Working class people were better off back then because of a stronger labor movement. Moreover, the minimum wage, and unemployment compensation adjusted for inflation were worth more.
When comparing the 1950's with now, we must also consider the increase since then in black social pathology. There are taboos against discussing that. They are taboos I have criticized in this thread. Most whites blame the increase in black social pathology on the Democrat Party. This is the major reason most white workers vote Republican. I consider a white working class that is an enthusiastic Republican constituency to be a bizarre anamoly. The tendency of low income whites to vote Republican is what I would call "white social pathology." Unfortunately, it exists.
In an earlier comment I condemned McCarthyism. You seem to have trouble understanding the nuances of my thinking.
I think what Scribe is trying to say here is that he'd like to retain the bits about the 50s he likes and not the parts he doesn't like, having them perfectly balance and not affect anyone negatively.
I am ambivalent about the 1950's. I am also ambivalent about the 1960's. I like ambivalence. It prevents fanaticism.
BTW, I have little good to say about the 1970's. the 1980's or this decade. I do like the 1990's.
The Scribe on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think the question was posed in relation to legislation as a result of this hypothetical study.
I thought it was a side digression when someone ironically named "The Scribe" started advocating censorship of ideas he didn't like.
Haven't read Scribes post but on the subject: I think completely censoring neo-nazi, fundies and racists would be a good step to make this a better world. Yes freedom of speech and writing is super-important but things like these that every normal person in the world knows is shit should be detested not only by people but the law. Remove their rights I say!
They could start by pulling down the Westboro Baptist Church's homepage for instance...
I think the question was posed in relation to legislation as a result of this hypothetical study.
I thought it was a side digression when someone ironically named "The Scribe" started advocating censorship of ideas he didn't like.
Haven't read Scribes post but on the subject: I think completely censoring neo-nazi, fundies and racists would be a good step to make this a better world. Yes freedom of speech and writing is super-important but things like these that every normal person in the world knows is shit should be detested not only by people but the law. Remove their rights I say!
They could start by pulling down the Westboro Baptist Church's homepage for instance...
The right to dissidence is at the core of free speech. Don't you see the potential for abuse if the government was given blanket rights to censor "universally despised" ideologies? At one point in time suggesting that there is no God would be considered a "universally despised" ideology. So would have been suggesting that blacks and whites could intermingle and coexist equally.
Banning an ideology just serves to martyr its proponents anyway. Why not just have it in the open, where it is open to discussion and refutation?
I think the question was posed in relation to legislation as a result of this hypothetical study.
I thought it was a side digression when someone ironically named "The Scribe" started advocating censorship of ideas he didn't like.
Haven't read Scribes post but on the subject: I think completely censoring neo-nazi, fundies and racists would be a good step to make this a better world. Yes freedom of speech and writing is super-important but things like these that every normal person in the world knows is shit should be detested not only by people but the law. Remove their rights I say!
They could start by pulling down the Westboro Baptist Church's homepage for instance...
This doesn't do what you think it does. What it does is ensure that no one who thinks these things ever need be challenged in their views - it means that they are free to spread them to whoever they want so long as they do it covertly. If they succeed, then those people in turn do this and are equally never able to be directly challenged on their views because they never reveal them.
Completely ironically - censorship is highly effective at promoting what it hides doubly so if you're going to punish the rights of individuals.
I think the question was posed in relation to legislation as a result of this hypothetical study.
I thought it was a side digression when someone ironically named "The Scribe" started advocating censorship of ideas he didn't like.
Haven't read Scribes post but on the subject: I think completely censoring neo-nazi, fundies and racists would be a good step to make this a better world. Yes freedom of speech and writing is super-important but things like these that every normal person in the world knows is shit should be detested not only by people but the law. Remove their rights I say!
They could start by pulling down the Westboro Baptist Church's homepage for instance...
This doesn't do what you think it does. What it does is ensure that no one who thinks these things ever need be challenged in their views - it means that they are free to spread them to whoever they want so long as they do it covertly. If they succeed, then those people in turn do this and are equally never able to be directly challenged on their views because they never reveal them.
Completely ironically - censorship is highly effective at promoting what it hides doubly so if you're going to punish the rights of individuals.
I guess you're both right. But in an ideal world...
I am ambivalent about the 1950's. I am also ambivalent about the 1960's. I like ambivalence. It prevents fanaticism.
BTW, I have little good to say about the 1970's. the 1980's or this decade. I do like the 1990's.
Yeah, you still haven't copped to the fact that you basically want to legislate your will.
Of course I do. So does everyone who votes.
