If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Are we just re-fighting the culture wars of the 1960s, without the 1960s idealistic view of a great American future to build together?   (bloomberg.com) divider line 79
    More: Sad, Americans, U.S. President John F. Kennedy, moral argument, E.J. Dionne, public morals, Lee Harvey Oswald, American politics, anti-miscegenation laws  
•       •       •

2162 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 1:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 01:30:27 PM  
Shut up, hippie.
 
2013-03-08 01:40:01 PM  
Re-fighting? More like STILL fighting.
 
2013-03-08 01:40:24 PM  
Yes we are.

/"Thank you Fox News for Keeping Us Infromed" is the new "Race Mixing is Communism"
 
2013-03-08 01:40:53 PM  
Old people aren't dying off as young like they used to, and there's more of them too.
 
2013-03-08 01:42:36 PM  
I think it's beyond hypocritical for a generation that did it the first time around to try and deny the same social, sexual, political, philosophical, and chemical experimentation(s) to the current group going through similar stages.
 
2013-03-08 01:43:34 PM  
I think abandoning the outdated notion of "American Exceptionalism" is a step in the right direction.
 
2013-03-08 01:45:55 PM  

GoldSpider: I think abandoning the outdated notion of "American Exceptionalism" is a step in the right direction.


I'm not sure there was ever a period where the notion of "American Exceptionalism" was appropriate.
 
2013-03-08 01:46:41 PM  
There are plenty of idealistic views of how modern society should be built. Just because subby slept through the past decades doesn't mean they didn't happen.
 
2013-03-08 01:52:24 PM  
Wait...the people who were alive in the 60's should've been taking care not to let things bite us in the ass again? WTF?!
 
2013-03-08 01:53:27 PM  
The thing is, back in the 60's, most of the kids and young adults were "squares." Lot's of folks like to pretend they were part of the counter-culture, but they were really just consumers of the culture and not really invested in the beliefs behind that culture. It shouldn't be surprising that fifty years on, these people are much more like their parents than Abbie Hoffman. Unfortunately, to live the American Dream, someone has to live a third-world nightmare.
 
2013-03-08 01:56:08 PM  
No. We're fighting the culture wars of the 1890s to the 1910s without a Teddy Roosevelt to take on the robber-barons corporate giants.
 
2013-03-08 01:57:42 PM  
The 1860s, more like it...
 
2013-03-08 02:02:30 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I think it's beyond hypocritical for a generation that did it the first time around to try and deny the same social, sexual, political, philosophical, and chemical experimentation(s) to the current group going through similar stages.


That happens every generation.  It is called growing up.
 
2013-03-08 02:03:09 PM  

give me doughnuts: No. We're fighting the culture wars of the 1890s to the 1910s without a Teddy Roosevelt to take on the robber-barons corporate giants.


So Democrats want to take away our booze and Republicans want to go to the silver standard?
 
2013-03-08 02:03:18 PM  
No.
 
2013-03-08 02:03:21 PM  
Short answer yes.
Long answer...yes.
 
2013-03-08 02:07:59 PM  

give me doughnuts: No. We're fighting the culture wars of the 1890s to the 1910s without a Teddy Roosevelt to take on the robber-barons corporate giants.


What a modern Teddy Roosevelt might look like:

static2.businessinsider.com
 
2013-03-08 02:12:06 PM  
Oh great, I get to go back to Chicago for the convention and get my head cracked by 7' tall cops.  The 60's (actually 65-75) are one of those things you have to have experienced to understand.


/Viet Nam vet, hippie, SDS, Friends of Earth, John Bircher, Weather Underground wanaby, Chicago 1968, Selma, anti-war rallies, etc., etc., etc.
 
2013-03-08 02:13:32 PM  

Glancing Blow: /Viet Nam vet, hippie, SDS, Friends of Earth, John Bircher, Weather Underground wanaby, Chicago 1968, Selma, anti-war rallies, etc., etc., etc.


The hell?
 
2013-03-08 02:17:26 PM  

GoldSpider: I think abandoning the outdated notion of "American Exceptionalism" is a step in the right direction.


I think American Exceptionalism may have been more useful when we weren't the clear #1 super power. It gave us a reason to be competitive. "Hey we can't let those Russkies be the first ones on the moon! We gotta show them that America is number 1!"

But I think lately American Exceptionalism provokes us to do the opposite and never change. I've had the idea that America is #1 no matter what beaten into my head since I could remember. If all I have to do to be number 1 is exist, there's really no need for me to change anything or better myself.
 
