|
| Thread: American-Roman Connection |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted October 13, 2009 10:06 PM |
|
|
This was a nice thread; I've read it more than once.
It'll be a shame when it's coated in graffiti.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 13, 2009 10:10 PM |
|
|
Yeah, probably a mistake...
Oh, well. I hope it was worth it.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2009 11:06 PM |
|
|
If it can be said that America is falling apart (I'm not sure if that's true, but...) then the cause isn't anything like greed or lack of patriotism. The cause is mass culture. Everything is geared towards the masses. You see, back in the day, when only the educated elite could afford to purchase and consume a significant quantity of what was written and talked about on the radio, and when all the politicians aimed their arguments towards them, things weren't like this. Now look at what's happened. People read books like Twilight (if, indeed, they read at all and don't think that reading is - to quote one of my ex-classmates - "for ****suckers"), listen to rap, and watch inane vulgar TV shows with canned laughter. Our values as a society have changed. Casual sex, acting "ghetto", dislike of education (despite the fact that it's more important now than ever before), and just the general "it's cool to be dumb" attitude - that's what seems to be prevalent today. (Of course, then you have the "rebellious" skim milk-only vegetarian Mac-using pot-smoking faux-environmentalist hipsters, but they just represent another manifestation of "it's cool to be dumb".)
It's seeped into the political dialogue too - to the extent where it's not as much dialogue as "derpa derpa derp". On one hand, if you're not a rabid re-distributionist (and maybe even racist), you hate the poor, on the other hand, then you're an immoral atheist socialist who worships the "God-State" and its Kenyan Muslim leader.
During the Great Depression, in one of his moments of frustration with Ramsay Macdonald, Winston Churchill said this - "I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as "The Boneless Wonder". My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralising and revolting for my youthful eye and I have waited fifty years to see The Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench."
Could any American right-wing political leader say anything like that today? Could any left-winger say that? No. They'd get to "when", and the viewers would change the channel to "The Story of Funny Fornicator". It's sad.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 13, 2009 11:16 PM |
|
|
I somewhat agree, although I suspect there has always been an anti-intellectual attitude since the dawn of civilization, since it serves as a psychological defense mechanism to keep people from feeling inadequate. It simply appears more prevalent because the media is more expansive and has also creeped onto the internet through blogs and such.
Some of it simply due to circumstances beyond our control. Now that the world has such an overload of information, as opposed to 500 years ago, people are forced to become more specialized, and thus less knowledgeable about other things. There's simply a lot of 'knowing' that needs to be done, which can make it overbearing to keep up. Finally, almost everybody can go to college now, so being educated doesn't carry the prestige that it once did. This isn't a bad thing since education is critical to a developing society, but it does mean that more people are going to be highly opinionated without necessarily having the backing for such an attitude. The political arena is severely depleted of modesty.
Fear and paranoia has also served as a great liability for the U.S. in recent years. It has allowed much of the public to turn a blind eye to foreign policy and even affronts of civil liberties at home, such as the Patriot Act. I don't think this will make or break the U.S., but it is an added strain for it's people.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2009 11:37 PM |
|
|
While I agree with your post as a whole, there are two points that I disagree with. First, while it's true that the world has a lot of information now, and it takes a lot of "knowing", it's not an issue of specialised "knowing" that's the problem - it's that there are so many people who despise those who have "knowing" of any kind. Second, there are many places in the world where good education is/was available - for example, even the Soviet Union. But if one were to get into a university there, one would be sure of a respected place on society. Not so in the US - although many of our universities are just places to party.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 13, 2009 11:44 PM |
|
|
Excessive partying in college is hardly an exclusive U.S. issue. In fact, I think (relatively) we're not that bad compared to some places, believe it or not. That's just a guess though.
But that ties in with the fact that education is so much more accessible than it used to be. If you got a good education 200 years ago, you were very likely to value it. Now it's opened up to everybody, and most people simply aren't inclined to be sages (I don't really consider myself a sage either). They do it to get the requirements to enter a certain job, and that's it.
The line between genuine academics and the rest was more easily definable in the past, because if you had a degree, it usually meant you were a genuine academic. It's not as such anymore.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 12:59 AM |
|
|
Yeah, that kind of ties back into people being able to afford more stuff.
It's a mixed bag. On one hand, people are much better off materially now - healthier, etc. On the other hand, the general cultural attitudes are, except for a few exceptions, much worse.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 01:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
On the other hand, the general cultural attitudes are, except for a few exceptions, much worse.
Everybody always has and always will think that the current culture is worse than the one that preceded it.
