patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

It's obvious there is a large imbalance between generations and how they benefited from the environment.

I disagree. Life and times are what they are, they are the cards that you are dealt, what you do with the hand is up to you. There are LOTS of opportunities out there but you DO have to do something to make them happen. Oh, and sometimes you will fail, it's okay, pick yourself up and try it again or look for the next opportunity. Want to know the best way to fail? It's a successful way (to fail) that has worked throughout all of history. Sit in one spot and whine about how tough your life is.

Sorry, life has handed me a LOT of ups and downs but I've always gotten up, dusted myself off and tried again. Quit you're bitching and moaning and look for your next chance to make yourself and your life better.

Here's a hint to get you started: Year Round summer attire...

Heraclitusstudent says

It's obvious there is a large imbalance between generations and how they benefited from the environment.

mmmarvel says

Quit you're bitching and moaning and look for your next chance to make yourself and your life better.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's obvious there is a large imbalance between generations and how they benefited from the environment.

Why don't you just admit it?

For one thing, I was in the second half of the baby boom. The first half was better situated in many ways, by the time my cohort was entering the work force there weren't nearly the corporate opportunities for GOOD entry level jobs that there were 10 years earlier or 10 years later. Plus there was a terrible recession in 1981, and a lot of uncertainty the couple years before that. Sure, I observed that things were better for the early boomers, but I've never whined about it. In fact I've hardly ever mentioned it to anyone.

As for real estate, sure, the luck of timing, with among other things interest rates steadily coming down, has been great for homeowners.

Actually there have been a lot of technology opportunities for those so inclined that did not exist in the years boomers entered the workplace. I did some programming in college. Fortran, with cards, it sucked. I hated that. I did programming later too, with C++ and Java. Much cooler. The higher level tech opportunities that followed in the 90s and since have been awesome.

So no. I really don't see it. You sound like a bunch of cry babies. And some of this stuff is too laughable to believe.

Dan8267 says

Refused to fight in war, but had no problem starting several unjustified wars and countless unrecognized wars (police action) during the past 40 years.

America lost a about 200 thousand boomers in Vietnam, and very few from any other generation. All the generalizations are absurd. As if Dick Cheney or GWB represents me? Wtf ?

Lots of poor souls in California has serious Daddy issues.

Boomers were owed a winning war by their parents, who instead of making shells and shelters were off fucking up ( procreating, not messing ) a whole booming generation of winners. We were lucky to have inherited the world given the perpetual state of heat our parents survived...

thunderlips11 says

Wow, you'd never know the Boomers are infamous for their disregard of their Great Prosperity creating, WW2 Winning Parents.

Dan those photos just scream that you have serious Daddy issues.

marcus says

As for real estate, sure, the luck of timing, with among other things interest rates steadily coming down, has been great for homeowners.

Hey Marcus,

It's disingenuous to brush off the housing market luck as playing a minor role. Perhaps it's at the very core of the problem. It's a chunk of wealth building that many Gen Xers and later will never see. Remember that the next time that you go to the polls. Land use policy is embedded in so much of what we vote for--and people smugly look the other way.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004888-pikettys-wealth-driven-inequality-virtually-all-housing

I don't blame Boomers for being "greedy," but I do consider that many of them are in absolute denial of the fortune bestowed them and that many are now in positions of power exercising the tone-deafness to the issues of later generations. But I'm quite aware most everyone is in this "game" for their own families first and then maybe a little bit for society. They're not in it for the next generation, they are in it for their kids and grandkids, which will make Boomers take every last cent off the table that the system allows them.

They have benefited so greatly from the status quo--and the great misfortune for the later generations is that they are remaining in political power and remaining one of the most powerful voter blocs ever in American history. Maybe the best we can hope for is early onset senility--in which case we can vote for them in their last living years, helping reverse some of the unintentional damage they did by voting "short term greedy.":)

On another note: my big beef with the boomer generation is that they are gobbling up real estate, right next to the chinese, in the Bay Area. I cannot tell you how the dominant purchasers in my neighborhood are empty nesters from other places in the US swooping in to SF to pick up 2+ million dollar flats. Empty-nesters from out of town snatching up second (third, fourth) homes and displacing the working families in that neighborhood--a scenario that naturally leads to deep resentment. And taken a step further, empty-nesters from out of town converting their new found investment properties into short-term rentals.