2013-03-08 02:19:45 PM  

MisterRonbo: give me doughnuts: No. We're fighting the culture wars of the 1890s to the 1910s without a Teddy Roosevelt to take on the robber-barons corporate giants.

What a modern Teddy Roosevelt might look like:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 850x637]


Shop a walrus mustache onto that and there's a striking resemblance
 
2013-03-08 02:21:11 PM  

Saiga410: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I think it's beyond hypocritical for a generation that did it the first time around to try and deny the same social, sexual, political, philosophical, and chemical experimentation(s) to the current group going through similar stages.

That happens every generation.  It is called growing up.


I agree that every generation has its own piss and vinegar stage. What I point out is that the period known for "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" correlated with the generation currently in their 50s and 60s being in their 20s (the age of raising hell) while the current repression of counter-culture movements is akin to putting one's fingers in one's ears and screaming "LALALALALALALALALALALA".

Why was marijuana at least partially accepted part of the cultural movement then, but not now?
Why was sexual deviancy?
Why was openness about racial tension? (We still have it, except that fewer people are willing to talk about it)
Why was opposing war to fight an unorganized and amorphous enemy considered a good thing then?

The older generation exists to keep the radical young people from destroying everything in their rebellion, and that keeps society functioning very well. Where I draw the line, however, is the present senior generations have taken a much more deliberate and selfish view against the younger ones. It stems not from a desire to keep things roughly in order, but to force conformity and unique burdens on the future so the present can be maintained for a little while longer.

I stand by my words. It is hypocritical.
 
2013-03-08 02:22:08 PM  
Maybe, but where would one even begin to look for brown acid these days?
 
2013-03-08 02:23:21 PM  
I was so excited when Obama was nominated and we'd have our first presidental candidate whose run wasn't defined (positively or negatively) by their role in the Vietnam War.

Cue "scandal" that he served on two charities with and attended a fundraiser (thrown by Alice Palmer) at the home of Bill Ayers.
 
2013-03-08 02:28:30 PM  
I think it mostly has it's roots in human evolution.  Most of the arguments out there today boil down to one group not wanting to adapt/change their world view in light of changing facts and realities.  This kind of dogmatic adherence to rules with no questions asked was likely very important to survival in early stages human evolution.  When your tribal elder told you "don't go down that path near the river, lions live there and will eat your face off", you did not bring the scientific method into play and try to test that hypothesis, or chances are good that you would be missing your face and thus females would not want to mate with you.  so this primal mammalian instinct that has been around since our evolutionary ancestors could communicate still has a huge impact on our modern brain chemistry, even when blindly adhering to things is blatently incorrect. However, this trait is no longer (as?) crucial for survival and thus more curious, intellectually wired individuals have had a chance to propagate.  But at the same time there doesn't seem to be anything that is negatively selecting for dogmatic individuals, hence the dilemma.
 
2013-03-08 02:28:46 PM  

CorporatePerson: But I think lately American Exceptionalism provokes us to do the opposite and never change. I've had the idea that America is #1 no matter what beaten into my head since I could remember. If all I have to do to be number 1 is exist, there's really no need for me to change anything or better myself.


Precisely.
 
2013-03-08 02:29:40 PM  

Grungehamster: I was so excited when Obama was nominated and we'd have our first presidental candidate whose run wasn't defined (positively or negatively) by their role in the Vietnam War.

Cue "scandal" that he served on two charities with and attended a fundraiser (thrown by Alice Palmer) at the home of Bill Ayers.


First presidential candidate in a generation*
 
2013-03-08 02:31:21 PM  

chocolate covered poop: I think it mostly has it's roots in human evolution.  Most of the arguments out there today boil down to one group not wanting to adapt/change their world view in light of changing facts and realities.  This kind of dogmatic adherence to rules with no questions asked was likely very important to survival in early stages human evolution.  When your tribal elder told you "don't go down that path near the river, lions live there and will eat your face off", you did not bring the scientific method into play and try to test that hypothesis, or chances are good that you would be missing your face and thus females would not want to mate with you.  so this primal mammalian instinct that has been around since our evolutionary ancestors could communicate still has a huge impact on our modern brain chemistry, even when blindly adhering to things is blatently incorrect. However, this trait is no longer (as?) crucial for survival and thus more curious, intellectually wired individuals have had a chance to propagate.  But at the same time there doesn't seem to be anything that is negatively selecting for dogmatic individuals, hence the dilemma.


We need predators that feed on religion.
 
2013-03-08 02:38:04 PM  

VitruvianMonkey: Re-fighting? More like STILL fighting.


Exactly. And the good guys are winning.
 
