Well, just for the record, I bust caps in asses on a regular basis and I not only call women bitches and hos, I keep my pimp hand strong too. But I tuck my shirt in, and I went to a charter school.
Of course not everyone was civil back then. Not everyone is civil now. I didn’t say that because well bred people didn’t use “fuck” or “nigger” in polite company (or ANY company) that such things didn’t happen. “Age of Innocence” is a wonderful movie, precisely because of the tension caused by the facade of polite company and all that seething emotion and power plays going on underneath. “Bless your heart” is alive and well, and is just fine with me. IMO, better that than “fuck you, you skanky bitch”. YMMV.
I’m not sure who this is directed toward, but I don’t agree with your premise. I don’t sanction ignoring actual behavior in favor of nice words–where’s the good in that? How did we get from not saying nigger is good, so we’ll ignore lynching (or approve of them or something)? Politeness and decorum in public (and I’d say private, too) does not mean ostracism is desired or approved of. That’s just bizarre. I agree that it’s easier and more comfortable to be around others who are like you, but that is not a requirement for civil discourse.
See? Words DO matter. Verbal abuse is horrible and can be more damaging than physical abuse. Which is not to say that physical abuse is in any way acceptable…
Agreed. But I miss (apparently with SA, which makes me not so happy, because I feel a huge loss of credibility here, but there it is) being able to grocery shop without kids screaming and their parents yelling their names two aisles over. I miss children calling me Mrs [Last Name] --and I do not give them permission to call me Eleanor; I will correct them if they do so. I deplore badly behaved kids and teens etc, and really don’t think I should have to make the self-deprecating joke about getting off my lawn here. There are lots of polite, well mannered kids, teens and adults out there, but not as many as there once were. I’m probably as liberal as you are, but I miss those nice touches that eased social discourse. I’m not about to advocate going back to those days–there was too much bad and just plain wrong about them–but I do wish that raunchiness didn’t rule and that people erred on the side of uber-politeness rather than rudeness. Everything else can stay. 
Don’t you be mocking me child.
I don’t know if it’s been posted yet, but I give you this, the ultimate precis-in-a-picture of the Starving Artist Weltanschauung
http://www.tearsforamerica.com/images/Great_Depression_Soup_Line.jpg
OMG it’s perfect.
Well, there’s the proof, people. Look at how calmly and politely all those colored folk are standing in line.
Starving Artist:
My list of demands is brief:
-
View an episode of War Pigs.* Tell me what you think it says about conservatives.
-
Defend any one of your claims with a factual cite.
- They cleaned up the audio and used more contemporary subject matter for this one
Can we make him poor, rural black in the South and a woman too?
Well, we don’t really know that he’s not, not really. Due to his reluctance to draw any attention to himself, you understand…
Uh, this appears to be little more than a Black Sabbath song set to random modern war images. I’ve already registered my disagreement with SA’s viewpoint, but I gotta wonder what the heck this video is supposed to prove. What am I missing?
A form of penance, perhaps? Two Hail Marys and one Black Sabbath?
The rockin’-est absolution.
Just trying to press the point that in the last few decades, instead of miracles the conservatives have given us first Vietnam, then Iraq.
What does it prove? Well, the song is basically a hateful curse. The fact that these guys were able to get 10 feet out of their garage tells me they tapped into some popular sentiment back in the day, as screaming about the Devil usually gets a person exactly nowhere. All this time later it seems to fit our nation’s latest conservative experience pretty well. They talk a good game about morals and clean living but it always turns out to be a heinous lie/misdirection technique.
Not my most rigorous point, I admit.
Plus, compare to Emerson’s gentility. That was nice, but got exactly zero results. Vietnam protesters, for all their crudeness and madness, eventually got results.
When the hell did LBJ turn into a conservative?
I think we should give them rights. Not too many. Maybe like 3/5ths of what I’ve got.
-Joe
snerk You’re a bad, bad man.
I can’t say that I agree with SA, because he lives in his own fantasy world, and it’s just special.
But I have to agree that I would prefer to live in a politer, more civil, society. Certainly not going back to the 50s, because there’s very little about the 50s that I’d find agreeable. But less rudeness, here and now, that would be good.
It seems like it should be possible to have civil conduct without giving up modern living. I’m not sure how to get there, though. I suspect that all of the polite folks need to grow some vertabrae and start insisting on respect. Politely, of course.
Not sure I understand how I’m bad. I intend no slight upon Pete or Lee, in fact they’re my heroes. They and the rest of The Weavers endured McCarty blacklisting for their free speech activities. Pete continued his admirable involvement in politics (“Any time you’ve got more than three people together, that’s politics!” said he) and the way that Lee dealt with his diabetes, including serial amputations, is a model we could all aspire to when accommodating to our own personal travails.
I too wish that we were all more polite. Politeness is to be encouraged. But politeness is hardly emblematic of the 50s.
The real gripe with **SA **is his refusal to see past his own preconceptions, and to accept facts as being weightier than his own observations. He also declares causal relationships where no demonstration of causality has been made. And he ascribes everything to the impossibly broad brush of “liberal attitudes”. All of this is bogus, and infuriating beyond the first repetition.
Let’s take one simple portion of **Starker’s **rabid hit list, and look at the rise of gang culture revolving around gangsta ethos and fueled by drugs and drug money. He blames liberals for somehow allowing, enabling, or accepting (or failing to sufficiently condemn) what began as childish selfish behavior and grew into the current nightmare that is urban gang society. Allow me to at least make the contrary argument.
Highly abbreviated version: I suggest instead that conservative social engineering was directly to blame. Outlawing all recreational drugs, enforcing this for the most trivial possession, and constant moralizing about a “war on drugs” is what created and fueled the gangsta drug culture. Restrictions on free trade of these substances have made cheap agricultural products worth thousands of dollars per pound. Inner city youth have a clear career path toward incredible wealth, and it isn’t through the school system. Sell <illegal> drugs, get rich. Be strong and ruthless and protect your wealth and business. Associate together for mutual benefit, not in a conventional corporation but in a more personal, more rebellious way through gang membership. Inner city society can then idealize this behavior, affecting music and dress. Short story—illegal drugs creates our gang problem.
I offer this as a contrast to **SA’s **inability to identify any direct means whereby liberal attitudes were the cause. **SA **is invited to defeat my argument by furnishing relevant cites. I’ll wait.
Sorry, I thought you were making a funny. You know, because you were commenting about changing the words to more gender-inclusive lyrics, apparently sort of in response to SA’s anti-feminist screed. And you mentioned that later group that made the song famous, but neglected to mention the female member of the trio. It made me snicker.
'Tis true, ‘tis true. His ability to completely ignore the problems caused by Prohibition* and the societal changes during that time** (and even suggest that we should do it again for alcohol!) and totally disregard the fact that the same method has caused the very same problems again today is nothing short of astounding. But it must be the liberals’ fault.
*hint: gangs, gang warfare, drive-by shootings, organized crime syndicates, corruption, loss of civil liberties
**hint[sup]2[/sup]: speakeasies, jazz, increased tolerance of minorities, acceptance of gays, women’s rights and sexual liberation, “sexy” clothes and a generally-decried “ruination of society” by the flappers & their ilk - good lord, the damn decade is called “The Roaring Twenties” fer cryinoutloud
I wouldn’t give up sex and breathing, if I were you.
How about I tell you what I think it says about liberals who think splicing together some images and putting it together with a bad song makes a debate point? I think it says that that some liberals lack an understanding of what an argument is.
Does that help?