Is THIS the Problem ?
I am going to take a crack at identifying a social disease which goes by the acronym T.H.I.S.
It stands for
As a popular iincumbent, Reagan won huge in every demographic. Boomers had no more or less to do with Reagan's landslide win than any other age group.
Prior to the end of WW2, US birth rates had never been as many as 3M in a single year. During the Baby Boom, that number regularly exceeded 4M.
If you can't acknowledge that Boomers had greater participating numbers than other generations in those Reagan landslide elections, than I don't know what to say.
Boomers had more to do with Reagan's landslide win because there were many more of them. Period.
Prior to the end of WW2, US birth rates had never been as many as 3M in a single year. During the Baby Boom, that number regularly exceeded 4M. If you can't acknowledge that Boomers had greater participating numbers than other generations in those Reagan landslide elections, than I don't know what to say. Boomers had more to do with Reagan's landslide win because there were man
About half the voters in 1984 were Boomers.
Way less than half of the voters in 1980 were Boomers.
All age-groups favored Reagan in 1984.
Do you acknowledge that Reagan would have easily won even if half the boomers had voted for Mondale?
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/...
In 1984, voters aged 18-34 were 38.3% of the voting age public.
By 2019, that same age demographic had declined to 28.5% of the voting age public.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/...
In 1984, voters aged 18-34 were 38.3% of the voting age public.
By 2019, that same age demographic had declined to 28.5% of the voting age public.
Okay.
Boomers have decided most elections, starting in 2000. Older voters invariably skew conservative as they get older, which has been true probably forever. Not something unique to boomers.
Reagan and Prop 13 were a phenomenon of our parent's generation, not ours.
About half the voters in 1984 were Boomers.
Way less than half of the voters in 1980 were Boomers.
All age-groups favored Reagan in 1984.
Do you acknowledge that Reagan would have easily won even if half the boomers had voted for Mondale?
I'm not saying that Boomers were the only reason Reagan won.
He won a landslide among all age groups, include Boomers, who were the most concentrated voting bloc by age.
I'm not saying that Boomers were the only reason Reagan won.
He won a landslide among all age groups, include Boomers, who were the most concentrated voting bloc by age.
I agree.
Except boomers were NOT close* to being the 'most concentrated voting block by age' in 1980 when he won big as a challenger.
I'm not sure what your point is. What IS your point?
*addendum: actually they were CLOSE
Fun Fact: A majority of boomers (barely) voted for Obama. How does that fit in with your theory?
Rococo's words are the evidence for my conclusions. He expresses contempt for my representing myself as having something worth teaching.
My point was that people enjoy discussions more than lectures from self-proclaimed teachers. I suggested that you keep that fact in mind in deciding how to communicate with others. You either missed the point or you believe that your current style is effective at generating engagement.
I guess if I needed "Professor Nut Nut Presents His Views" as a requirement for graduating, I'd sit through it. But why would I voluntarily sit through it for fun?
When I said that millions of words have been written about the topic that you describe as a syndrome, here is what I mean.
That’s the argument Bruce Gibney makes in his 2017 book A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America. The boomers, according to Gibney, have committed “generational plunder,” pillaging the nation’s economy, repeatedly cutting their own taxes, financing two wars with deficits, ignoring climate change, presiding over the death of America’s manufacturing core, and leaving future generations to clean up the mess they created.
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/...
Enter Joseph Sternberg’s The Theft of a Decade: How the Baby Boomers Stole the Millennials’ Economic Future. The subtitle says it all. In Sternberg’s telling, if young families like mine have a narrower path to economic security than earlier generations did, well, it’s our parents’ fault. Specifically, when Boomers took political power (and hit their prime earning years) they engaged in a series of short-sighted reforms prioritizing the present over the future, “borrowing to fund just enough investment to deliver quick hits of economic growth.”
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/dont-...
Boomer political and economic values reached their most perfect expression under pre-Boomer president Ronald Reagan in the eighties: Screw your neighbor, lay off the factory workers, shuffle a lot of paper, build an economy in which a few people get the gold mine and most people get the shaft.
The same Boomer elites who hid in classrooms to avoid Vietnam while poor and minority kids got shot at used their elite education in the eighties to lay off the folks who got shot at and survived. The Reverend Jesse Jackson used to say that the eighties economy was based on three things: merge, purge, and submerge. Merge companies, purge workers, submerge communities. No more of this hippie, sixties, share-the-wealth crap now, fellow Boomers, it's every man for himself!
The orgy of greed, fed by a mountain of debt, ran the economy into the ground. The massive, selfish tax cuts produced even more massive deficits and debt, which the Boomers passed on to those who followed. Having grown up using their parents' credit cards, the Boomers found it just as easy to pass on their bills to their children. Boomers like Rush Limbaugh like to say we owe Ronald Reagan a debt we can never repay. Yeah, Slim, about $3 trillion.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1...
And nearly as much as been written about whether the phenomena you describe is not limited to a particular generation but rather is biological/psychological in origin.
We lack the collective will to address climate change because of the way our brains have evolved over the last two million years.
“Humans are very bad at understanding statistical trends and long-term changes,” says political psychologist Conor Seyle, director of research at One Earth Future Foundation, a programme incubator that focuses on fostering peace long-term.