2013-03-08 02:39:12 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: MisterRonbo: give me doughnuts: No. We're fighting the culture wars of the 1890s to the 1910s without a Teddy Roosevelt to take on the robber-barons corporate giants.

What a modern Teddy Roosevelt might look like:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 850x637]

Shop a walrus mustache onto that and there's a striking resemblance


Bully!

(I laughed so hard I almost snorted ice tea out of my nose)
 
2013-03-08 02:46:55 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: GoldSpider: I think abandoning the outdated notion of "American Exceptionalism" is a step in the right direction.

I'm not sure there was ever a period where the notion of "American Exceptionalism" was appropriate.


It's not really the concept that America is unique among nationa that's the problem is it?
 
2013-03-08 02:50:26 PM  

Shaggy_C: give me doughnuts: No. We're fighting the culture wars of the 1890s to the 1910s without a Teddy Roosevelt to take on the robber-barons corporate giants.

So Democrats want to take away our booze and Republicans want to go to the silver standard?


Porn/video games and Gold standard/austerity.

Same shiat different decade. Throw in some civil rights issues, fear of a new group of immigrants, and refighting the 'sexual revolution' of the 60's and you're pretty much gettin the idea.

These issues rarely ever really go away - they're part of the American an human experience.
 
2013-03-08 02:52:51 PM  
Yes. Only now it's in YouTube comment threads.
 
2013-03-08 02:53:28 PM  

CorporatePerson: I think American Exceptionalism may have been more useful when we weren't the clear #1 super power. It gave us a reason to be competitive. "Hey we can't let those Russkies be the first ones on the moon! We gotta show them that America is number 1!"


Um, you do realize who first popularized the term, right? Hint: he had a big mustache and ran the Soviet Union for a while.
Nothing funnier than watching Stalin troll American conservatives long after his death.
 
2013-03-08 02:55:26 PM  
There will be a lot of derp in this thread. There will be those who herp that derp. At the end of the day, however, one thing is certain: every single one of us is full of shiat and every single one of us are hypocrites.
 
2013-03-08 03:01:11 PM  
That's what the Republicans are trying to make us do. The rest of the world has moved on, and they keep trying to drag us back into the pit.

Be especially wary of people on either side of the argument who speak of "hippies," though. That's the sign of somebody who won't let go of old bullshiat.
 
2013-03-08 03:03:39 PM  

cman: There will be a lot of derp in this thread. There will be those who herp that derp. At the end of the day, however, one thing is certain: every single one of us is full of shiat and every single one of us are hypocrites.


Wait, calling different views and a struggle of the old against the young and rich against the poor a part of the American and human condition is hypocritical?

Or just hypocrisy in general? Because that's ALSO part of the human condition.
 
2013-03-08 03:05:08 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Why was marijuana at least partially accepted part of the cultural movement then, but not now?
Why was sexual deviancy?
Why was openness about racial tension? (We still have it, except that fewer people are willing to talk about it)
Why was opposing war to fight an unorganized and amorphous enemy considered a good thing then?


Weed is now legal in two states. That's at least partially accepted.
Fifty Shades of Grey was a top selling novel.
We do still have racial tension, but quite a bit less than in the 60s. Less tension, less talking about it.
That opposition was not uniformly considered a good thing.
 
2013-03-08 03:05:33 PM  
We are not just fighting the wars of the 60's. The people trying to get creationism into our schools are focing us to fight a war thatby all accounts was won by evolutionist (and thus science) on 1925!
 
2013-03-08 03:06:15 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Glancing Blow: /Viet Nam vet, hippie, SDS, Friends of Earth, John Bircher, Weather Underground wanaby, Chicago 1968, Selma, anti-war rallies, etc., etc., etc.

The hell?


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Bircher you betcha doncha know?
 
2013-03-08 03:07:01 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Saiga410: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I think it's beyond hypocritical for a generation that did it the first time around to try and deny the same social, sexual, political, philosophical, and chemical experimentation(s) to the current group going through similar stages.

That happens every generation.  It is called growing up.

I agree that every generation has its own piss and vinegar stage. What I point out is that the period known for "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" correlated with the generation currently in their 50s and 60s being in their 20s (the age of raising hell) while the current repression of counter-culture movements is akin to putting one's fingers in one's ears and screaming "LALALALALALALALALALALA".

Why was marijuana at least partially accepted part of the cultural movement then, but not now?
Why was sexual deviancy?
Why was openness about racial tension? (We still have it, except that fewer people are willing to talk about it)
Why was opposing war to fight an unorganized and amorphous enemy considered a good thing then?

