Hmm Finn, I did say we had done it before but I apologize for not giving you credit. However, I don’t think that was actually the thread I had been thinking of, but that’s beside the point.
So it seems that Starving Artist has posted something that was specifically shown to him to be false and yet he posted it again. What can we conclude from this? I know what Lobohan would say, but perhaps we should not immediately attribute this behavior to malice. However, that leaves us only that he didn’t read, didn’t understand, or can’t remember what you posted, unless anyone can think of another reason.
He’s busy compiling all the civil rights legislation passed in the 50’s. Boy, I’m really going to be embarassed when he gets done, and shows me how wrong I was!
Yeah, the Beatles weren’t all that influential in fostering social change by means of activism. What they did was trigger a hair-and-clothing style that set the young baby-boom generation against the rest of society. That style, which originally was pretty, uh, stylish, morphed, by virtue of the Stones and the Who, etc. into a more raggedy and dirty and unwholesome one, which of course set the baby boom generation even more at odds with the rest of society.
Then, the Beatles and almost every other popular musician or group of musicians of the time began to embrace drug use like it was manna from heaven, and the baby boom sheeple picked that up as well. This is yet another thing that set the them at odds with society at that time.
So once this had been going on for four or five years and the baby boom generation began to reach voting age in significant numbers, politicians (almost invariably Democrats) began to pander to them, Hollywood began to pander to, reflect and glamorize them, television shows began to pander to, reflect and glamorize them, the news media began to pander to, glamorize and reflect them, and their ways of dress, drug use and immature political beliefs gradually infected and became adopted by a large segment of the country’s population, which of course has brought us to where we are today. (I.e., IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ELIMINATING RACISM!!!)
Ahem…
So, while the Beatles didn’t directly and intentionally cause this erosion of American standards, they were the catalyst that set the wheels in motion. (My apologies for the mixed metaphore. ;))
What are you going on about this 50’s legislation crap for? If I said that, kindly show me where I did and I’ll amend it to pre-1968 legislation which is what I would have meant.
You guys are the ones that keep trying to pin me down to the 50’s since you seem to think it allows you to negate whatever it is you don’t like hearing about the good old days. Personally, I think the country reached its zenith around 1960 to '68.
Nah…Finn’s posts are TLDR and trying to respond to them bogs me down to the point that I don’t have time for everyone else.
Plus he likes to drege shit up from a year or more ago and then I have to go back and read up for context and details and shit like that.
So basically I just do with him pretty much the same thing I do with tomndebb’s posts, which are similar, and just let them lie there for people to make of what they will. I’m content that I do a pretty good job of saying what I mean myself and I don’t feel the need to go back and argue with people who try to cast it in a different light.
And now that time has come, as it inevitably does, when the old clock on the wall says I got work to do. So I’m outta here for now. If anybody should happen into the Palin thread I’d appreciate it if they would explain that my absence there doesn’t mean I’m at a loss for words but merely not around for the moment. Kthxbye.
The media glorifies drug use? Okay, maybe pot is seen as cool (though to be honest, it’s pretty harmless, so I can’t get up in arms about that). Though the stereotype of the pothead is someone who hangs around doing nothing so I don’t see the glorification.
Cocaine? Okay, sometimes cocaine looks pretty cool. But most movies about or involving heroin I can think of makes it look really gross and disgusting.
LSD/acid doesn’t seem so much cool as it is funny to watch. (The cliche of someone tripping on acid, everything getting all colorful.) Plus, again, the stereotype here seems more spaced out hippie, less cool/hip/urbane youth.
Also, for what it’s worth, sitcoms/shows aimed at teen are embarrassingly puritanical to the point where having so much as a sip of beer has to result in hours of vomiting, a hangover, or someone getting into a car crash and vowing never to drink again.
Plus, sometimes something can be portrayed as cool or enjoyable but not necessarily good. The movie “Go” is fairly fun, and I don’t think it really has an anti anything message. The characters do drugs, stuff happens–some good, some bad, some funny–but it’s not going to make anyone go out and do Ecstasy unless they were already so inclined.
What I make of them is that when confronted by an actual documented fact, you run away, and then continue to pretend that said fact does not exist. In subsequent discussions, you trot out your version of reality and again pretend that the facts do not exist.