I rather tend to think that the relative proportion of idiots in each generation is more or less constant.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 01:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I rather tend to think that the relative proportion of idiots in each generation is more or less constant.
That's true, but when those idiots are so poor that they can barely put food on the table, the culture isn't going to be geared to them.
Now, though...
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 05:02 AM |
|
|
Well, nowadays, "culture" (defined as, I suppose, means of entertainment) is easily mass-produced, meaning that it is economical, like never before, for entertainment-producing companies (film, art, literature) to cater to the lowest common denominator. Which means it is less economical, proportionally, to cater to more sophisticated consumers. If that's what you mean, then I agree. The saturation of the marketplace with products targeted at the kind of people who find fart-jokes entertaining certainly supports the conclusion that "culture" has become diluted. But this dilution of culture isn't going to bring about the end of the US. As I said earlir, people haven't become less educated; access to the kinds of things unsophisticated people will buy has just gotten better.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 05:58 AM |
|
|
Except the votes of an educated and uneducated person count equally. And it's a lot easier to get uneducated people irrationally riled up about something. Or pass something right under their noses.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 08:32 AM |
|
|
Corribus is right, but the reason for this is simply the fact that children nowadays are bombarded with encouragements to be satisfied with what they get, since they are "entertained" from day 1 of their life - and if they are not they strain to become.
In earlier times, up to the 70s, I'd say, children had a much "harder" life. There wasn't much in terms of entertainment. Telly, sure, but mostly cartoons. Or Lassie on Sunday. Apart from this children would DO a lot: in the country they would help outside or inside; if the parents owned a business like a shop, a bakery or something they would have to help as well. Their wasn't much of an allowance, and lots of kids - as KIDS - would try to earn a couple of cents, for example as delivery boy, with baby-sitting, helping in shops packing things, you name it. And kids were doing sports or reading in their spare time.
Today a child gets a massive allowance. Their parent will force them to have a cell-phone so they can control their whereabouts. Grandparents will pamper them blind with gifts, and they can watch telly the whole day or sit at the PC or PLay Station.
The decadency comes from getting interesting or "entertaining" things on a silver platter. It's like this: if you could always eat at McD's or BurgerK's for free, as long as you can remember, and you LIKE it there (after all you are used to it since your birth), it's not that difficult to say, "to hell with all that food with the strange French names - I'm ok with French Fries, that's all the French I need - and I don't have to do anything to get it either".
If you do NOT get stuff for free except water and a slice of bread - there's your encouragement to become active.
It's like with muscles - if they don't have to do anything because you sit on you arse the whole day, the only thing that gets bigger is your arse; and you won't be exactly keen on moving, the bigger it gets. Same with humans. If children are spoiled with too many things without having to do something for it, well.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 08:50 AM |
|
|
My next statements will be unpopular, but that has never stopped me before.
Add to what both Corribus and Jolly have said the 'Not Me' era and lack of taking of responsibility. It is always somebody elses fault, or societies fault as a whole. They are not fat because they are lazy or like fast food. They are fat because said fast food prayed on them (or some such nonsense). Hey, I have diabetes am way overweight. I know it is my own dang fault though, I made my bed now I have to lay in it.
All the great nations in history have followed pretty much basically the same pattern. They end up stretching themselves too thin, become hugely corrupt, and they fall. Usually very hard. There are other reasons of course, but this seems (at least to me) to be a common thread for all 'great nations'.
Humans always will want more for less. That will probably never change.
____________
Message received.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 09:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
This was a nice thread; I've read it more than once.
It'll be a shame when it's coated in graffiti.
You can be sure I will have more than 1 eye on this thread!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 09:45 AM |
|
|
Well, Mytical, it ISN'T their fault either.
A child is a child, and as they get older they are limited to what they have learned. If a child learns a certain way to speak, they will speak that way - later on they can try to correct that (for example, should they come to realize that their way to speak may not be the best way), but they will have a hell of a time with that compared to those who learned a better way in the first place.
As a child you don't know that too much of the tasty stuff will make you fat and probably ill, will ruin your teeth and other vital things, and if you have largely uncontrolled access to that stuff you will be fat and have certain habits faster than you can burp.
If you get older and able to see through things you have the same problem than every common junkie: you have to change and even root out what has been a vital part of your life up to that point. Whether that is eating yourself fat with sweets and donuts and burgers and ice cream or soft drinks or whether it's sitting the whole day in front of the silvers creen and marvelling over the wonders there.
I don't say that's impossible, but the thing is, doing that - changing one's habits - sadly needs those qualities these "viictims of the lazy childhood" never learned - or better: were never forced to develop - in the first place: discipline, ambition, the ability to work and even suffer to reach a specific goal, a certain kind of hardness against oneself and so on.