I introduce to you the landlady of my dear retired lady neighbor. (http://www.antievictionmap.com/sleazy16/#/charles-manning-sharon-manning/) This neighbor often complains that she's now the last long-term renter standing in this income property owned by this landlady, Mrs Manning. And Mrs Manning won't even make minor improvements--we think that Mrs Manning wants nothing more than to get this long-term renter out for good so that she can convert that unit into another short-term rental.

I realize that Mrs Manning doesn't typify the boomer generation. I'm not suggesting that in the least. Again, my point was that Boomers, I'd bet, are much much more able to play real estate (as in, buy a second home) in their harvest years than preceding generation's middle and middle-upper income families. Hell, the latter are struggling to get their first and only modest starter house, which many perhaps realize can be nothing other than a dream.

marcus says

You sound like a bunch of cry babies. And some of this stuff is too laughable to believe.

You guys are so defensive, you can smell the shit with that perfume.
Look, this stuff is simple: this is not about this individual, me or you, or me whining, or not taking my chances. This has nothing to do with that. Individuals all do what they can.

The difference between a boomer and a millenial is this:
- Average boomer buys real-estate at a time it was cheap. Lives in a normal/nice house all his/her life. Spends 20% of wage on mortgage or rent. Sees his/her equity grow up steadily all his/her life. Huge urban sprawls were built to house that generation. Now these very same people (homeowners) actively oppose building enough units to house the next generation. Average boomer benefited of globalization, stock boom etc... affording cheap crap built by chinese slave labor in off-shored factories.

- Average millenial comes of age in a much more competitive environment. Is buried in student debt, insurance costs. Live in high school room till 30, then rent or buy a 1 bedroom apartment, costing them 45% of their wages they pay their seniors - thanks to the actions of these same seniors.

Yeah they can program in Java and interact with smartphones. Thank you so much!
That you call them "cry-babies" because some dare to complain or find it unfair, is very disingenuous to say the least.

marcus says

America lost a about 200 thousand boomers in Vietnam, and very few from any other generation.

And tens of millions of boomers burned their draft cards.

I've got nothing wrong with people being against going to war, as long as they are also against sending other people to war.

marcus says

All the generalizations are absurd.

Self-contradicting statement.

Without generalization, no book could ever be written on any subject matter.

Counter-examples to your absurd statement that "all generalizations are absurd", ...
1. The equation a^n + b^n = c^n has no non-zero solutions for n greater than 2.
2. Matter is attractive according to the equation F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2.
3. No particle with mass reach the speed of light.
4. Particles can only decay into tuplets whose combined mass is less than the parent particle.
5. Usable energy decreases over time.
6. All life requires energy to function.
7. Mass extinctions are followed by rapid evolution as species compete to fill vacated niches.
8. War is hell.
9. Poverty and inequality are the prime causes of violent crime.
10. It is human nature to be nice when it is expected that the behavior will be reciprocated, and it is human nature to be mean when it is expected that the behavior will not or cannot be reciprocated.
11. Most parents love their children.
12. Most children trust their parents.
13. Pride comes before a fall.
14. People who have shot up schools should not be granted a gun license.
15. Convicted child rapists should not be allowed to assemble near schools.
16. Women who are highly educated and have good career prospects are less likely to appear on Girls Gone Wild.
17. CIC's posts are moronic.
18. Americans are wealthier than most other people in the world.
19. Giving children crack or alcohol harms their future.
20. People with high incomes are more likely to fly first class.
21. People with college degrees make more than those with high school diplomas.
22. People without even high school diplomas make even less and are more likely to be homeless.
23. Men want more causal sex than women.

You know, I could go on forever. Have you realized your wrong, yet?

