Is THIS the Problem ?

I'm sharing my perspective.

In your opinion, is it a crime to try and teach people about one's perspective ?

Do you find the idea that you might learn something from someone else offensive ?

Pot, kettle.

Have you anything to offer this world besides oneupsmanship ?

Is your ego so fragile that you must try to put down anyone who attempts to add any value ?

Why is it so impossible to inspire any meaningful conversation which pertains to something bigger than ourselves ? Why do you all constantly want to pivot the conversation to me ?

I don't have any desire to make this conversation about myself. I'm not especially important.

The world is not exactly in a place which should give rise to a lot of confidence that everything will be calm and peaceful going forward. Formerly reliable institutions are crumbling and there is a lot of uncertainty about what will transpire. Historical precedent suggests that fear and uncertainty can spiral into brutality and madness. The better time to discuss how we wish to navigate the transition to the future is before the madness takes hold.

I suppose the common stance is to disavow any sense of agency and acquiesce to a sense of powerless which relieves us of any responsibility for how we conduct ourselves during a collapse and transition to something new. That's an instinctual and fearful response .... like a turtle ...... withdrawing into a shell and not sticking one's neck out. Being invited to participate in a conversation in which one expresses how they wish the world to be run involves sticking one's neck out.

Where are these conversations supposed to take place ? Where can we get something more than just trolling each other which seems to be 99% of what social media is about ?

I suggest that you try talking to people about your perspective rather than teaching people about your perspective.

I learn things from people all the time.

Nut nut reminds me of myself but from when I was like 20...pretty surprised to find out he's a boomer. I don't mean that as an insult but the enthusiasm and naivete about changing the world seems a lot more befitting of a younger person and boomers are going to tend to be a bit more cynical.

Wow.

How is the name of Ned did you conclude from Rococo's post that he was against anyone sharing their perspective?

And why would you even think that Rococo would find learning something from other folks 'offensive'?

In my opinion, you are being ridiculous at this point.

I starting to realize that our OP is a nut (nut).

Welcome to the club of those who have nothing to say about the substance of the ideas I am presenting. Just character attacks.

You have a lot of company.

You can attack my character all you like. That's the socially conforming behavior in this community. I don't pretend to be of high character. I just articulate the version of the world which I sense. That doesn't make me a good person or a bad one. I'm just a zombie like everyone else .... a slave to my programming. We're all slaves.

The original post spoke to the indifference of people who incorrectly felt that they were immune from consequence as a result of not comprehending that that their fates were actually intertwined with the fates of those they were indifferent to. The original post suggests a universe which offers a karmic response to such indifference. The question posed is whether that quality is present in the Boomers relationship with younger generations.

For some reason, it appears that this community considers such subject matter taboo and anyone who is interested in such a discussion is worthy of contempt.

As a Boomer, I feel like I have a bit of expertise about my generation. I was born on 3rd base. I know that I didn't hit a triple. Boomers don't want to hear that.

Okay. That certainly wasn't my read at all. I'd be surprised if anyone else interpreted what he said the way you did.

You might be a bit too thin-skinned at this point to be an effective advocate for your positions.

I'm a Boomer as well (I'll be 68 next month). You are surprisingly immature and thin-skinned for a boomer posting here.

And as I mentioned earlier, WPNdonk did engage your OP and you never addressed what he said.

If I were thin-skinned, I wouldn't post at all.

I grasp the unpopularity of the ideas I'm presenting. The personal attacks are part of the territory when one challenges the status quo.

From one Boomer to another: Let the personal attacks slide. It just encourages more of the same when you're playing the victim.

Rococo is a good-faith poster, and your characterization of his posts in my opinion makes no sense.

To each their own.

I'm not playing the victim. I'm portraying young people and future generations as the victims.

I'm portraying myself as the beneficiary of good fortune which I did nothing to bring about.

Edit: I know that I was lucky.

I am trying to name a social disease which doesn't have a name as far as I'm aware.

The proposed disease has 2 qualities.

1) the tribal indifference to the experience of those outside our tribe and
2) an ignorance of the interdependence between the fate of those outside our tribe and ourselves

In my opinion, a good faith poster might provide the following ....

a) some information which suggests that there is already a name for this disease of which I'm unaware
b) their opinion as to whether they agree the diagnosis has some merit or disagree
c) some guidance about an alternative way for someone to present an idea which is more palatable

Rococo has offered none of the above. They have simply provided criticism for representing myself as a teacher. They seem to be criticizing the institution by which people attempt to educate others about their perspective of the world.