The older generation exists to keep the radical young people from destroying everything in their rebellion, and that keeps society functioning very well. Where I draw the line, however, is the present senior generations have taken a much more deliberate and selfish view against the younger ones. It stems not from a desire to keep things roughly in order, but to force conformity and unique burdens on the future so the present can be maintained for a little while longer.

I stand by my words. It is hypocritical.


*slow clap, add to favorites*
 
2013-03-08 03:07:50 PM  
Man, anyone that treats Mad Men like a show that reflects nostalgia for a better era has not actually watched Mad Men. Lots of lost miserable people wandering around confused while the world changes around them.
 
2013-03-08 03:21:43 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Why was marijuana at least partially accepted part of the cultural movement then, but not now?
Why was sexual deviancy?
Why was openness about racial tension? (We still have it, except that fewer people are willing to talk about it)
Why was opposing war to fight an unorganized and amorphous enemy considered a good thing then?

Weed is now legal in two states. That's at least partially accepted.
Fifty Shades of Grey was a top selling novel.
We do still have racial tension, but quite a bit less than in the 60s. Less tension, less talking about it.
That opposition was not uniformly considered a good thing.


Weed is not legal in 2 states. It is not prosecuted by the states and still remains a schedule 1 drug according to the Federal government (but, de-criminalization is progress since weed was illegal in the 20s, so I'll concede the point to you)

Fifty Shades of Grey is best seller, but the entire basis for it is heterosexual domination. I don't consider "The Art of Getting Sodomized By A Psychopath" progress, especially since any portrayal of female anatomy in media is seriously frowned upon. Boobage is taboo, and I think we shall agree to disagree on this one.

Less OVERT racial tension. I am happy that the black community is not being sprayed with water hoses or had dogs sent upon them, but lots of racial underpinnings exist in day to day rhetoric - the black welfare queen stereotype, the blind anger at the President (part of which is partisanship, but supported by racism), and a great deal of commentary about "moochers" being synonymous with "melanin-enhanced". But these aren't problems being addressed because it's "just the way the world works" (a phrasing I have heard numerous times).

The opposition to war based on blind patriotism and vague desire to protect national interests (stopping communism vs weapons of mass destruction) is a good thing. Hindsight being 20-20, I will trust you are correct about opposition being a divisive issue in the 60s. However, the mid 2000s had a long string of "if you don't support the cause, you're unpatriotic" rhetoric that several members of my family (all of whom are veterans) said sounded awfully family to Vietnam jingoism or, in the case of my grandfather, Nazi talk. Why was opposition then divisive, but opposition in the past decade has been shameful?
 
2013-03-08 03:23:05 PM  
Dear god... I do NOT want to go through the 70s again.
 
2013-03-08 03:34:52 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Why was marijuana at least partially accepted part of the cultural movement then, but not now?
Why was sexual deviancy?
Why was openness about racial tension? (We still have it, except that fewer people are willing to talk about it)
Why was opposing war to fight an unorganized and amorphous enemy considered a good thing then?


(I sooo wish I could find this on youtube or whatever, but as a "cover" that only got play on the Dr Dimento Show, it seems to only exist online as lyrics...)

Like A Suburban Drone
(with apologies to Bob Dylan)

"This is a song for all of you in the Woodstock Generation... who used to smoke weed, and now own a weed-whacker!"
...
You used to be so enthsued
with Abby and Eldridge
and the language that they used
Now when you see kids march on the evening news
you don't go join them
you have to much to lose
...
 
2013-03-08 03:36:50 PM  

Surool: Dear god... I do NOT want to go through the 70s again.


Hey at least the music was better.
 
2013-03-08 03:38:21 PM  

StrikitRich: Maybe, but where would one even begin to look for brown acid these days?




*cough*silkroad*cough*
 
2013-03-08 03:50:09 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Man, anyone that treats Mad Men like a show that reflects nostalgia for a better era has not actually watched Mad Men. Lots of lost miserable people wandering around confused while the world changes around them.


Heh, that would be a good tagline for the show, actually.
 
2013-03-08 03:51:38 PM  
The "good ol' days" weren't.
 
2013-03-08 03:54:52 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Why was marijuana at least partially accepted part of the cultural movement then, but not now?
Why was sexual deviancy?
Why was openness about racial tension? (We still have it, except that fewer people are willing to talk about it)
Why was opposing war to fight an unorganized and amorphous enemy considered a good thing then?

Weed is now legal in two states. That's at least partially accepted.
Fifty Shades of Grey was a top selling novel.
We do still have racial tension, but quite a bit less than in the 60s. Less tension, less talking about it.
That opposition was not uniformly considered a good thing.


Some "revolution". Boomers love patting themselves on the back for it.
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report