FortWayne says

Dan those photos just scream that you have serious Daddy issues.

Don't get too turned on FortWayne, my daddy is a member of the Silent Generation, not the Boomers. And he's awesome. He raised four extremely smart, good looking, and successful kids on a single income. I love my parents and respect them because they are lovable and respectable.

And, of course, not every Boomer is a selfish scumbag, but enough are to make the generation as a whole deplorable. One should not judge individuals based on groups. One absolutely should judge groups based on the aggregated actions of the individuals in it. Like it or not, the Boomers have made their legacy, and it's not a good one. They broke the fundamental social contract that each generation would make the world a slightly better place for the next generation. The Boomers have dismantled Progressive Reforms, broken Unions and the power of labor, dismantled the American economy, sold off infrastructure to China, polluted the Earth like a toilet, killed off half of all wildlife on the planet, made their children and grandchildren poorer than they are, introduced torture as a legal means of the government enforcing its will, created tens of millions of terrorists who want to kill us, removed almost all transparency from government, destroyed anti-trust laws, caused the Second Great Depression, and bankrupted our nation. That is your legacy.

Our legacies will be to rebuild what your generation has destroyed.

Ironman says

FortWayne says

Dan those photos just scream that you have serious Daddy Mental issues.

There, fixed that one too!

CIC has serious Bambi issues.

Ironman says

Aren't those the two next generations?

You missed my point. I wasn't clear enough.

Kids and grandkids vs. the next generation (meaning by in large everyone else other than specifically your kids and grandkids!)

Ironman says

as their first house and saved their money, instead of blowing all their money on iCrap! Millenialls want to go right out and buy McMansions as their first houses but didn't save any money to put towards them.

Dude, you have no data to substantiate. Icrap is cheap relative to the costs which are saddling the youngest generations. And while we're at it, I bet the older generations love their icrap as much and more than the younger ones. Look around at all the retirees on the plane next time--they've all got their icrap toys too. At least the younger generation is using it for their job in most cases. I have a smart phone because my company requires it--as do most of my peers.

As to your second statement about McMansions, what do you make of the tiny living movement that's been embraced out of necessity by the younger generations?

You should take a deep breath and count to ten before you make your reactionary statements.

CIC, do I have to remind you of our conversation and the advice I gave you in it.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/X6WHBO_Qc-Q

CIC, you went full retard. Never go full retard. Never.

Ironman says

Why should the boomers have to take care of ALL of the next generation. What are you a Socialist too?

Many people vote their conscience and against their own short-term financial interests, which is why you have plenty of bleeding heart wealthy liberals, thank god.

All I know is, after listening to people like you, I'm hell bent on taking away your medicare and your SS--the kind of socialism that you all love. You can bet I will vote for means-testing and caps. You said you don't like whining. I predict the next generations eventually are going to get off our/their asses and realize that trying to rationalize with the likes you is impossible. When it's game time, it will simply be class and generational warfare--because these days they are looking about one and the same.

Bring it on.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

All the generalizations are absurd.

Self-contradicting statement.

Without generalization, no book could ever be written on any subject matter.

You couldn't figure out from the context, that "all THE generalizations" referred to yours and TLips generlaizations about boomers. The vietnam one was just one example. But they are all ridiculous.

Dan8267 says

Additionally, Boomers...

1. Held orgies and introduced AIDS to the world and then waged a propaganda war to convince younger generations that sex would kill them or ruin their lives.

2. Killed off half of all life on the planet during their 40-year reign. Yet, they claim environmentalism as their contribution to the world.

3. Refused to fight in war, but had no problem starting several unjustified wars and countless unrecognized wars (police action) during the past 40 years.

4. Proudly engaged in far more drug use than any other generation, and still do, when you count the legal narcotics they take today. And also waged a War on Drugs killing countless innocents.

Each of these is an absurd indictment of everyone born during the interval which defines boomers (the only thing that actually defines us).

