How would you put numbers to how shitty a democracy is?
And again - an irrelevant number.
Easily disproved, then, by all the conservation success stories you’re about to post…
Seems like a perfectly apt response to your “feature, not a bug” dismissal of real murders and oppression. No, usurpation is not actually a feature of democracy.
Shitty democracies being one of those systems.
Did I say that was what I thought, or what Millennials are seeing? Not the same thing.
I’m not against it. I am against doing it without addressing the consequences.
Bullshit. You’re the one who brought autocracies into it, I’ve only been talking about relative democracy.
And I keep pointing out that that’s an irrelevant point. Millennials care that the world is worse off today than 20 years ago, not 70…and getting steadily worse. Waving your irrelevant graph at them is not going to change their minds when they have their own, muchmoreimportant, ones.
Global warming is having a far more drastic impact on the world’s poor’s standard of living than any other factor right now. But we’ll just tell them you said they’ve never had it so good.
In many respects the world is a much better place than it was 70 years. In some ways it is worse. There is nothing particularly controversial about that is there?
Dibble, you are all over the place on this. I remind you that I was making the case that in some ways the world is better now than it was 70 years ago. In my opinion it is *overall *a better place to live than in the immediate post-war. That’s it. Hence my “random person” mental test.
Those charts you provide are evidence for some specific ways in which the world has got worse, I agree with all of them and could add more myself. Social media and data security just for starters. Those are all target areas that we need to be vigilant about and on which further action is needed and about which Millenials *should *be angry and about which they will seek to address.
You continue to write as if I said or implied that the world was perfect. I’ve stated time and time again that it isn’t. I have said that in my opinion it is a pretty good place and that it could be better but that there are plenty of good things that previous generations have done that we can build on and plenty of improvements left to make.
It was pushback against the lazy assumption that the world is a terrible place. In my opinion it is not.
I don’t think the negatives being experienced now are irrelevant, unimportant or imaginary. If you want to argue about that with someone then I suggest you find someone who does hold that opinion.
And I remind you that I’m making the case that those aren’t the ways that matter to Millennials.
And in the opinion of Millennials, it’s overall a worse place than the turn of the century. That’s it.
No.
What I’m saying you’re saying (since you’ve said it outright), is that the bad stuff is outweighed by the good stuff. And that just isn’t the case, since some of the bad stuff Millennials can see coming is “many of us are going to die”. Kind of outweighs other things.
There. That’s the thing that gets up Millennials’ nose - this notion that they haven’t done their research, or lack experience, or whatever other justification you choose to pull out of your arse for calling it a “lazy assumption.” As opposed to an informed opinion.
If they’re none of those things, then why does basing one’s idea of the possible future arising from them count as “lazy” to you?
A well-informed opinion on the comparative current state of the world since the war would necessarily require a consideration of how it has been in the past yes? If I don’t see any evidence of that then I’ll call it lazy. I won’t *assume *it is lazy just because of the age of the person uttering it.
If you read back, the lazy assumption I was pushing back against was from a poster in this thread, not the whole demographic of “millennials”. That would be in conflict with my detestation of identity politics. I do people the courtesy of treating them as individuals first rather than a group member. It is what you say that matters rather than what you are.
Some of them are brilliant, insightful deep thinkers and some of whom are as thick as pig shit. Many are somewhere in between. Plenty of them will indeed think the world has gone to shit, many will agree with me that the world is a pretty good place.
I have no idea what age that particular poster was in this case, nor do I care, nor does it matter. It shouldn’t matter.
It isn’t lazy, it is exactly what we should do. Look at how the world can be better and try to bring that about. That is exactly how we should all approach the world
I haven’t read the thread; but something has been nagging me, and I want to say something even if it’s already been addressed.
Depending on which definition you use, I am either a Baby Boomer, or Generation X. I identify as Gen X. It’s true that many Boomers are out of touch. It’s true that many Boomers’ mindsets are causing the problems we have today. But since I, and many people like me, are diametrically opposed to that those particular members of our age group stand for, I object to being dismissed as a Boomer. ‘Oh, you’re old. You don’t know anything.’ Ageism, much? Suppose I dismissed people of colour just because of their colour, or people o a certain religion just because of their religion? I’d be banned from the Internet.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I object to being lumped in with Those People.
No, saying it “outright” would mean that I’d actually said it. I haven’t. Instead of imagining what I said let me quote me, from early on in the thread.
Just in case you need it spelling out, the bad might well outweigh the good right now (that’d be a personal judgement call and will vary from place to place and person to person) but also that the bad outweighed the good* EVEN MORE* in the past. Heck, the bad might well always outweigh the good, the world can still get better.
You could have saved yourself a lot of argument by simply agreeing with me right at the start and stating that you weren’t interested in whether the world was a better place now than just after the war.
Just because you assert something doesn’t mean it’s true. It reminds me of using racial slurs and defending it by saying you only mean the “bad” members of that race.
No, but really though, is he ? Has *anyone *told him “OK, boomer” ?
Because if not, he should probably refer back to post #87 (written by a self-described boomer, one might add).
I mean you completely missed the very obvious point I was trying to make while asking overly pedantic questions in an effort to reframe the discussion so that you can try and score a point.
That behavior is exactly the type of bullshit OK Boomer is used to dismiss. Thus, you were dismissed.
This is another excellent example of the condescending, paternalistic bullshit masquerading as “wisdom” that OK Boomer is designed to dismiss.
No one is saying that older folks don’t have valuable things to contribute. No one is saying that younger folks know it all. No one thinks they have discovered anything new…well, other than OK Boomer can piss off some older folks quite easily. It’s that bullshit attitude of “I was born before you and I haven’t died yet so naturally I know how to navigate [insert topic of disagreement here] better than everyone younger than myself.”
