Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Nah, I based that on the plot of Genesis of the Daleks. (Although Doctor Who was heavily influenced by The Time Machine).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Welcome to the February edition of "MSH Shits On The Baby Boomers During Insomnia". Today's commentary was provoked by redditors.

I'm as disgusted as the rest of you, I know.

Here's my thing with all the Millennial hate.

1.) I could be wrong, but I believe that at one point, Baby Boomers were referred to in the media as "Generation Me," or something along those lines.

2.) Adults criticizing youth is a very old tendency. Blah blah Sophocles, blah. But here's the thing: usually, that kind of thing involves criticising youth.

Teens and college kids. People under 25, young and idealistic. I mean, heck, I think that in the late '60s, some counterculture people had the attitude of "don't trust anyone over 30."

Here's the thing: I'm a millennial. I was born in 1989. I am squarely in that generational cohort. I am not on some kind of cusp, like my SO born in '79 or my brother born in 2001, where there's any ambiguity about which generation I belong to.

I am like, peak Millennial.

I am 28 years old.

I know I'm not old per se, but I don't think I'm particularly young, either. I'm a working adult, not some 19 year old who's in college and hasn't formally entered the "working world" yet.

I feel like in at least some ways, there's this weird thing going on in the general zeitgeist or whatever, where Millennials, as a generation, are continually conceptualized and discussed as if they're rebellious adolescents.

But we're not.

It's like the whole narrative around us is stuck in 2009. It's kind of bizarre.

This hits something I talked about during my personal War on Christmas, and that EnigmaticHat identified as well: Cultural freeze.

See, there was always something I didn't quite understand growing up, particularly when I became a teenager. There was this bizarre expectation that I would adopt a reckless partyboy lifestyle at like, age 14. Both of my parents and particularly my father made quite a few wry comments of the kind that expected me to be staggering home drunk every other weekend, and that they weren't going to make a big deal out of it. "Enjoy being young. Let me know if you need a ride."

You might have an idea where this is going. I didn't adopt this lifestyle. Not only was I not particularly interested in wiping out constantly, there was no way that I could. Even rested (by my horrid standards) and sober, I could barely fit but a couple hours of free time between sleep, school, homework, and self-maintenance (as seen by a teenager). If I wanted to party down, it'd eat up all of my remaining time and then some. It would have had to be my top priority, and it didn't fit with my admittedly strangled social environment at all. The weirdest element of all of this is that it was distressing to my Xer parents when this didn't happen, and the distress became more pronounced as I grew older. I got a learner's permit I ended up not using literally even once, because "your friends might want to drive around with you, you know". Useful experience overall? Sure. But the rationale was way off base.

The funny thing is that there was a presumption that I wouldn't try to focus on school, that I'd be constantly distracted by socializing...but the reverse ended up being true for me, and I think it was true for quite a few people. Judging by the ham-fisted prodding to "go out and illegally drink with your friends please" and in one particular case later on (quote verbatim) "maybe you should make some mistakes anyway" (preparing for college instead of a summer roadtrip), I think there was a level of realization that I had been steered towards a professional and academic focus with the presumption I'd shirk it...and then I did as told. The reason why and why it was disturbing to them, I'll get to in a bit. But it gets weirder.

Because, of course, there were teenagers who liked the party down lifestyle. And I'm more and more convinced as I gather more stories and experiences that even they didn't do it the way their parents expected. A normal millennial party is a circle of 5-15, who all know each other well enough or by one degree separation. There will probably be drinking and there might be smoking. There will definitely be some kind of entertainment, movies, video games, drinking games, something. A decent way to burn a weekend or a holiday. I thought that was what this kind of lifestyle that I don't love and don't hate generally was. But then I got old enough that my parents started telling me about their teenage lifestyles. And it's fucking shocking, frankly.

This is my generational thesis: We're culturally stuck at least one level "off" for each age group, possibly reaching two now. The common ideas of adult culture are still on the baby boomers, and relevant to the above, the common ideas of youth culture are fucking still centered right on the Xers and their habits. Child culture is to a degree stuck on the millennials (90's nostalgia), though as promised I'm shitting on the baby boomers and suggesting that's mostly because they've got an iron death grip on being the culture of adults and not the elderly. Nobody can be perceived as moving into later age brackets, at least culturally, and this creates two malignant ideas: Every generation goes through a repeating cycle that's exactly the same, and every generation has the same values in the end. Differences are purely because of age and will inexorably follow a predetermined path...you guessed it, the path of the baby boomers.