Which is stupid and unrealistic. This thread isn't about what you want the world to be like, it's about what should and shouldn't be legislated. I'd love for it to be against the law to be racist and for that law to magically work out. But I know that, realistically, this would lead to more problems then it is solved.
I am ambivalent about the 1950's. I am also ambivalent about the 1960's. I like ambivalence. It prevents fanaticism.
BTW, I have little good to say about the 1970's. the 1980's or this decade. I do like the 1990's.
Yeah, you still haven't copped to the fact that you basically want to legislate your will.
Of course I do. So does everyone who votes.
Which is stupid and unrealistic. This thread isn't about what you want the world to be like, it's about what should and shouldn't be legislated. I'd love for it to be against the law to be racist and for that law to magically work out. But I know that, realistically, this would lead to more problems then it is solved.
I do not understand the difference between trying to achieve the kind of world I would like to live in and deciding what should and should not be legislated. We cannot legislate against bigoted attitudes, but we did legislate against racial discrimination.
I am ambivalent about the 1950's. I am also ambivalent about the 1960's. I like ambivalence. It prevents fanaticism.
BTW, I have little good to say about the 1970's. the 1980's or this decade. I do like the 1990's.
Yeah, you still haven't copped to the fact that you basically want to legislate your will.
Of course I do. So does everyone who votes.
Which is stupid and unrealistic. This thread isn't about what you want the world to be like, it's about what should and shouldn't be legislated. I'd love for it to be against the law to be racist and for that law to magically work out. But I know that, realistically, this would lead to more problems then it is solved.
I do not understand the difference between trying to achieve the kind of world I would like to live in and deciding what should and should not be legislated. We cannot legislate against racist attitudes, but we did legislate against racial discrimination.
I guess it comes down to pragmatism. Legislating the restriction of some ideas (which is what censorship is, really) often does more harm than good to society as a whole.
I do not understand the difference between trying to achieve the kind of world I would like to live in and deciding what should and should not be legislated. We cannot legislate against bigoted attitudes, but we did legislate against racial discrimination.
Some values aren't important enough for me to really provoke me to action. I'd love it if the world were populated by geeks, but I'm not going to adopt a proactive agenda to promote geekdom.
Some values are important enough for me to provoke me to action, but legislation is but only one tool to promote an agenda and not always the best tool. I am passionately sex-positive and I think the world would be immeasurably better off if people in general were more educated and open-minded about sex. But I don't see legislation as the best tool to promote any sexual ethos. I'd rather educate people about their options than legislate my will.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think the question was posed in relation to legislation as a result of this hypothetical study.
I thought it was a side digression when someone ironically named "The Scribe" started advocating censorship of ideas he didn't like.
Haven't read Scribes post but on the subject: I think completely censoring neo-nazi, fundies and racists would be a good step to make this a better world. Yes freedom of speech and writing is super-important but things like these that every normal person in the world knows is shit should be detested not only by people but the law. Remove their rights I say!
They could start by pulling down the Westboro Baptist Church's homepage for instance...
And once you start, where do you stop?
Again, the answer to bad speech is never censorship. It is good speech.
I am ambivalent about the 1950's. I am also ambivalent about the 1960's. I like ambivalence. It prevents fanaticism.
BTW, I have little good to say about the 1970's. the 1980's or this decade. I do like the 1990's.
Yeah, you still haven't copped to the fact that you basically want to legislate your will.
Of course I do. So does everyone who votes.
Which is stupid and unrealistic. This thread isn't about what you want the world to be like, it's about what should and shouldn't be legislated. I'd love for it to be against the law to be racist and for that law to magically work out. But I know that, realistically, this would lead to more problems then it is solved.
I do not understand the difference between trying to achieve the kind of world I would like to live in and deciding what should and should not be legislated. We cannot legislate against bigoted attitudes, but we did legislate against racial discrimination.
o_O
Either you think that it's good for people to have bigoted attitudes but not racially discriminate, or you are saying that you think certain things, despite your disdain for them, should not be legislated, which would indicate that you don't want to just legislate your will.
I need to see a doctor. I think part of my prefrontal cortex has merged into a singularity with my Broca's area trying to understand what is going on [strike]fish[/strike] here.
Everyone wants to legislate their will. That is inherent in the concept of legislation. Stop accusing others of legislating "their will" or "their morality." It's stupid.
Yar on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Everyone wants to legislate their will. That is inherent in the concept of legislation. Stop accusing others of legislating "their will" or "their morality." It's stupid.
It is my will that gay marriage be legal and that people should accept it, but I'm not about to support legislation that would require churches to perform the ceremonies. My will != my idea of good law. It is my will that people not have abortions, but I'm not about to support legislation banning the practice. Again, my will != my idea of good law. I'm sure you could think of a few examples in which this is the case for you.