The global population went from 3 billion to 7 billion in the past 55 years or so. The fact that we didn't prevent so many species (and human languages too) from going extinct, this is somehow our fault ? Really ? What have you done so far to help reverse this trend ? Let me guess. You think giving $50 to Sierra Club once or twice a year will make a difference. That's thinking like a boomer.

Each of your generalizations is equally stupid. What, you really think the boomers are a bunch of Karl Roves ? I guess your logic skills, or lack there of have been reduced to this kind of thinking: "Karl Rove is a baby boomer, therefore most boomers are like Karl Rove."

Really ?

Dan8267 says

Have you realized your wrong, yet?

You're trolling game needs work.

Marcus, if you want to go by each of my statements and provide evidence that's it's wrong, go ahead. I've got plenty of evidence to back up each one. You want to poo-poo statements calling them generalizations, then my analysis applies. On the other hand, if you want to get into specifics, then man up, bitch. In a war of evidence, you have no chance.

Dan8267 says

Don't get too turned on FortWayne, my daddy is a member of the Silent Generation, not the Boomers. And he's awesome. He raised four extremely smart, good looking, and successful kids on a single income. I love my parents and respect them because they are lovable and respectable.

Ditto, my old man is a Silent also. He did his job everyday, almost never called in sick, came in at 3AM for emergencies - but he was also fortunate. He entered the workforce in the late 50s where young people were in demand. He lived in an age where if you were reliable and dutiful you didn't need a degree to go from mail room to stock room to stock room manager to chief facilities manager running an entire Chemistry R&D Complex; he dropped out of college after his freshman year but ended up making nearly 6 figures in the early 90s when he retired.

Today, they wouldn't consider somebody from the stock room for any kind of management facilities job, no matter how entry level the position, no matter how many years of reliable service and gumption, without a college degree and probably a shitload of unpaid internships at famous places. Think how spoiled lazy HR People must be. Back then most of the workforce only had a HS Diploma (if that), and they had to separate the wheat from the chaff without the cruch of "At least eventually got a 4-year degree".

thunderlips11 says

Ditto, my old man is a Silent also. He did his job everyday, almost never called in sick, came in at 3AM for emergencies

The silent generation is underrated. They are far better than the Boomers. My dad worked a lot of overtime.

thunderlips11 says

he dropped out of college after his freshman year.

My dad also left college before graduating and joined the navy during Vietnam.

thunderlips11 says

he dropped out of college after his freshman year but ended up making nearly 6 figures in the early 90s when he retired

My dad didn't get that far, but today he has a nice pension and social security that provides more than enough for a comfortable living. But his hard work enabled all four of his kids to make six figures straight out of college. That's what I mean by each generation making things a little better for the next. The Silent Generation and older ones appreciated this social contract. The Boomers burned it.

I don't know what Gen X's legacy will be. We created the Internet -- ARPANET wasn't really the Internet -- but outside of STEM, I see little contribution from Gen X. On the other hand, they haven't been selfish and destructive like the Boomers either.

I have more hope for the Millennials. They may have been spoiled by their Boomer parents, but they've seen tough economic times and are the most educated generation ever. So I think they might yet turn out pretty good. My biggest worry is that many of them still romanticize the Boomers and the 1960s. If you want to look at a generation for inspiration, the the progressive generation of the early 20th century is the one to emulate. The progressive reforms are among the most impressive in world history.

Ironman says

These are the traits that are so much more beneficial than a college degree. Unfortunately, most Millenialls can't come close to that level of work ethic.

Have you read some of @rin posts about how his company hires?

Ironman says

No, most of the time I'm not interested in Rin's fantasyland posts. What does his company do?

Obviously not making strap-on dildos or you'd know, being their biggest customer.

Ironman says

hat's the average sized home being sold today? It's 2300 sq ft. What was the average house size for the boomers starting out? It was around 1000 sq. ft.

Your data is so impeccable...except you forgot to make any mention of who is actually buying that house. Are the millennials? Are they Gen Xers?

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/millennials-prefer-cities-to-suburbs-subways-to-driveways.html

And I have to believe that a large swath of younger Gen Xers opt for smaller, more urban, and more connected.