See, the things my parents and other Xers have described about their youth years, are just insane and way too intense. I'm not jealous of it either. The most wild millennial frat party comes off a lot like the average Xer party. My father has scars from the shit he got up to, and quite a bit of it sounds like no fun at all. It has only further confirmed in my mind the idea that Xers writ large are cracked by the stress of their generational conditions, and became rather reckless because of it.

Because the thing I'm writing this to debunk is this: Generations are not all the same, and they don't change the same ways through life. Millennial are way more careful. Less sex. Less drinking. That one says millennials generally see it as "pathetic or embarrassing" for someone to be drunk, and yeah, growing up with Xer parents might just do that to you. I myself was teetotal for a long time, and I still haven't surpassed "priest breaking sobriety on occasion" nor plan to. Why the fuck would I? Actual millennial youth culture and values are more or less ignored except by the most demographic focused media, and media for all demographics paints millennials with the stereotypes of the Xers instead. This includes all those hit piece articles, and why the data of less sex can't be squared with the stereotype of casual sex - it's actually an Xer trait hopelessly retrofitted for the minority millennial trends that sort of fit it, like tinder and FWB relationships. 

Because of this cultural freeze, when someone like me who has not even a cosmetic resemblance to the path the Xers trod back in the day comes along, it comes off as (and my god, now that I say it the arrogance of the concept comes out full force) culturally incorrect. INNOCENT CHRISTIAN CHILDHOOD. BLACKOUT DRUNK UNTIL COLLEGE ENDS. SUIT HANDSHAKE JOB MAN MARRIAGE. CHILDREN CHURCH REPUBLICAN PARTY. No exceptions or you're a loser. Funny thing is, I don't blame the Xers. As with my other post, I mostly see them as a victimized generation who developed maladaptive habits to deal with it. It was the Baby Boomers who used their influence to hit a cultural pause button. Why, I couldn't say. Perhaps an unwillingness to recognize that death is coming for them, same as their parents and everyone else.

The important takeaway is not to fall for the trap of this "pathway" idea. The most stereotypical versions of this I see are an (honestly, somewhat desperation filled) assumption that millennials and Gen Z are just gonna turn around and be Republican dominant later on in life. It's a really carved in stone thing, a lot of people are unwilling to even consider that it might not happen that way. The "common sense" of the Baby Boomers rearing its head again. "You'll get more conservative as you get older", "They'll come back to Christ and the Church when they have children", "That's just college talking".

But I don't think it is. While some millennials might follow the song and dance, I've got to wonder, how many are just being pressured into a mold that doesn't fit them?  And this culture freeze can't last forever. The cracks are already right there in front of us, and when that dam breaks, I get the feeling it might snap forward hard. I'm not sure of what the consequences would be though. Cultural renaissance? Violent panic by whatever fraction of the baby boomers are still alive? Leftist political takeover? Whatever the exact results, I mark this as the coming zeitgeist, if the wind isn't blowing already.

[Reelya]

Yeah, you also see that sort of cultural stasis in the dating game, viz complaints about boyfriends not "growing up" because they still play video games or like Star Wars and cartoons. But the cognitive dissonance is because their partners have an idealized expectation, that, frankly, their partner will grow to resemble their father's generation. Just not happening, of course.

e.g. back in the 1970s, the cliche was middle-aged fathers having model railways as a hobby. This wasn't because middle-aged men "naturally" take up an interest in model railways, it's because model railways were the toys of their youth. You don't grow into most hobbies, you grow up with them. If anything, it works in reverse: you have retirement home people getting into Nintendo Wii and the like.

e.g. you don't "grow old" so now you suddenly only like Barry Manilow and Cliff Richard instead of punk and metal or techno or whatever, or any bullshit like that. We don't expect people to magically start liking and older generation's misic, so why would anyone expect people growing old to take up older generations hobbies and interests? It's nonsensical.

The modern equivalent is a 45 year old with a kick-ass video gaming system, or running a D&D night, or collecting Star Wars memorabilia. These things are the current equivalent of middle-aged model train collectors. In about 15 years from now, the standard for what middle-aged people like will be whatever 25-30 year olds like at the moment.

[wierd]

In some ways the "Old == republican" mantra has some basis, in others not.

