Reply With Quote
You do frequent this forum on a regular basis, no?
I know! Damn those hyperbolic liberals!Seriously, didn't the Daily Kos dude write this book?
You do frequent this forum on a regular basis, no?
Liberal Fascism/American Taliban
Monkey see monkey do.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-04-2010 at 09:35 PM.
If declinism is a perpetual complaint, perhaps it is a perpetual reality. Perhaps things have always been getting worse; perhaps all generations are objectively correct in this impression.
Except that the facts seem to dismiss that. For one thing, I don't know how one could objectively determine that people are inherently more or less liable to an echo chamber effect; I would think it impossible to control for things like advancements in technology.
Secondly, there's the whole, "When I was a kid" argument, which this seems to boil down to, whereby every generation thinks the new generation is malformed in some way or another. And yet, if you were to compare today's society to that of even, say, the 50's, I'm sure on a case-by-case basis today's society would be shown to be GREATLY more tolerant of others in many areas. (Interracial marriage would be an example of this.)
Third, even if people WERE more likely to want to listen to an echo chamber, what could be done to prevent that? Is it even shown to necessarily be less desirous? People are using liberty to choose to live where they wish; if the nation determines that echo chambers are less desirable than heterogenous communities, one would think communities would then shift to recognize the new standard.
Cmon Marcus, as a cynic, I'm surprised that you think America was much better/open-minded back in the day than it is now.
I think that, if prior generations had access to the technology available today, you'd find that previous generations were as close-minded, if not more.
I object to the idea that America is getting any less close-minded due merely to civil rights enforcement. If anything, the reverse is true.
Well of course you object, you're old.
Care to explain how more close-minded people are nowadays? I'd say that while there may be more VOCAL people engaging in race-baiting, it's only noticeable because the majority of society does not. Tolerance for other races and lifestyles is more likely to be higher now than in previous times.
And of course, even if people ARE more close-minded now than before, the laws don't reflect that, which is a big plus.
You know I'm not going to let you off with such a broad statement like that WH.
Maybe MB thinks there's something worth hanging on to from the weird, old republic. Is that so naive?
Prior generations were more likely to be able to tolerate opposing viewpoints, understand their own, and articulate their own. Any measure of American literacy and the performance of schools in this country bears the latter two out. And, of course, the latter two helped promote the former, as well as the fact that this country was not sorted into geneous enclaves as it is today.Cmon Marcus, as a cynic, I'm surprised that you think America was much better/open-minded back in the day than it is now.
I think that, if prior generations had access to the technology available today, you'd find that previous generations were as close-minded, if not more.
I meant about race, and that's as someone who's lived in San Antonio and Austin his whole life.
It's not much different than when I was a child. People are less overt about it, more coded. But not very much less.
My working hypothesis for this tangent: everybody's a damn racist.
Plausible, certainly. Naturally this is another social affliction which must be be crusaded against and cured.
The myth of progress is ingrained in the American psyche, as much so as the one for American exceptionalism. As the clock moves forward, surely we advance towards something better? There can be no answer other than in the affirmative, for to not accept this is to deny the American state religion.
Repent, ye sinners, and accept American greatness.
It will never be cured; the treatment is but a second ordeal, beginning usually with social and ins utional ostracism. In Rick Sanchez's case, with his firing.
So sure is our attainment in progress that those who merely question its soundness are singled out for weird old uncle jokes or ribbed for wearing rose tinted shades.
(adjusts hearing aid)
None whatsoever.
And may the (college football team) win 10 games. Amen.
(drinks Black Butte Porter)
(spits out a fly)
You should add a pic:
I have a few 22 oz bottles of this, awaiting to be opened some day:
Indeed.Seriously, didn't the Daily Kos dude write this book?
Although the idea is a bit of a stretch, I don't think it was completely off-base.
Would you care for me to cite a few examples of beliefs that both the Taliban and many hard core Christian fundamentalists share?
I would agree.
I don't think its about being close-minded. Problem is, in our efforts to be egalitarian, we water down our educational system and lower the bar so that everyone can "succeed" and no one gets their feewings hurt. We are all CREATED equal, but what people do with that potential is entirely up to the individual.
We also live in a time when people feel a sense of en lement. We have live in a time where "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" would be considered a very conservative ideal.
Only a bit of a stretch, huh?
No, because it's asinine.
Man, I can't look at the name of the brewery without going into linguistic shock.You should add a pic:
I have a few 22 oz bottles of this, awaiting to be opened some day:
Deschutes
looks like a corruption of:
Deutsches (the German word for "german" in the possessive/descriptive form)
Could also be De Schutes, possibly french or dutch. Erk. Brain. hurt.
You wouldn't care for me to quote a few of the commonly held beliefs between Christian fundamentalists and the taliban?
It isn't as much of a stretch as you might think.
Both want to essentially codify religious beliefs into a government form.
Both oppose and/or promote versions of creationism over actual science like evolution, and any other scientific topic that might contradict religious beliefs, such as the universe only being a few thousand years old.
Both tend to see women's place as "in the home", and don't see much need to educate females.
Tell me that I am wrong about any of the above, and I will withdraw the analogy.
Ok, that isn't quite true, I would simply provide quotes and evidence to support the above statements, then ask you if the beliefs were parallel and vainly wait for your response, knowing you would never admit that you were wrong, or some on the right might be just that nutty.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
