individualism in these generations. There isn't a "counterculture", like there was for the Boomers, there's just hundreds of mini-cultures, all doing their own thing. Their kids will inevitably deal with new challenges as a result of whatever that brings about for the world.

The core issue of the Boomers is that they don't see the largesse and stability of their youth as a temporary boom in the post-war era, they (falsely) see it as the default standard, when it's unsustainable and doesn't exist any longer. This is why they have trouble understanding why "kids today" struggle with getting decent employment; jobs were widely available to anyone who wanted one, in the Boomer's day. They just don't have a framework to understand, because conditions today are so different from the '50s and '60s.

I have to agree with you. I think there are some similarities between the 'hard times' of our grandparents and teens now. The current economic situation doesn't allow pushing for the highest achievement and risking failure, it's better to get a stable job (though they hardly even exist anymore) so you can survive.

I think the baby boom generation simply lived to such standards that shouldn't even be possible. That's how all this debt was created to begin with. And now they look down on the current generation and wonder why nobody is getting a good job. But the reality is that the current generation is cleaning up the mess of the previous one.

Could this be a returning cycle? Could the next generation that comes after us be more like the baby boom generation? Time will tell.

[Endus]

No I am not sadly... The nuclear family has been proven time and time again to be superior you just don't like what that signifies.

It's only "better" than single-parent families, because it should be unsurprising that two parents are better than one. Two people are better able to handle the burden of raising the kids.

Two gay parents are just as good as two hetero parents in a nuclear family; http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...peds.2013-0377

Not in wages, crime, poverty, and stability.

Who needs those though right?

Wages have been improving steadily;


The issue people have there is that the wage growth is far lower than productivity growth, meaning that the wealthy have been getting an ever-increasing share, not that wages haven't risen since the '50s. They clearly have.

Crime?


While it was at a lower point in the '50s, it's been declining for decades as it is; the last 30 years show we're going in the right direction, on this issue.

Poverty?


Definitely better than the '50s; it's been waffling a bit but the overall trend has been much-improved.

Stability? That's an unquantifiable nonsense term to begin with.

[Jester Joe]

There are not.

Actually look at single parents and how poorly children from none nuclear families preform compared to their peers on average.

Your denial is part of the problem sadly.

I think you're missing that no one is really questioning the stable family part, but that you're claiming the 50s had a strong moral center.

[primalmatter]

It's only "better" than single-parent families, because it should be unsurprising that two parents are better than one. Two people are better able to handle the burden of raising the kids.

Two gay parents are just as good as two hetero parents in a nuclear family; http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...peds.2013-0377

This only goes to 2003... The jury is out on if they are as good or not. It can't be argued either way it is simply to new of a development to have a large enough sample size.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you're missing that no one is really questioning the stable family part, but that you're claiming the 50s had a strong moral center.

Kinda seems like a lot are...

[Jester Joe]

Kinda seems like a lot are...

Well, it drifted back to that now after I posted it seems, but for that post I meant, all they argued against was the moral center, and then said that there are stable families. That's not disagreeing that stable families are needed, it's just saying "Well, they're already here".

[Endus]

This only goes to 2003... The jury is out on if they are as good or not. It can't be argued either way it is simply to new of a development to have a large enough sample size.

Refusing to accept the results of studies because they disagree with your misinformed presumptions is a fundamentally irrational position.

You're just straight-up wrong on facts.

[primalmatter]

Well, it drifted back to that now after I posted it seems, but for that post I meant, all they argued against was the moral center, and then said that there are stable families. That's not disagreeing that stable families are needed, it's just saying "Well, they're already here".

The thing is that they are not... While endus could be right. His own article uses "could be" "Maybe" and "appears" A hell of a lot. Beyond that single parents much to the cost of the child has been on a rise especially among certain minorities.

I am not really being debated or rebuffed. More of I am being faced by open denial...

- - - Updated - - -

Refusing to accept the results of studies because they disagree with your misinformed presumptions is a fundamentally irrational position.

You're just straight-up wrong on facts.

How? Your study covers 13 years and admits it is inconclusive inside of it...

Not taking a theory as fact especially one with such a extremely limited sample size isn't outlandish....

What facts am I wrong about exactly? You haven't managed to show that point yet...

[Endus]

How? Your study covers 13 years and admits it is inconclusive inside of it...

You may have missed the post where I broke down how incorrect you were about every other claim you'd made, too.

Also, that one study was an example; the research on this is pretty broad and conclusive;

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/15/5/241.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...00302/abstract

While there's something to be said for providing greater support to single parents, outside of single parenthood, there's nothing "bad" about other family forms beyond the nuclear family.

[PC2]

In pretty much every quantifiable manner, the world of today is objectively better than it was in the 1950s.

Yeah in most ways the world is better, but there is still some quantifiable problems like 3rd world mass unskilled migration and renewable energy.

[primalmatter]

You may have missed the post where I broke down how incorrect you were about every other claim you'd made, too.

Also, that one study was an example; the research on this is pretty broad and conclusive;

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/15/5/241.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...00302/abstract

While there's something to be said for providing greater support to single parents, outside of single parenthood, there's nothing "bad" about other family forms beyond the nuclear family.

I did edited posts do that. Production was destroyed once we removed high tariffs and removed the value of local labor. I don't see how outlining the problem proves me wrong but its about the level of argument I expect.

Your new articles have the same flaw as your first... A extremely small sample size and a extremely small number of years. I can't discount that same sex parents are better or worse there simply isn't enough data to prove on way or the other.

[Endus]

I did edited posts do that. Production was destroyed once we removed high tariffs and removed the value of local labor. I don't see how outlining the problem proves me wrong but its about the level of argument I expect.

Production hasn't been "destroyed".

You keep stating things that are just straight-up false.

Your new articles have the same flaw as your first... A extremely small sample size and a extremely small number of years. I can't discount that same sex parents are better or worse there simply isn't enough data to prove on way or the other.

Oh no, you claimed they were worse. While providing nothing to back that up. You don't get to play this game, now, and not get called out on it.

[Deleted]

How is any of that undermining. What you consider undermining, all of developed western nations call is "prosperity". You have no quantifiable data to show this "undermining" so you leave it to your fucking emotions and your feeeeeeelingsss.

Yes, the western culture is incredibly prosperous and beyond any doubt the most advanced, progressive and humane civilization in history. Secular politics, freedom and advanced sciences & technology have become the trademarks of Western culture, while most other cultures haven't really progressed much since biblical times -- not until gaining and embracing modern Western influences, anyway.

In the light of these facts it's incomprehensible that some people are pursuing agendas that more or less directly contradict the progress, question the ideals and behaviour that have made the West prosperous in the first place, or even directly endanger it. The pinnacle of this idiocy is cultural relativism, a naive belief that all cultures and religions would somehow be equal -- regardless of what kind of values they actually promote -- and that we should just "tolerate" all kind of backwardsness and stupidity in order to not to hurt some savage's or narcisstic SJW's feeeeeeelingsss.

(Gtg, returning to this later.)