EG, the older one gets, the more dependent upon "status quo" you become, because you lack the adaptability and energy of youth. You have invested your life's savings, and are now living on the fat you saved up, because you really are too old to keep cutting the proverbial mustard.  Along comes the new generation, with their newfangled ideas that will throw the economy into chaos (Some new technology that will change everything, et al--- some new social program that will increase cost of living because of an increase in min wage, resulting in mass price hikes across the board as the economy eternally lurches to absorb the increased monetary flow, et al.)  As such, you will favor policy that is static, unchanging, and "comfortably well known."  AKA-- "Conservative."

On the other, being dependent upon the system, you might also be more with it, and realize that reforms to the system can be to your advantage--- You might end up getting MORE social security money, not less-- etc--- in which case, you might favor liberal politics.

It depends on how with it, how well you can cope with change, as you get older.  Many people suffer mental decline as they age, and are incapable of dealing with change like that.  This leaves them the path toward conservatism as the favored path.

If you think about it in that perspective, the GOP takes on a decidedly sinister aspect, preying on the elderly and their insecurities, to further corporate interests.

[Reelya]

It wouldn't be the first time that someone's been told to "grow up" by a baby boomer and stop playing video games.

I was more thinking of same-age generation, not older people telling younger people. It's changing now, thankfully, but many women over 30 come from the era where very few women were gamers, so they had (and I assume many still do have) the expectation that proper men are supposed to shed all that and become "mature", e.g. like their father's generation. So this is about Gen-X women: most of them grew up seeing computers and games as things "boys" did, with whatever the boomer generation did as "proper adult" stuff.

So you get ridiculous clickbait articles where they survey gen-x women who claim their gen-x menfolk are "immature" and most of the reasons cited for the "immaturity" are just because they're gen-x males with gen-x male hobbies such as that they play video games:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10111993/Men-grow-up-at-43-11-years-later-than-women.html

This article is saying men "grow up" at 43, which is 11 years after women "grow up". And one of the top cited data-points given as proof, is videogame playing. e.g. if you backtrack from the date of this article, men born before the 1970 are "mature" ones, because they don't play video games. Hello? the reason men older than 43 in 2013 don't often play them is because they didn't grow up with them, and the reason women "mature" at only 32, giving that "playing videogames" is cited as a metric, is because Gen-X women weren't so big on gaming in the first place. The number of women gamers only boomed later on, therefore you get many gen-x couples where only the man plays videogames, and the wife tut-tuts the man's 1980s-esque interests, comparing this unfavorably to her baby boomer parent role-models.

[SalmonGod]

It was the Baby Boomers who used their influence to hit a cultural pause button. Why, I couldn't say. Perhaps an unwillingness to recognize that death is coming for them, same as their parents and everyone else.

I've literally seen Baby Boomers discuss with each other in a serious tone how they don't believe that their generation is meant to die.

[wierd]

I have noticed this kind of thing from the female persuasion quite a bit actually. (As somebody that really does not care to have a woman around the house, I dont feel I need to be soft and gentle here.)  I have my own views about societal programming and how damaging it is toward the development of women as independent actors (instead of manifest cliches), but a long dissertation about "Pink Aisle Madness" is only an aside here, and would be out of place.

Instead, I will just poke in my 2 cents worth, and say that the fairy tale of Prince Charming that is extolled by the pink aisle often portrays a male stereotype as the "Ideal male", and that stereotype is almost exclusively tied to how much money he brings in (So barbie can go shopping!!), and devoid of personality or quirks he has. (Seriously, Barbie likes to go shopping with her friend Tracy and her niece Skipper, but what do we REALLY know about Ken, aside from his classical fixation with metro-sexuality? Does ken like football? He he gamble? Does he play video games? Nothing-- you have no clue what he likes? My point exactly.)  When you couple this with other clearly economically motivated stereotypes, you end up with expectations that are radically outside of manifest reality, and very unhappy young girls discovering that Prince Charming has warts and flatulence. (And of course, the futile and ultimately destructive efforts to "Change" him so that he matches the plastic icon that the woman believes he SHOULD be-- the one she was promised since childhood.)

It is no less "Immature" for adult men to play video games (or watch sports, or have things they have liked since childhood), as it is for women to go impulse shoe shopping (like barbie always does.)

At least for most definitions of "maturity."  An enlightened position would be to acknowledge that the quirks of adulthood start in childhood, based on the messages and pastimes available.  Observe:

Past generations had primarily outdoor activities-- Camping, playing ball, etc-- as childhood activities for boys. As men get older, they physically decline, and cannot go camping like they used to, but can still do low impact activities, like fishing in a boat--- Or watching football on TV.  (BOOYA--- Adult activities!)