It's simple: if you see a 30-year old who can't play piano, you might say it's his fault - he could always start learning it. But it's something else completely to start taking piano lessons with, say, 25, or with 6. That means, if you were born and raised in a home where you never even learned about the existance of pianos and that you can learn playing them, you'll later have one hell of a time starting with it.
So MY opinion here is: OF COURSE they can all change their ways. But not without help. No, sir. Because they didn't learn to do things for themselves.
Add in capitalism - or better: ECONOMY - in: if you want to sell something you have to satisfy a demand. I didn't post in the common cause thread, because my opinion is simple here: the common cause is that everyone wants to have as much of a good time in their life as is possible, and this involves wasting as few as little time as possible with things that suck - mind-numbing work for example.
That's why there is a demand for tools and machines and stuff that make these things unnecessary. We still have a slave economy (and always have had one) with the developing line being slave-serf-worker-machine). There is always a demand for doing LESS work, and of course you can earn money by satisfying that, so it IS satisfied.
Now, this was absolutely NO problem, if CHILDREN were raised under different conditions; WITHOUT getting to enjoy all these things, but having to learn things the hard way and doing everything by hand. Having to GO (or CYCLE) to school - not by bus or in mummy's car; having to dry-clean the dishes - not watch how mummy loads the dish-washer; having to help cooking a decent meal - not watching how a meal is unwrapped and put into the microwave.
Nor should there be telly and so on.
IF THAT WAS SO - later on, when they got older, they had all the abilities necessary to responsibly react on all those niceties and helps and whatnot. And they would probably even mean something to them.
As it is, however, telly was too much work to even switch it on - if there wasn't a nice remote, so you can do it without going about.
THAT is what I would call an UNPOPULAR opinion: parents don't doing there kids a favor by pampering them and giving them access to all those temptations of our society.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 09:46 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 09:48, 14 Oct 2009.
|
This whole Roman-American connection argument has been around forever. It's almost always made by someone with a political agenda (usually conservative). The flawed argument is basically the implication that
1) Rome did such-and-such and it fell.
2) The US also does such-and-such.
3) Therefore the US should quit doing such-and-such or it will also fall.
The entire argument is meaningless. No matter what someone's country or political agenda, they can find another country to point their finger to and say "see what happened to them". I mean why not make the argument that "most Romans have dark hair, most Americans have dark hair, therefore the US will fall like Rome did".
I don't know how you can even define rise or fall of a country, it's too subjective. If people want to make an arguement that something is good or bad for a country, using that stale Roman connection totally lacks substance.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 09:50 AM |
|
|
JJ:
I agree with most of what you said. But in America, most kids (at least those I know) get jobs at 16 and have to pay for their own car, etc.
Quote:
the reason for this is simply the fact that children nowadays are bombarded with encouragements to be satisfied with what they get
Exactly. This whole "you're beautiful/special just the way you are" thing has got to stop.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 09:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Exactly. This whole "you're beautiful/special just the way you are" thing has got to stop.
And "Kill yourself, you're nothing special and not needed by anyone" has to start?
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 09:59 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:01, 14 Oct 2009.
|
Don't get me wrong, nuture (what you learn growing up) is a very powerful force. It can be very difficult to overcome, and to a great extent I agree with you. Up to a certain point (I believe we may have argued this in "Where do you draw the line" or some other place. I don't have the best memory however.)
The information is out there, and yes it can be hard to break habits, but you still have to make a choice. Even if that choice is not making a choice (and continuing to do what it is you were doing in the first place). As we will never see eye to eye on this, I don't want to get into the endless discussions again. However, I am a strong believer in taking credit (good or bad) for your own actions. A lot of people use a lot of 'excuses', and I am not fond of excuses.
They use religion, society, living conditions, etc to justify doing what they do (including killing). While people who have had it worse, or rougher, never fell to that level. But that is just me. Others can give them 'free rides' all they want, not me. They made a choice, maybe a misinformed one, but a choice regardless.
So as to not derail this, however, lets say we take it to another thread? Enough threads have been derailed already.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2009 10:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And "Kill yourself, you're nothing special and not needed by anyone" has to start?
No. I mean, it's fine if parents tell their young kids that they're special, but once you reach a certain age, it's just silly. And it's harmful when it's coming from society - kids aren't developing a realistic self-image. They think, "Oh, that guy sucks at a lot of what he does" - but society asks them to bury these thoughts. Some of them do. Others just start expressing them in a more hostile way.
What society should tell kids is, "You have potential. If you try, you'll probably succeed. But you're definitely far from perfect where you are now."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
