Now that’s an interesting choice. I’d probably prefer to ask those at the sharp end of infant mortality improvements but…
hard choice isnt it? I’ll let you tell the world’s poor that improvement in their living conditions will have to wait.
If, after saying “OK Boomer”, you are going to say something worth listening to that you think it is worth the other side hearing…why not start with the actual meat of your argument instead? You think they are more likely to listen with an open mind after you’ve insulted them?
There is a world of difference between shutting down an argument because of the quality of what’s being said, and shutting it down just because of who is saying it. An argument isn’t crap based on the number of times it is repeated nor on the age of the person who says it. It becomes crap based on the solidity of the reasoning and the evidence. You listen and you explore and you counter and you learn.
The phrase “OK Boomer” strongly implies prejudice and a closed mind, as do terms such as “snowflake”. First you label the group then you can label any argument that comes from them and that’s a terrible was to progress.
You think that “OK boomer” is going to make anyone listen?
It doesn’t especially bother me, any more than “snowflake” accusations do. When it’s used in response to whinging about millennials, or other patronizing generational bullshit, it’s a snappy clapback.
But in other contexts, it just makes me think the person using it isn’t very good at political analysis.
Very well said. Since this has started to pop up in my various feeds it’s been mostly the later and rarely the former.
Almost all of what I’ve seen has been people arguing over it, like this thread. Much fun.
Exactly. The vast majority of seeing this on social media has been as a clapback to those who sneer at snowflakes or millennials (and has usually been a hilarious clapback at that - someone called me a ‘libtard’ the other week to my face and I wish I knew about ‘Ok, Boomer’). And then those being clapbacked not responding well to getting a taste of their own medicine.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
“…that’s not where the negative aspects lie.” Yes, I can see wanting to avoid that.
False dichotomy. Improvements in their living conditions along sustainable lines are certainly possible. They’re just not being done.
Instead, they get McDs and petrol cars and consumerist propoganda disguised as entertainment.
And I should care about a graph that ends just before the current authoritarian rise, because…?
That actually makes sense!
Well, that’s one tiny mystery solved this week then
(now back to your regular scheduled griping about those weird not-us folks who are terrible in not-us kind of ways, particularly the awful way they think that they’re the ‘us’ and we’re the not-us. Can you imagine!)
You ain’t wrong. It pretty much *begs *to be replied to with “OK boomer :rolleyes:”.
That’s wildly not the point. The point is giving up trying to explain anything to somebody who just won’t listen anyway.
What negative aspects did you highlight? I’m assuming you agree that my clearly stated positive aspect is a good thing?
I’ve been consistent in what I’ve said. There is no blanket improvement in every way in every place in every situation. I think the improvements in infant mortality are a good thing. If you think increasing life expectancy in Japan is a bad thing and it outweighs the former then…OK. We clearly disagree. I think, seeing as you haven’t said what the problem is with Japanese life expectancies it is hard to know.
I see, they have to run their desires through you first…gotcha. You are wise enough to know what is good for them. You missed your calling with the British Empire.
because it covers the post-war period that I’e referring to and it shows that gradual upward curve. If there was a catastrophic dip in world democracy post 2003 then absolutely that would be a terrible thing but…good news…it doesn’t seem to be the case.
So? Bolsonaro was elected. Trump was elected. Erdogan was elected. Duda was elected. McConnell, Wilders, Le Pen, etc. all were elected. All of those legislators in southern states who are trampling all over the rights of women and minorities were elected. Elected by scared old people (Boomers in the US) who will vote for anyone who looks “strong,” promises to get rid of anything they don’t like and promises to protect them from their own shadows.
Nothing about democracy prevents an authoritarian from gaining power.
OK bummer.
Absolutely, it is the means of getting aresholes into power and the means of booting them out too.
Is democracy only a good thing when it guarantees electing a person you approve of? As has often been repeated, democracy is the worst system of government apart from all the rest.
Would we be better off rolling back the clock to a point when democracy was the exception?
That graph is odd, firstly using a strict number of democrocies vs number of autocracies, presumably completely ignoring population sizes and impact. Also they consider there was exactly 1 democracy in 1900! Whatever figures they’re using I don’t trust them.
Sure, kid.
I suggested that democracy has increased overall since the war. The figures seem to bear me out.
As for the orginal chart you commented on, there is a button to click on there that gives the source of the data and also there is a other chart that shows the share of world population living in democracies.
I’m not a kid, son.
Whatever you say, sweetie.
Do I really need to explain to you what the negative aspects of longer life expectancy are for countries that are past the demographic transition, of which Japan is the poster child? How an aging population puts a drain on services and the economy?
Sure.
So coy.
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?
Perhaps you’d care to highlight where in that page it makes your case?
Noting that by decreased democracy, I’m including Philippines, Brazil etc, so we’re not just talking “allowed to vote” as a criterion here.