I have no idea which criteria you apply to arrive at the conclusion that someone is a "good faith poster". I don't doubt that Rococo is being authentic in their representation of disliking that a poster here who dares to try to promote a discussion about a phenomena which they don't want to discuss. They are trying to change the topic in good faith to their desire not to discuss the topic.

In my experience here over the last several months, I haven't learned much about Rococo other than their inclination to criticize. I don't know Rococo's politics and have no idea how they interpret their personal value to the world or their prescription for what might ail us socially.

Alright, you're really starting to play the victim card here and you should probably grow a little spine - especially if you're fixing to become ruler of world. Pretty much every reg here talks **** to one another but that doesn't mean we don't also have constructive respectful conversations with said people. Respect is earned.

Also, for starters, nobody cares if you're a boomer, and you don't get sympathy as well as you don't get points given to you for claiming that you were born on third base. It's also idiotic to blame boomers for today's problems but it's also idiotic for you to say that you have a bit of expertise since you are one.

But you also tend to post a lot of meaningless **** like this ...

...in which case I could switch out "world" or "institutions" for marriage or my workout regime and have it make the same amount of metaphorical nonsense that really doesn't add anything to the conversation and also seems to be some defense mechanism where it prevents you from having any discussion about any concrete solutions to the problems

But your posts are also some of the most power driven, authoritarian takes on this site. So when you do occasionally post solutions which have included arguing whether we should put down the old and the weak or hiring local personal to oversee a few hundred people to make sure that they abide by your made up, unrealistic, elementary standards on how you want the world to run, it instead paints a clear picture that you're less interested in saving society and more obsessed with playing dictator.

But maybe I am wrong on your positions, so let's make it official that I have taken you out of context. What is it that you think we should do to make the world a better place?

The bolded proves that you still don't get it.

Have a good knight!

That 180 degree the opposite of what I'm trying to express.

Boomers are the lucky ones .... we aren't the ones in need of sympathy. We're the ones who deserve the contempt of young people for making a mess.

Okay, cool. Any ideas besides deserved contempt for folks being born between 1946-64?

How about we atone for taking advantage of our demographic voting dominance and warping policy toward our personal benefit and ignoring the consequences of our dominance on other generations ?

How about we acknowledge the privilege which accreted to us simply by being born in the right place at the right time and having nothing whatsoever to do with our virtue.

How about an expression of humility as a starter ? How about an expression of compassion for young people and their electoral preferences instead of expressing contempt for their choices like Bernie, AOC and Mamdani ? People who embody the spirit of FDR and compassion for those in the struggling class instead of the Obama's, Clintons, Schumers and Pelosi's who are enriched and lavished with campaign donations as a result of their obsequiousness to the oligarchy.

There were 140M Americans at the conclusion of WW2 and we brought 76M new babies into the country from '46-'64. Our power was always due to our relative numbers. A gravitational force around which the nation has orbited for 3/4 of a century. Whatever the country has become today is a reflection of Boomer self interest.

A lot of you claim to hate authoritarians .... but young people who are unhappy with the state of the country can correctly lay the responsibility at the feet of Boomers. Our interests have been authoritarian. We've been selfish. If there is such a thing as karma .... we shouldn't be shocked at getting a kick in the ass at some point.

A half century ago, Boomers like me graduated from college and their utility for the fantastic public infrastructure of their childhood evaporated. Free college like UC ? Screw that .... we demanded prop 13 and lower tax rates and that's what gave rise to Reagan and the economic right wing takeover of the Democratic Party.

For the last half century, our government has done only one thing consistently well .... make rich people richer. And those rich people are disproportionately Boomers.

We see the govt attacking the benefits of those wanting affordable health insurance and those who are in need of food benefits ..... but they dare not touch social security because we still represent too many votes and the representatives in Congress are disproportionately made up of people in our age demographic.

There's a tiny flaw in your argument (in my humble opinion): Boomers were the only age-demographic to NOT vote heavily for Reagan in 1980.

In 1980, both the 18-21 and 22-29 age groups were roughly evenly split between Carter and Reagan.

The 30-44 age group (and older) were heavily for Reagan (roughly 55-34).

In 1980, Boomers were 34 or younger.

Kinda the opposite of your claim regarding Prop 13 (which was 1978) and the election of Reagan (1980) being a by-product of selfish Boomers.

In 1984, Reagan won 49 states.

He apparently won 56% of the 25-34 vote and 67% of the young professionals.

https://time.com/archive/6883268/electio...

I think it's worth getting the data straight.

You brought up Prop 13 (1978) and Reagan (who was elected in 1980).

Boomers were the only age-demographic to NOT provide big support for Prop 13 or for Reagan's victory in 1980.

Like I said, that undermines the point you made in the part I quoted.

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.