I'm done trying to debate with you--starting to realize how foolish a pursuit it is.

Dan8267 says

On the other hand, if you want to get into specifics, then man up, bitch. In a war of evidence, you have no chance.

If you can't understand that these generalizations make no sense, and I know already that you do understand, there is nothing I am inclined to say. By the way, the fact that a bunch of people protested the draft, by burning their cards tells very little, other than they objected to the idea to being forced. A draft card was a card with a number. The card itself didn't mean someone was drafted.

The very fact that 200K boomers died in the Vietnam war pretty well contradicts "refused to fight in a war."

What percentage of a group has to have an attribute for someone like you to generalize it to the entire group ?

What did the boomers do to kill off so many species that you wouldn't have done if you were a boomer ? Be honest.

Ironman says

I know, facts are a bitch, aren't they...

I need to go get some more popcorn.

marcus says

If you can't understand that these generalizations make no sense, and I know already that you do understand, there is nothing I am inclined to say.

Translation: I'm a pussy who cannot back up my assertions with evidence.

If you want to contradict my statements, you need facts, not bullshit. And if you're too cowardly to even attempt that, then simply,

marcus says

The very fact that 200K boomers died in the Vietnam war pretty well contradicts "refused to fight in a war."

That fact would contradict the statement "All Boomers refused to fight in a war", which is a statement no one in history has ever made. It does not contradict the statement "Most Boomers refused to fight in a war".

The fact that some women rape does not negate the fact that most rapists are men, dumb ass.

marcus says

The very fact that 200K boomers died in the Vietnam war pretty well contradicts "refused to fight in a war."

58,132 Deaths.

60,000 deserters to Canada alone, not including all those who went elsewhere, or were smarter or less honest by getting themselves Foreign Scholarships to study Botany in the South Pacific or Served in the Texas National Guard or had Senator Fullbright keeping them at Oxford or something.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867481.stm

thunderlips11 says

58,132 Deaths.

You're right 200K is the dead or wounded number. Big difference.

Dan8267 says

dumb ass

I guess you might as well resort to your usual, rather than answer the tough questions.

marcus says

What percentage of a group has to have an attribute for someone like you to generalize it to the entire group ?

What did the boomers do to kill off so many species that you wouldn't have done if you were a boomer ? Be honest.

Dan8267 says

One absolutely should judge groups based on the aggregated actions of the individuals in it.

So, carrying that idea forward, it's okay to judge black people this way?

marcus says

I guess you might as well resort to your usual, rather than answer the tough questions.

Ask a tough question. I'll answer it accurately and honestly, two things you can't do. But it's up to you to make it clear you really are asking non-rhetorical questions instead of just trying to be an asshole.

marcus says

What percentage of a group has to have an attribute for someone like you to generalize it to the entire group ?

For an alleged math person, you really don't seem to have a grasp on the concepts of statistics or fuzzy logic. I don't know what percentage of the Nazis were evil fucks and what percentage were conscripts just trying to keep their families alive. But I do know that the Nazis as a whole were evil and had to be stopped. It's not about percentages. It's about overall behavior.

I have no idea what percentage of heterosexual men would agree to have a one-night stand with a gorgeous woman -- it's not 100% because of religious fanatics -- but I'm going to generalize that men are interested in no-strings-attached sex.

If you're trying to make the lame-ass point that not every single Baby Boomer is the same, then sorry pal. I beat your ass to it. However, it is not necessary to quantify a property in order to qualify it. I don't know what percentage of Arabic Muslims want death to America, but I can generalize that America has a fucking PR problem in the Middle East. To argue otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

It is also utterly ridiculous to completely ignore all the harm done by the Boomers that the rest of us have to fix simply because we can't precisely measure that harm. The harm is so fucking great, it doesn't need measuring. When a typhoon is about slam in your ass, you get the hell out of the way even if you can't tell if it's 95 ft or 100 ft. You don't just stand there letting it hit you because you don't have an exact measurement.

marcus says

What did the boomers do to kill off so many species that you wouldn't have done if you were a boomer ? Be honest.