Current generations, due to the increased risks of child predators, increased overbearingness of child protective services over unsupervised child play, and the general loss of adult freetime to monitor or engage in child playtime, has resulted in a generation that was drenched in indoor activities--- Things like--- PLAYING VIDEO GAMES.  Playing video games is low physical impact--- 90 year old geriatrics can do it just fine as long as they don't have rheumatism or something.  So--- Adults play video games!  SHOCKER!

Similar stories for girl activities vs adult activities, at least as far as the "Traditional gender roles" aspect is carried over. (This is by no means a pronouncement that a woman's place is in the home-- DO NOT take it there, I wont take the bait, as that is NOT what I am saying here. This is a retrospective attempt, and the historical preponderance of these gender roles as the status quo is not to be ignored just because they are not in favor any longer.) Girls play with dolls and play house--- become housewives and spend all day doing that. (freetime, what's that?)  Is a woman "immature" because she finds babies cute, after she used to coo about her baby doll as a child?  I don't think so-- but hey, throw in the right mix of societal messaging, and that becomes reality. (For the record, I am perfectly OK with women finding babies cute and adorable, if they have come to that conclusion as a result of mental awakening, instead of social programming. Personally, I find babies to be horrible, ugly things and want nothing to do with them, but your mileage may vary. I am a guy, and I enjoy doing knit and crochet. I did not do these things as a child, I have just discovered that they are relaxing-- and you end up with something neat to keep afterward. If a person comes to find babies adorable through a similar revelation, bully for them. I wont judge.)

Basically, nearly all of these "perception" problems can be attributed to imposed cultural stereotypes in childhood, based on the toys and games children are provided with, and encouraged at.

Boys are supposed to be tough, never show emotion (or weakness), be fabulously wealthy, and not have any real needs of their own. They are supposed to value winning over losing, and to be strong and protective, and all that shit.

Girls are supposed to be naively tender and soft, ignorant of worldly affairs (that's a boy thing!) and to be in touch with feelings first and foremost-- They are supposed to value being pretty over being dependable, and all the baggage that goes with that shit.

Get rid of this endless cycle of programming children, and just allow kids to explore and develop their own personalities, regardless of how "blurred" their perceived gender might become, and instead keep the programming toward the need to develop a real personality and be an actualized person instead of another rank and file consumer, and you will do a lot toward resolving these "Perception" relationship issues.

Good luck getting the corporate world to go along with that though.  The more monotonously interchangeable a person is, the happier HR is.  Real people with real interests, and real personalities are complications in a business setting, where conformity, obedience, and profit are king.

I suppose it is only natural that big toy makers like Mattel (who owns Barbie) peddle the messages they do.



Re boomers and nihilism:

It is culturally unacceptable to Boomers to consider oneself mortal; That is what those dweeb nihilists in their dark corners and beatnik juke joints make bad poetry about--- not what healthy, normal people do!

(Again, social programming at work--- This was a powerful message broadcast to them you know.)

[Max™]

It's all well and good until a teacher loses the plot and massacres some children, or a kid steals the teacher's gun.

Even if all of the armed teachers keep their guns properly secured, and they’re all mentally stable, it would still be a huge problem. I’m not a gun owner, but I believe a major gun safety rule is to be aware of what’s downrange if your target. If you’re a teacher in a school attempting to guard a classroom full of students, every direction you could be potentially aiming has a pretty good chance of crossing another classroom full of students. The more people are armed, the more everyone in the building is at risk of being caught in the crossfire or hit by a ricochet or missed shot.

And then there’s the issue of target identification. How do you know who the shooter is or what they look like? Is that armed person roaming the halls hostile, or are they another armed teacher?

It almost seems like the best way to reduce the number of shootings might somehow involve giving people fewer things to shoot with. I don’t know; maybe I’m just crazy.

How do you make the gun safe or whatever you use work so a teacher can get into it quickly and easily but a student can't figure it out given enough time? Say, 3-4 years worth of time?

I think we're all missing the obvious answer here: the problem isn't guns, it's kids getting shot by other kids who have guns.

I don't know about y'all (ustedes) but I have never heard about a mass shooting where other guns got shot in a school, so we might need to accept that removing guns will never happen, but removing kids from schools would probably have an enormous impact on school shootings... possibly.

Then, maybe we could start to panic over the gun on gun violence crisis if all those squishy blood-filled targets weren't present, right??

It almost seems like the best way to reduce the number of shootings might somehow involve giving people fewer things to shoot with. I don’t know; maybe I’m just crazy.