“We have evolved to pay attention to immediate threats. We overestimate threats that are less likely but easier to remember, like terrorism, and underestimate more complex threats, like climate change.”
In early phases of human existence we faced an onslaught of daily challenges to our survival and ability to reproduce – from predators to natural disasters. Too much information can confuse our brains, leading us to inaction or poor choices that can place us in harm’s way.
As a result, our brains evolved to filter information rapidly and focus on what is most immediately essential to our survival and reproduction. We also evolved to remember both threats, so that they could be avoided in the future, and opportunities, so we could easily recall where to find sources of food and shelter.
These biological evolutions ensured our capacity to reproduce and survive by saving our brains time and energy when dealing with vast amounts of information. However, these same functions are less useful in our modern reality and cause errors in rational decision-making, known as cognitive biases. “Cognitive biases that ensured our initial survival make it difficult to address complex, long-term challenges that now threaten our existence, like climate change,” says Seyle.
And nearly as much as been written about whether the phenomena you describe is not limited to a particular generation but rather is biological/psychological in origin.
So .... you agree that prior research indicates our bias toward today that causes us to ignore the long-term.
Does this "disease" have a name ?
Do you think its worthy to try and name this disease to make it simpler for people to grasp ?
My point was that people enjoy discussions more than lectures from self-proclaimed teachers. I suggested that you keep that fact in mind in deciding how to communicate with others. You either missed the point or you believe that your current style is effective at generating engagement.
I guess it's your choice to interpret the OP as an invitation to discussion or an attempt at teaching.
Did you note that the OP title came with a "?" . That suggests a question for the audience ..... not a proclamation.
I guess it's your choice to interpret the OP as an invitation to discussion or an attempt at teaching.
Did you note that the OP title came with a "?" . That suggests a question for the audience ..... not a proclamation.
You seemed to agree with my characterization:
In your opinion, is it a crime to try and teach people about one's perspective ?
They have simply provided criticism for representing myself as a teacher.
On an unrelated note, have I ever given you any reason to believe that I use they/them pronouns? Is that your default for everyone?
My point was that people enjoy discussions more than lectures from self-proclaimed teachers. I suggested that you keep that fact in mind in deciding how to communicate with others. You either missed the point or you believe that your current style is effective at generating engagement.
I guess it's your choice to interpret the OP as an invitation to discussion or an attempt at teaching.
Did you note that the OP title came with a "?" . That suggests a question for the audience ..... not a proclamation.
So .... you agree that prior research indicates our bias toward today that causes us to ignore the long-term.
Does this "disease" have a name ?
Do you think its worthy to try and name this disease to make it simpler for people to grasp ?
No matter how harmful the behavior you describe may be, I don't believe that I would describe it as a "disease." I do think the behavior is worth discussing. I don't think it is at all important to give the behavior an acronym. As a general matter, I would argue that unnecessary acronyms, defined terms, and jargon tend to discourage understanding and discussion rather than promote understanding and discussion.
You seemed to agree with my characterization:
On an unrelated note, have I ever given you any reason to believe that I use they/them pronouns? Is that your default for everyone?
You haven't provided any evidence for your preferred pronoun. I don't know if you are male or female and don't want to be presumptious. They is a default for an unknown.
No matter how harmful the behavior you describe may be, I don't believe that I would describe it as a "disease." I do think the behavior is worth discussing. I don't think it is at all important to give the behavior an acronym. As a general matter, I would argue that unnecessary acronyms, defined terms, and jargon tend to discourage understanding and discussion rather than pr
Perhaps we have a different definition of disease.
I am describing a condition in which the host has a case of indifference and ignorance which comes back to harm the host.
According to my definition, that's a disease.
No matter how harmful the behavior you describe may be, I don't believe that I would describe it as a "disease." I do think the behavior is worth discussing. I don't think it is at all important to give the behavior an acronym.
Would you like to be one of the founding members of S.O.A.P.: Stamping Out Acronyms Project?
So .... now that we have addressed the truly important issues in the world such as appropriate pronouns and attitude toward acronyms, perhaps we can have a conversation about the ancient practice of generational passing of the torch to younger people.
How do we feel about the world our generation has built and is passing on to young people ? Is there more to life than simply hedonism ? Is there a part of us which feels any responsibility or inclination to lift future generations up ? If there is, how would we evaluate our performance ?
Personally, I feel an absence of this sense of responsibility in my generational cohort. More often than not, I find a sense of contempt for young people and blaming them for not being as virtuous as we were. A sense which I find to be a misguided ignorance of our generational privilege.
I remember the adults who provided me some nurturing as a child with gratitude. I have some aspiration to emulate as an older person. How do we best do that ?
So .... now that we have addressed the truly important issues in the world such as appropriate pronouns and attitude toward acronyms, perhaps we can have a conversation about the ancient practice of generational passing of the torch to younger people. How do we feel about the world our generation has built and is passing on to young people ? Is there more to life than simply he
I have a couple questions, Professor:
1. Is our final exam multiple-choice, essay, or a combination of both?
2. Is our final exam open-book?
Thanks, Professor!
OP,
Telling young people, as someone from the Boomer generation, that there is no pot of gold (fulfillment) at the end of the rainbow, as promised by the establishment — this is enough.
It’s when you try to do more than this that your actions become counterproductive.