I'm always honest, you dip-shit. Deception serves no purpose to someone who believes in rationality and transparency and does not accept the philosophy that the ends justify the means.

The first thing I would have done is not pollute the Earth like it's a toilet bowl. We should have a carbon tax. We should have signed the Kyoto Protocol. We should have implemented cap and trade. We should have never subsidized oil. We should not have promoted a car culture. We should have never allowed the expansion of dirty coal plants. We should have made high gas mileage standards back in the 1970s instead of building muscle cars.

Oh, and one other thing is worth pointing out. You don't even bother to deny that the Boomers killed off half the life on the planet. You just imply that any other generation would have done the same. Well, this is empirically false. No other generation has done as much harm to the environment, not prior generations or later ones. So no, you don't get to argue that the environmental destruction was inevitable and unavoidable. It was a choice based on the values of the Boomers, and to a lesser extend, prior generations. But the selfishness and greed of the Boomers greatly increased the damage. There is no excuse for killing of half the Earth. None.

marcus says

thunderlips11 says

58,132 Deaths.

You're right 200K is the dead or wounded number. Big difference.

The number of deaths is irrelevant. The fact remains that the anti-war movement is, if not the defining aspect of the Boomer generation, certainly a central and indispensable aspect of their generation. To deny this would be ridiculous. Yet, once the Boomers themselves were no longer the ones who lives were at risk, they became a lot more enamored with war and military operations around the world. From Central American dictatorships to South America drug wars to Middle Eastern oil wars to Far East military bases, the Boomer have had no problem funding the largest and most widely used military in the history of the world.

Under Baby Boomer rule, this is how our government spends our tax dollars. Notice that the military is over half of all discretionary spending, i.e. spending that Congress and the president actually have control over, that isn't mandated by law. This represents what the Boomers, who are in control, want to spend money on.

The following graphs shows inflation-adjusted spending on the military over the past 70 years. Notice that Boomers have dramatically increased military spending even in times of peace. How the fuck do you reconcile this with the peaceful hippie philosophy? You can't. It's hypocrisy. Boomers claimed to be for peace, but really love war and the spoils of war.

Quigley says

Dan8267 says

One absolutely should judge groups based on the aggregated actions of the individuals in it.

So, carrying that idea forward, it's okay to judge black people this way?

Think about it. You should be able to apply that general principle to the specific situation of races and crime.

If you cannot, then I suggest you read my post from the thread White murder of blacks vs vice versa

There is a difference between acknowledging and dealing with the fact that blacks murder whites more than the reverse and presuming that a given black is a would-be murderer.

The fact is that most people, black or white, do not commit murder. So the generalization is not valid. It is that generalization that leads to paranoia and more unjust killings.

Now the information that blacks murder whites more often than white murder blacks might be useful. The immediate question that comes to mind is why? Is it the result of poverty, racism, the gap between haves and have nots, culture, lack of education, or something else?

If the goal is to minimize murders, asking the why question is what's important.

It is certainly valid to judge a group based on the aggregated actions of that group including arbitrary racial groups. However, you must actually get right the group's boundaries and the aggregated actions. If you don't, then you're just a racist imbecile.

For example, one could look at the data in the White murder of blacks vs vice versa thread and conclude that blacks are inherently more violent than whites. One would be an idiot, of course, for doing so due to several reasons. First, the group isn't "blacks". It's "African Americans", key word Americans in this case. That alone disqualifies any racial judgements as the group isn't a race, but a subset of a nation's population based on race. Big fucking difference. Concluding that people with dark skin are genetically more violent based on this is simply scientifically invalid.

Second, you have to know which groupings you are actually measuring. African Americans are disproportionately poor. Poor men commit more violence because they have more to gain and less to lose. Poverty drives violence. Actual statistics can reveal if the cause of violent crime is "blackness" or poverty or ghetto culture, or any of the three in portion. It's highly unlikely that skin pigmentation itself has any role in increasing violence, but since people with dark skin are attacked more, both physically and legally, skin pigmentation may play an indirect role. The blame, of course, lies not in the pigmentation or the person subject to it, but in the attitudes of the oppressors provoking violence.

