# Starving Artist: Totally Insane? Or Just Almost? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 13, 2008, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678 "2008-10-13T05:04:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/341 "2008-10-19T17:35:53Z")
BWAHAHAHAHA! I could have written these responses myself, so predictable and dishonest are they. But, correcting them will have to wait til later. Being a conservative and all, I have work to do and money to make. Chow! **:: waits to see which dumas takes the bait ::** ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/342 "2008-10-19T17:57:40Z")
> [@Mr.Svinlesha](#): > > … and it’s worth time to dissect his arguments for the edification of my fellow dopers. Whatever trips your trigger, I suppose, and I do admit to mildly enjoying reading while far brighter and far better people than he will ever be rip his disingenous ass a new one. Don’t feel it necessary just for me, though; only do it if it amuses you. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/343 "2008-10-19T18:00:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I have run the previous post throught the Snarkatect 9000 (Radio Shack, $19.99) and it detects no hint of irony. So, either its busted, or I owe **XT** a graceful and sincere response. > > It’s probably busted. Yeah, that must be it. Ooooo, a snark detector, that’s a _really_ useful invention. :rolleyes: [/comicbookguy] ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/344 "2008-10-19T18:04:29Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > **:: waits to see which dumas takes the bait ::** Oh, what a thing of beauty. Are you looking for Alexandre, or a different one? ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/345 "2008-10-19T18:06:31Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > :: waits to see which dumas takes the bait :: Five bucks on Fils; Père, like **SA** , is too enamored of the past. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/346 "2008-10-19T18:08:19Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Oh, what a thing of beauty. Are you looking for Alexandre, or a different one? “Ciao!” D’Artagnan hailed the three musketeers. “Chow?” frowned Porthos, “There is much more meat on a spaniel.” ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/347 "2008-10-19T18:12:06Z")
😉 > [@Frank](#): > > Whatever trips your trigger, I suppose, and I do admit to mildly enjoying reading while far brighter and far better people than he will ever be rip his disingenous ass a new one. Once more into the breech, then I’m out of here. Yeah, he ripped me a new one all right. **SA:** Libs oppose laws banning the Crips and Bloods. **Lib poster response:** The LAPD deals with it. **SA:** I was talking about laws, not police policy. **Svin:** (in superior and haughty high dudgeon): Clever the way you move the goal posts there, **SA**. :rolleyes: Some woodshed! ETA: Were I looking for Alexandre, **Hector** , I would have used a capital d. And now, I’m out. Have a good day! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/348 "2008-10-19T18:15:19Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Once more into the breech, then I’m out of here. Yeah, he ripped me a new one all right. > > **SA:** Libs oppose laws banning the Crips and Bloods. > > **Lib poster response:** The LAPD deals with it. > > **SA:** I was talking about laws, not police policy. > > **Svin:** (in superior and haughty high dudgeon): Clever the way you move the goal posts there, **SA**. Correct me if i’m wrong, but it seems like one of \*\*S&I’s \*\*links does suggest the police are using methods which _involve_ the law. Can’t use gang injunctions if there’s no legal system behind them. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/349 "2008-10-19T18:17:16Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Not trying to make any political point here, I’m just genuinely interested in why you think it would be such a ‘hilariously lame defense’. Should we not ask higher standards of public office-holders than we do of other citizens and ourselves? I certainly agree we should have higher standards of public officials than of those of us in ‘everyday’ jobs. What I consider lame is excusing one’s own behavior while claiming to be morally superior to a pol you hate who’s committed the same behavior. Such too-loud protestations are often less about upholding high standards than they are about lowering one’s own. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/350 "2008-10-19T18:21:01Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Correct me if i’m wrong, but it seems like one of \*\*S&I’s \*\*links does suggest the police are using methods which _involve_ the law. Can’t use gang injunctions if there’s no legal system behind them. Sorry, I guess I was taking for granted that everyone would know I was talking about federal laws as those are what I’ve seen proposed. This assumption is also supported by the fact that the Crips, Bloods and similar gangs have infested cities and towns all over the country. I suspect that most here know that and are just being dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/351 "2008-10-19T18:22:01Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > ; > **SA:** Libs oppose laws banning the Crips and Bloods. Cite? Also, I’d love your response to the evidence that conservatives used funding from the drug trade they promoted to fund the Contras. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/352 "2008-10-19T18:27:41Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Sorry, I guess I was taking for granted that everyone would know I was talking about federal laws as those are what I’ve seen proposed. This assumption is also supported by the fact that the Crips, Bloods and similar gangs have infested cities and towns all over the country. It seems to me reasonable to have local laws rather than federal on this issue; having a different legal response to a group, as with gang injunctions, seems like something that could be far too easily abused as a country-wide, standard set that probably wouldn’t be specific enough to help in all cases. Aren’t you a conservative, anyway? I thought one of the main tenets of conservatism over there was small government, laws only where they are necessary. > [@](#): > > I suspect that most here know that and are just being dishonest. This is entirely opinion, but it doesn’t seem particularly reasonable to both claim that other people aren’t merely wrong, but wrong with malice, whilst simultaneously rolling your eyes at other people claiming what you see as the same at you. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/353 "2008-10-19T18:33:57Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Sorry, I guess I was taking for granted that everyone would know I was talking about federal laws as those are what I’ve seen proposed. This assumption is also supported by the fact that the Crips, Bloods and similar gangs have infested cities and towns all over the country. Why would we take that for granted? What you said was: > [@Starving Artist](#): > > How many people have been brutally killed, and how many of their family members’ and loved ones’ lives have been made miserable by, slayings committed by gangs whose existence is defended on the grounds of anti-racism? (It’s perfectly alright to outlaw the Klan, but man you better keep your keep your damn racist hands off the Crips and the Bloods.) There is no mention of federal laws. And again, this stipulation is a totally ad hoc move on your part to defend against contrary evidence. If, as you suggest, liberal influence is so pervasive and destructive, then we wouldn’t see successful legal interventions at the local level, either. > [@](#): > > I suspect that most here know that and are just being dishonest. Take off the tinfoil hat and maybe we can all read your mind better. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/354 "2008-10-19T18:36:24Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Sorry, I guess I was taking for granted that everyone would know I was talking about federal laws as those are what I’ve seen proposed. This assumption is also supported by the fact that the Crips, Bloods and similar gangs have infested cities and towns all over the country. > > I suspect that most here know that and are just being dishonest. So you’re in \*favor \*of federal laws to address local issues? That’s not very conservative of you. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/355 "2008-10-19T18:46:31Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Libs oppose laws banning the Crips and Bloods. Cite? And I’m curious; is such a law even necessary? The United States already has federal laws that can be used to prosecute someone engaged in a criminal enterprise, e.g. the famed RICO statute. There are, of course, laws in the State of California prohbiting all the specific criminal acts the Crips and Bloods are engaged in. What other laws do you think would be useful, that would pass the muster of a court challenge? Are you going to outlaw wearing red or blue? Sure would suck to be a baseball fan in LA, huh? I mean, it’s pretty goddamned sad, dude, when you’re deny black-hating was commonplace in 1955 (when, in fact, it was very commonplace, and it was considered socially acceptable to abuse black people) but claim anyone today cares for the Constitutional rights of the Bloods and the Crips, aside from themselves. Where is this outcry over the rights of street gangs? I’ve never heard of such a thing. But then, you also think long hair leads to the downfall of society. But I think you’re onto something there. Look at all the goddamned long-haired hippies in this picture. Can you imagine these long-haired goofballs accomplishing anything of importance? > **[Articles](https://historycooperative.org/articles/)** > > Below is the list of our most popular articles: How Old Is the United States of America? 12 African Gods and Goddesses: The Orisha Pantheon Ancient Civilizations Timeline: The Complete List from Aboriginals to Incans iPhone History: Every Generation... ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/356 "2008-10-19T19:05:04Z")
**Hentor:** > [@](#): > > _One can clearly see that his premise, the idea that liberals have brought everything bad upon us, shapes his beliefs about what actually has happened in the world (a.k.a. reality). If you could force your mind to believe things like liberals support inner-city gangs, then your premise of bad liberalness would always be upheld. That type of distorted thinking is not exactly what we see with typical mental illness, but it differs as well from what the connotation of stupidity is._ It does seem a mystery, at first, but I think Bob Altemeyer pegs it. **SA** displays all the characteristics of a classic, High Right-Wing Authoritarian. [Here](http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/1/10446/24377) is a quick summary of the theory; [here](http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/) is Altemeyer’s online manual. I understand his research is highly respected: it’s one of the most rigorously tested theories in psychology, which holds up with a much higher level of statistical correlation than one usually sees in the social sciences. (You doubtless know