That's a lot like saying 'you don't fight fire with fire, you douse it with water'. On a small scale, yes, water or other inflammatory agents are the best way to extinguish a fire. But once a fire grows large enough, it literally becomes impractical to apply inflammatory agents faster than the rate at which the fire is growing. Beyond that threshold, the much more efficient method becomes the use of accelerant around the existing fire to quickly burn away potential fuel, so that the fire has nowhere to spread.

Guns in America are already so proliferant that it would be impossible to take away a significant portion of them without instigating violent response from second-amendment activists. And of course the lawmakers would have to be convinced first, which simply is not going to happen due to the corruption created by the NRA's deep pockets. Even limiting the availability of new high-powered guns and modifications is extremely impractical.

So, with consideration for the fact that removing guns is simply not going to happen, the only remaining practical option is to fight fire with fire.

I think the word you were after was non-flammable?

Oh, don't forget that bringing a gun to a gun fight means you are now in a gun fight and would probably be better off going literally anywhere except the dusty bit of main street in front of the saloon at high noon.

[Egan_BW]

Bullets don't block bullets very effectively, they just add more bullets to the air. This is why I suggest we arm every teacher with automatic point-defense lasers.

[wierd]

The idea is the same absurdity behind "MASSIVE AWARDS FOR COPYRIGHT CASES!"-- Eg, "If you make it scary enough, people wont do it!"

(It doesnt work. In either case. Once people are desperate enough, they stop having aversion to perceptions of harm, and even seek the harm, hoping for a final resolution to their problems.)

But, I do also feel that I need to point out the double standards that are in play here, especially RE: Armed security guard does not shoot armed student.


Let's put that into perspective;  The armed security guard has a gun, yes.  He is downright told not to shoot students, because if he is wrong, and that is just a very well made water pistol or something, he just shot an innocent child, and all hell will break loose.

With that in mind, How the fuck is giving teachers guns, going to fix this problem?  Are the teachers expected to shoot students?  No? Then what the fuck will this accomplish anyway?

[smjjames]

They're trying to apply MAD doctrine to guns, that's what. Trump is somehow convinced that a well trained teacher with a gun would absolutely have stopped the shooter. This whole misconception needs to be disproved with prejudice.

[wierd]

I am pretty sure I just torpedoed that hard in like, the second sentence above.

See also "Suicide by Cop."

EG, by the time a child has been mentally tortured to the point that they are ready to commit mass murder in an institution that they feel they cannot escape from, they are already ready to commit suicide by cop.

That is to say, putting EVEN MOAR guns into the picture will not be positive. 

[MorleyDev]

Seriously, Conservative America. We need to talk. Because this? This isn't healthy. This is the attitude of a drug addict, of an alcoholic.

"I have a hangover, so I just need to a stiff drink to get rid of it".

"We have a problem with guns at schools, so we need more guns at schools".

It's the literal definition of a downward spiral, and you need to get help. Because it's just going to hurt you, and a lot more people with it.

[McTraveller]

It's kind of strange - schools are already "gun free" zones.  And yet gun violence happens in schools.  You can't declare schools to be more "gun free" than they already are.  And it is practically impossible to ensure that no guns are within X distance of a school anyway. Metal detectors and the like are easily circumvented, etc.

So the idea that having a first-responder at as close proximity as possible to a risk area makes some kind of practical sense.  Personally I wouldn't try to train teachers to be security as well - I'd probably try to have something more like the model of air marshal.

But as I've said before, the better solution is to address the social malaise that fosters such violent behavior in the first place. I'm with @wierd here - by the time someone has decided to obtain a weapon it's already way too late (these are not 'crimes of passion' people - these are deliberate planned events).

[martinuzz]

THe anti-NRA campaign #boycottNRA is starting to pay off.
More and more US companies are telling NRA to fuck off, by cancelling the spcial offers NRA members could get with their NRA membership card.
Enterprise, Hertz, Avis and TrueCar will no longer give discount on their car rental to NRA members.
The First National Bank of Omaha made it known that they will  end their 'Official Credit Card of the NRA', with which NRA members could get 5% yearly refund on their petrol and sportsgear purchases.
Symantec also scrapped it's discount offers for NRA members. Members could get discounts up to 110 dollars on Norton Antivirus and other products.

Insurance company Metlife also scrapped it's discounts for NRA members, and more importantly, Chubb put an end to the 'NRA Carry Guard', which was an insurance which pays legal costs for people that shot someone. The other insurance company that offers the Carry Guard, Lockton, did not stop providing it yet.