Ghetto culture may indeed play a role in levels of violent crimes. If so, then one must then ask why does ghetto culture exist. The most apparent answer is the poverty and discrimination inherent in our society. Don't let blacks on the golf course and they start gangs instead of country clubs. It's hypocritical for whites to bitch and moan about blacks establishing a culture whites don't like after 150 years of not letting blacks assimilate into white culture.

So, of course, one can generalize on the aggregated behaviors of races, but if you do it wrong and reach an incorrect conclusion, it's probably because you're a dumb-ass racist shithead. From what I've observed of human history, the arbitrary race classifications don't mean jack diddly shit. What really matters are things like power and power distribution, culture, transparency, and respect for science and truth.

By the way, the whole race thing is bullshit. There aren't any races. The very term has absolutely no biological or objective meaning. There aren't blacks and whites. Throughout the world there are gradations of skin tones and other features that gently blend from one region to another as populations breed along their edges. And if color is so important, then why aren't blondes a different race than brunettes? Why aren't blue, green, and hazel eyes different races? Why aren't tall people a different race than short people, or fat people a different race from skinny ones? It's completely arbitrary which physical features and to what extend constitute a different race.

Some races, like Hispanic, seem completely built upon linguistic rather than physical characteristics.

For example:

Are all considered "Hispanic". If they were not Spanish Speakers, we'd say "Native American", "Caucasian/White" and "Black". Betcha Pedro uses a lot of Soul Glow.

thunderlips11 says

I can't be a racist. I wanted to fuck Shakira for 15 years!

If I were to break down Dan's argument, reductum without the absurdio, it would be that making generalizations about groups of people within a CULTURE is perfectly valid, but strict race-based assumptions are not.
This is something I've been saying for years.
I guess we actually agree.

What you call groups of people within a culture are more properly called subcultures. Yes, cultures and subcultures affect human behavior and not all cultures are good or equal. For example, a culture that stones women to death for adultery is morally inferior to one that does not.

And again, judging a culture bad is not the same thing as judging every individual in the culture bad. It is wrong to judge an individual based on a group, but it is right to judge a group based on the cumulative behavior of the individuals in it.

The generalization "men want sex with no strings attached" is true and fair even though some men consider sex outside of marriage to be a sin and an affront to their fictitious god. Such men do not want sex with no strings attached, but such men do not represent the group. Both individuals and groups can and should be judged based on their overall behavior. However, extrapolating the behavior of an individual from a group makes no more sense than extrapolating the behavior of a group based on a single individual. Both are logically flawed.

marcus says

America lost a about 200 thousand boomers in Vietnam, and very few from any other generation.

The US lost 58,000 in Vietnam. How are you calculating 200,000?

Dan8267 says

marcus says

What did the boomers do to kill off so many species that you wouldn't have done if you were a boomer ? Be honest.

I'm always honest, you dip-shit. Deception serves no purpose to someone who believes in rationality and transparency and does not accept the philosophy that the ends justify the means.

The first thing I would have done is not pollute the Earth like it's a toilet bowl. We should have a carbon tax. We should have signed the Kyoto Protocol. We should have implemented cap and trade. We should have never subsidized oil. We should not have promoted a car culture. We should have never allowed the expansion of dirty coal plants. We should have made high gas mileage standards back in the 1970s instead of building muscle cars.

You gotta love the way Dan starts off his answer with what a dip shit I am and how awesome he is.

I was asking what you would have done personally. Since after all the boomers are by and large a collection of individuals. Put yourself in the baby boom. The voting choices you would have had would have been the same. The corporate power structure, the military industrial complex, big oil, these were all around throwing their weight around long before the boomers came to power. Eisenhower was warning us about the military industrial complex when I was a toddler. Corporate America learned that big labor and the people in general could have great political impact, back in the 40s and 50s, and started planning how they were going to avoid that in the future, again, way before the boomers came to power.