better than I do about that.) Anyway, if you haven’t stumbled across him, I really recommend his work. I find **SA** much easier to grok after having read **The Authoritarians**. Be sure to check out Chapter 3, _ **How Authoritarian Followers Think** _. In fact, here’s a small sample, relevant to the question of who has been more detrimental to the state of the country (or the world). Altemeyer set up an experiment whereby he could compare the behavior of “low RWA” personality types against the behavior of “high RWA” personality types. He engaged two groups of college students in a “sophisticated simulation of the earth’s future called the Global Change Game”, in which between 50 and 70 participants simulate the world’s population and follow a set of rules governing international relations. (There are a number of fairly common versions of this sort of game out there, and anyone who’s taken a Poli Sci or International Relations 101 class has probably played something similar.) What the two groups didn’t know was that they had been carefully screened prior to the exercise and sorted according to their score on Altemeyer’s RWA scale. When the first group of **low RWAs** played the simulation, it went like this: > [@](#): > > \*As soon as the simulation began, the Pacific Rim Elite called for a summit on the “Island Paradise of Tasmania.” All the Elites attended and agreed to meet there again whenever big issues arose. A world-wide organization was thus immediately created by mutual consent. Regions set to work on their individual problems. Swords were converted to ploughshares as the number of armies in the world dropped. No wars or threats of wars occurred during the simulation. [At one point the North American Elite suggested starting a war to his fellow region-aires (two women and one guy), but they told him to go fly a kite–or words to that effect.] > > An hour into the game the facilitators announced a (scheduled) crisis in the earth’s ozone layer. All the Elites met in Tasmania and contributed enough money to buy new technology to replenish the ozone layer. > > Other examples of international cooperation occurred, but the problems of the Third World mounted in Africa and India. Europe gave some aid but North America refused to help. Africa eventually lost 300 million people to starvation and disease, and India 100 million. > > Populations had grown and by the time forty years had passed the earth held 8.7 billion people, but the players were able to provide food, health facilities, and jobs for almost all of them. They did so by demilitarizing, by making a lot of trades that benefited both parties, by developing sustainable economic programs, and because the Elites diverted only small amounts of the treasury into their own pockets. (The North American Elite hoarded the most.) > > One cannot blow off four hundred million deaths, but this was actually a highly successful run of the game, compared to most. No doubt the homogeneity of the players, in terms of their RWA scores and related attitudes, played a role. Low RWAs do not typically see the world as “Us versus Them.” They are more interested in cooperation than most people are, and they are often genuinely concerned about the environment. Within their regional groups, and in the interactions of the Elites, these first-year students would have usually found themselves “on the same page”–and writ large on that page was, “Let’s Work Together and Clean Up This Mess.” **The game’s facilitators said they had never seen as much international cooperation in previous runs of the simulation.** With the exception of the richest region, North America, the lows saw themselves as interdependent and all riding on the same merry-go-round.\* So: how did it go when Altemeyer ran the same simulation with a group selected for **high RWA** traits? > [@](#): > > \*As soon as the game began, the Elite from the Middle East announced the price of oil had just doubled. A little later the former Soviet Union (known as the Confederation of Independent States in 1994) bought a lot of armies and invaded North America. The latter had insufficient conventional forces to defend itself, and so retaliated with nuclear weapons. A nuclear holocaust ensued which killed everyone on earth–7.4 billion people–and almost all other forms of life which had the misfortune of co-habitating the same planet as a species with nukes. > > When this happens in the Global Change Game, the facilitators turn out all the lights and explain what a nuclear war would produce. Then the players are given a second chance to determine the future, turning back the clock to two years before the hounds of war were loosed. The former Soviet Union however rebuilt its armies and invaded China this time, killing 400 million people. The Middle East Elite then called for a “United Nations” meeting to discuss handling future crises, but no agreements were reached. > > At this point the ozone-layer crisis occurred but–perhaps because of the recent failure of the United Nations meeting–no one called for a summit. Only Europe took steps to reduce its harmful gas emissions, so the crisis got worse. Poverty was spreading unchecked in the underdeveloped regions, which could not control their population growth. Instead of dealing with the social and economic problems “back home,” Elites began jockeying among themselves for power and protection, forming military alliances to confront other budding alliances. Threats raced around the room and the Confederation of Independent States warned it was ready to start another nuclear war. Partly because their Elites had used their meager resources to buy into alliances, Africa