Did a lot of boomers get MBA's and join the club, that was being run by the previous generation, as they rose through the ranks, yes. Should they have overthrown the old power structure ? Sure it would have been nice.

Who were the boomers ?

Well, there were people that were trying to be groomed for upper management, and there were people that intended to rise through the political ranks, and people in the media. These are primary people that MIGHT have been able to make a big difference in ways you suggest.

But other boomers included: artists, academics, scientists, and most of "labor," pilots, forest rangers, nurses, doctors, law enforcement, legal professionals of various types, dentists, psychologists, social workers, clergy, librarians, clerks, bankers, investment advisers, traders, early computer scientists, technicians and trades people of various sorts, including carpenters, electricians, plumbers, heating and AC specialists, contractors etc. Then there is retail, advertising, sales of many kinds, including realtors and mortgage brokers, education (teaching children). People in entertainment, radio or TV, or movies, writers of books, TV, or movies, the list goes on and on.

IF you weren't in the first category, it means you were given your political choices by people in politics, affected by media and the big money that back politicians, which can be traced back to the influence of the "owners" (that the famous boomer comedian George Carlin often referred to), way before boomers came of age.

So what would you have done personally ? Since after all, what the boomers are/were is a bunch of humans born in specific time interval, living their lives. Most of them in that second category, mostly focused on getting by, some were engrossed in their work, maybe they were raising a family, all the types of things humans have been doing for many centuries. Boomers aren't particularly different.

You measure them as different and blame worthy based on cumulative consequences of population growth, our free market capitalism run amok, and our political system not serving us well. The time that the shit hits the fan, doesn't mean that things are so simple that you can hold an entire generation responsible, because they didn't prevent it.

What would you have done different than most boomers ? I'm talking at the individual and personal level.

...and the growth of the Christian Right is also a Boomer phenomenon.

http://patrick.net/?p=1250907&c=1141620#comment-1141620

And there's no evidence from exit polls that Boomers are generally progressive, if anything they lean Right and have since 1984.
http://patrick.net/?p=1250907&c=1141023#comment-1141023

'88 is also interesting: The Silents/Greatests who supposedly wrecked America were evenly split Bush/Dukakis. The Boomers went big for Bush the Elder.

thunderlips11 says

The Boomers went big for Bush the Elder.

The religious right, and the right wing propaganda machine were already in full swing by then, and yes, just like Fox news now, they are effective.

They got a lot of mileage out of one "hippy" that supposedly spat on soldiers coming back from vietnam.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february252008/vietnam_protest_2-25-08.php

We know that propaganda works, especially with certain segments of the population. That whole family values meme and the republican takeover of the a large swath of voters that were previously "southern democrats" started well before 1980 (actually it had been in full swing since the Nixon era), and was orchestrated by members of the greatest and silent generations. This continued to grow in to the 80s and after.

A solid 54% is a significant majority in an election, but in my view, it's not a very effective metric upon which to base generalizations about the entire poulation.

We are talking about what ? 5 to 8 percent of the population voting one way versus another, as the result of huge money and propaganda campaigns. And you want to draw conclusions about everyone from that ?

I would be the first to agree that there are a lot of stupid Americans, and there are a lot of gullible Americans. And I could tolerate you generalizing that Americans are stupid and gullible. But you won't do that, because you're an American. So instead, you pin it on the boomers, to let yourself off the hook.

That's pathetic, and it's what makes crybabies like you and Dan worse than boomers.

marcus says

The religious right, and the right wing propaganda machine were already in full swing by then, and yes, just like Fox news now, they are effective.

The religious right is the outgrowth of the 70s Jesus Freaks. The population of the Right Wing exploded with 20 and 30 something boomers - and it's been declining since the late 90s/early 2000s as Gen X'ers and Millenials grew up and left it behind.

Boomers left their moderate religions behind in droves, at the same time that the Christian right grew (but not so much movement from one to the other).

The so called Jesus freaks were a miniscule contributor to the religious right.