and Asia were on the point of collapse. An Elite called for a United Nations meeting to deal with the crises–take your pick–and nobody came. > > By the time forty years had passed the world was divided into armed camps threatening each other with another nuclear destruction. One billion, seven hundred thousand people had died of starvation and disease. Throw in the 400 million who died in the Soviet-China war and casualties reached 2.1 billion. Throw in the 7.4 billion who died in the nuclear holocaust, and the high RWAs managed to kill 9.5 billion people in their world–although we, like some battlefield news releases, are counting some of the corpses twice. > > The authoritarian world ended in disaster for many reasons. One was likely the character of their Elites, who put more than twice as much money in their own pockets as the low RWA Elites had. (The Middle East Elite ended up the World’s Richest Man; part of his wealth came from money he had conned from Third World Elites as payment for joining his alliance.) But more importantly, the high RWAs proved incredibly ethnocentric. There they were, in a big room full of people just like themselves, and they all turned their backs on each other and paid attention only to their own group. They too were all reading from the same page, but writ large on their page was, “Care About Your Own; We Are NOT All In This Together.” > > The high RWAs also suffered because, while they say on surveys that they care about the environment, when push comes to shove they usually push and shove for the bucks. That is, they didn’t care much about the long-term environmental consequences of their economic acts. For example a facilitator told Latin America that converting much of the region’s forests to a single species of tree would make the ecosystem vulnerable. But the players decided to do it anyway because the tree’s lumber was very profitable just then. And the highs proved quite inflexible when it came to birth control. Advised that “just letting things go” would cause the populations in underdeveloped areas to explode, the authoritarians just let things go.\* That’s just a sampler. I really recommend the entire book. **Frank:** > [@](#): > > _Whatever trips your trigger, I suppose, and I do admit to mildly enjoying reading while far brighter and far better people than he will ever be rip his disingenous ass a new one. Don’t feel it necessary just for me, though; only do it if it amuses you._ Absolutely. It’s something I do to dawdle the time away. **SA** , taken on his own, is definitely not worth worrying about; the only real problem is that high RWAs make up between 20 and 25% of the population in the US – a very large voting block that, as we have seen, can have a devastating effect on the course of US history. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/357 "2008-10-19T19:07:52Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > How many people have been brutally killed, and how many of their family members’ and loved ones’ lives have been made miserable by, slayings committed by gangs whose existence is defended on the grounds of anti-racism? (It’s perfectly alright to outlaw the Klan, but man you better keep your keep your damn racist hands off the Crips and the Bloods.) Speaking as a liberal, and on behalf of virtually every liberal I know, I’m very much opposed to the idea of “outlawing” the KKK. As a known haven of terrorist activity, I think the authorities should keep a very close eye on them, just as I think that they should keep a close eye on street gangs with a reputation for violence and criminal activity. But outlawing any of these organizations would be a fundamental violation of the core principles of liberalism. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/358 "2008-10-19T19:14:12Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The really annoying thing about all that isn’t so much that it’s completely erroneous, but that blacks had pretty much already accomplished equality…or at least had set all the necessary wheels in motion (government-protected demonstrations, judicial rulings, etc.)…before white liberals began to get involved and decided to include it as part of their fucking up of the country. The only thing that blacks had accomplished (with a significant amount of help from liberals) was _Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka_ and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That act did not sweep through (an almost all white) Congress based on a desire by conservatives to respond to the clear racism of society as demonstrated by numerous acts opposing equal treatment of all persons. I also find it quite interesting that you believe that everything was “in place” to grant Civil Rights when the battle–literal battle–was still being fought. The riots of whites, including police, against the marchers out of Selma occurred nne months after the aforementioned Civil Rights Act. (That march was a response to the fact that despite the new law, blacks continued to be denied the right to vote.) The only significant judicial ruling in support of the Civil Rights movement that was not tied to the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act was _Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka_ from 1954, the implementation of which was still being resisted in the courts at least as late as 1974. Having the “wheels in motion” (with unenforced judicial rulings) hardly counts as having the black community actually be granted full citizenship. (And you never have explained how the “liberals” actually hurt the country by supporting Civil Rights.) > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > How many people have been brutally killed, and how many of their family members’ and loved ones’ lives have been made miserable by, slayings committed by gangs whose existence is defended on the grounds of anti-racism? (It’s perfectly alright to outlaw the Klan, but man you better keep your keep your damn racist hands off the Crips and the Bloods.) Leaving aside your silly and false attempt to claim that “liberals” tried to outlaw the Klan while defending the Crips and Bloods, the reality of the gangs and the crimes has far more to do with the clash between a society–liberal, conservative, and unconcerned–harshly repeating the mistake of the 1920s attempt to suppress alcohol than to any “liberal” promotion of drugs or the Constitutionally protected rights of the accused. The imposition of or special enforcement of laws to make a commodity illegal is the strongest contributing factor to the creation of gangs. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > How many people have died, and how many of their family members’ and loved ones’ lives have been ruined because of drugs and their concomitant problems, which can often include crime, gangsterism, beatings and killings? (And this doesn’t take into account the more minor but still important question involving all the people who have been robbed or had their houses broken into by druggies looking for stuff they could sell or pawn for drug money. I hardly know anyone who hasn’t been robbed or had things stolen at some point over the years for precisely that reason.) Again, the personal misery caused by drugs in the U.S. has tended to be relatively constant from mid-1800s to the present, varying somewhat by the channels of distribution and cultural popularity. Societies that accept a certain amount of drug use, aiming to regulate it without prohibiting it or actually handling it through prescribed distribution have suffered far less damage than those societies that have attempted to eradicate it. And, as noted, the criminal element has more to do with the attempt to prohibit drugs, as well. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > How many people have been raped, tortured, and/or murdered…and how many of their family members and loved ones have had their lives ruined…by criminals let loose by liberal judges and correctional systems who went through a period of blaming crime on the injustices caused by society, and whose policies finally became so outrageous that the country finally had to enact three-strikes laws in an effort to keep criminals in jail? Probably not that many, actually. The actual crime rate has pretty consistently followed the demographics of males between the ages of 15 and 35, rising as their numbers rose and falling as their numbers fell, regardless how many people were incarcerated. Three-strikes rules are simply a simplistic over-reaction to the situation that trumped the more intelligent “habitual criminal” laws that they replaced. Incarcerations have risen as we have outlawed far more drug-related actions, but those numbers appear to be irrelevant to the actual incidence of violent crime. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > So you see, the pain and suffering caused by wrongheaded liberal dipshitism outweighs by far the pain and suffering caused by racists of the fifties…and by many orders of magnitude, IMO. I find your opinion, supported only by a rather skewed view of history, to be unpersuasive. I will grant youa bit of leeway that the coareseness of day-to-day language might have arisen on the Left (although it has certainly been embraced wholeheartedly on the Right). However, > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And if I had a dollar for every time some dipshit refused to dim his brights or tailgated me even though I was already going five or ten miles an hour over the speed limit, or either refused to let me change lanes or merge into traffic, I’d be a very rich guy indeed. This is silly. Failure to dim lights and tailgating are the marks of the wealthy “I own the road” personality–people typically moving in so-called “conservative” circles–far more than something that arose among those who wished to ensure that all citizens were treated equally. I do not doubt that you perceive an increase in such actions or that you believe that such things were the result of the general coarsening of society, but the first is confirmation bias and the second is merely projection. (The “me” generation did not actually arise on the Left, but among the folks on the Right in the 1970s with their Robert Ringers and other Right wing gurus of greed.) > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > None of these things have emanated from the influence of the right, I can guarantee you. Sorry. You are just being silly, now. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > It was in the wake of the Beatles that the fad for long hair (which **tomndebb** mentioned upthread) and oddball clothing took root and set the huge baby-boom generation against the ‘Establishment’…as it was called back then…and the resentment they felt over their treatment by society is the true genesis of the idea that everything about society as it existed then had to go…up to and including civility and decent behavior. I really hope that you are being facetious, here. The only thing the Beatles did was give martinets on the Right the opportunity to make up bullshit rules to enforce about hair length. If teens reacted against idiotic rules from the “Establishment,” then that would seem to indicate a larger problem among the rule makers than the people against whom such rules were enforced. At any rate, the Beatles were only a single blip on a continuum of changes that had begun in the 1950s and would have proceeded regardless of their appearance. There were lots of calls for the suppression of “race music” long before anyone gave it the sexual name “Rock and Roll” with condemnations of “Elvis the Pelvis” for his blatant sexuality ten years prior to the arrival in the U.S. of the Beatles. There were constant complaints against the “lewd” and “lascivious” dances such at The Twist and The Mashed Potato and others four years prior to the Beatles’ U.S. debut. Throughout the 1950s, there were all sorts of calls for censorship based on the ideas that music and movies and even comic books were corrupting American youth. If you actually believe that the Beatles were the cause of social disruption, (as opposed to simply imaginative beneficiaries of it), then I am not sure what to say to you, beyond saying that you are clearly wrong. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > These people then found a rallying point in the Vietnam war, which had gone to shit thanks to the Johnson administration’s handling of it, and we were off to the races. At this point, I begin to doubt that you actually were there in the 1950s or 1960s (or else you have an amazingly selective memory). Opposition to the U.S. involvement in Vietnam began (somewhat slowly) during the Kennedy administration when people began to question why we were supporting a regime that was so corrupt that its own citizens were committing suicide by self-immolation to protest our puppet. At the time that the earliest anti-war protests began, there was no serious understanding among the U.S. populace that the war was being mismanaged. By 1968, when many aspects of societal cohesion were crumbling, I would agree that the war was widely perceived as a bad thing, but blaming war resistance on Johnson’s mismanagement ignores the actual events in the manner in which they occurred. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Flower-power, the anti-war movement, tree-hugging, the eager adoption of drug use, the so-called sexual revolution, etc., ensued. It was also at this time that the left belatedly began to embrace civil rights (and feminism) and to develop their tactic of using hate-speech (racist, bigot, male chauvinist pig, etc.) anytime anyone said anything they didn’t like, no matter how reasonable. > > And of course, it didn’t take long for Democratic politicians to begin to pander to these people - who were suddenly coming of age to vote - and to appoint judges who began to legislate from the bench and circumvent the process for change to the constitution through amendments. Aside from your distorted chronology, you seem to have mixed up a lot of things, imposing ideologies and events in retrospect that were not present at the times you need them to have been occurring. Flower power was a silly slogan that never gained a political following as the anti-war movement morphed from one of “war is bad” to “this war must be stopped, violently if necessary.” As noted, the anti-war movement actually had separate phases with the first beginning long before Johnson came to power. The sexual revolution had rather little to do with calls for the rise of the libertine state by those on the Left and everrything to do with the development of the birth control pill that allowed people, Left, Right, Center, and uncommitted, to engage in sex with few worries about pregnancy. There may have been louder spokespersons for free love (a concept that dated to the 19th century) on the Left, but the actual revolution was going on with or without the rhetoric. Democrats did not jump on the anti-war bandwagon as soon as the anti-war movement began; they were dragged into the anti-war camp as the result of the intransigence of the Republicans in the face of the mounting casualties being shown on TV every night. A couple of the most prominent political opponents to the war were Democrats, but the Democratic party did not embrace that position until it became a rallying cry against Nixon after his second election and shortly before the U.S. began to withdraw. The idea that Democrats began appointing activist judges in response to political movements in the late 1960s simply falls apart on any review of the evidence. You might get away with claiming that “liberals” were responsible for activist judges, generally, but that charge would have to go back to the 1930s to bear any correspondence to reality. I also decry the name-calling that has become the hallmark of many on the left. However, pretending that such name-calling did not actually begin in response to “commie,” “pinko,” “nigger- lover,” “un-American,” “traitor,” “fag,” “race traitor,” and ultimately “liberal” is simpy not historically accurate. It was no liberal who told her child, following the Kent State massacre, that she wished that her daughter (who had not been involved in the student protests) had been shot, as well. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/359 "2008-10-19T19:14:51Z")
I am befuddled. How should we go about outlawing street gangs? Should Congess pass a bill that explicitly mentions the Bloods and the Crips? The antisocial behavior that street gangs engage in is already illegal, but the right to free assembly is Constutitionally protected. What more could we, as a society, do to express our disapproval about street gangs? This is a serious question. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/360 "2008-10-19T19:35:23Z")
Since when was the KKK outlawed? -Joe [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678.md?page=19)