My point was that I think it was the latter option in Scribe's case. Saying we all just want to legislate our will dodges the question entirely and attempts to address the concept of Democracy as mob rule rather than a system in which people are guaranteed rights.
I think the question was posed in relation to legislation as a result of this hypothetical study.
I thought it was a side digression when someone ironically named "The Scribe" started advocating censorship of ideas he didn't like.
Haven't read Scribes post but on the subject: I think completely censoring neo-nazi, fundies and racists would be a good step to make this a better world. Yes freedom of speech and writing is super-important but things like these that every normal person in the world knows is shit should be detested not only by people but the law. Remove their rights I say!
They could start by pulling down the Westboro Baptist Church's homepage for instance...
And once you start, where do you stop?
Again, the answer to bad speech is never censorship. It is good speech.
I think the question was posed in relation to legislation as a result of this hypothetical study.
I thought it was a side digression when someone ironically named "The Scribe" started advocating censorship of ideas he didn't like.
Haven't read Scribes post but on the subject: I think completely censoring neo-nazi, fundies and racists would be a good step to make this a better world. Yes freedom of speech and writing is super-important but things like these that every normal person in the world knows is shit should be detested not only by people but the law. Remove their rights I say!
They could start by pulling down the Westboro Baptist Church's homepage for instance...
And once you start, where do you stop?
Again, the answer to bad speech is never censorship. It is good speech.
I had been aware of the Westboro Baptist Church, but when I read this mention of it, I looked it up on the internet. I laughed through the videos. These people are too crazed for me to worry about or get angry at. If they did have a following they would be scary, but they don't. I wonder about their source of income, however. It takes a lot of money to do what they do. It takes a lot of money for them to have huge families and send all their kids to college. Most employers would not want to hire any of them.
I had been aware of the Westboro Baptist Church, but when I read this mention of it, I looked it up on the internet. I laughed through the videos. These people are too crazed for me to worry about or get angry at. If they did have a following they would be scary, but they don't. I wonder about their source of income, however. It takes a lot of money to do what they do. It takes a lot of money for them to have huge families and send all their kids to college. Most employers would not want to hire any of them.
I am passionately sex-positive and I think the world would be immeasurably better off if people in general were more educated and open-minded about sex. But I don't see legislation as the best tool to promote any sexual ethos. I'd rather educate people about their options than legislate my will.
One response to this is simply to undo current legislation that exists solely to suppress open-minded attitudes about sex. You're right that legislation is not needed, rather, the absence of legislation would be helpful in a case like this.
WBC doesn't have a following? Who are these people that keep showing up at the funerals?
I meant there are not millions of Americans who agree with them like there are millions of people who agree with Rush Limbaugh and Ayn Rand.
You don't understand how the right wing media echo chamber works then. I'd recommend starting here.
There are Objectivist philosophers, there are Bush apologists, and then there is that link you provided.
You'd find it insulting if I grouped the likes of you with the mouth breathing Hillary supporters.
I find it ironic that you think to point fingers at batshit echo chambers. Based on the poll provided by El Jeffe we can see so called debate and discourse in action with the participants round here all vigorously debating the best way to run everyone else's lives with everyone else's money. By any means necessary.
Posts
I am ambivalent about the 1950's. I am also ambivalent about the 1960's. I like ambivalence. It prevents fanaticism.
BTW, I have little good to say about the 1970's. the 1980's or this decade. I do like the 1990's.
Haven't read Scribes post but on the subject: I think completely censoring neo-nazi, fundies and racists would be a good step to make this a better world. Yes freedom of speech and writing is super-important but things like these that every normal person in the world knows is shit should be detested not only by people but the law. Remove their rights I say!
They could start by pulling down the Westboro Baptist Church's homepage for instance...
The right to dissidence is at the core of free speech. Don't you see the potential for abuse if the government was given blanket rights to censor "universally despised" ideologies? At one point in time suggesting that there is no God would be considered a "universally despised" ideology. So would have been suggesting that blacks and whites could intermingle and coexist equally.
Banning an ideology just serves to martyr its proponents anyway. Why not just have it in the open, where it is open to discussion and refutation?
Completely ironically - censorship is highly effective at promoting what it hides doubly so if you're going to punish the rights of individuals.
I guess you're both right. But in an ideal world...
Of course I do. So does everyone who votes.
I do not understand the difference between trying to achieve the kind of world I would like to live in and deciding what should and should not be legislated. We cannot legislate against bigoted attitudes, but we did legislate against racial discrimination.
I guess it comes down to pragmatism. Legislating the restriction of some ideas (which is what censorship is, really) often does more harm than good to society as a whole.
Some values aren't important enough for me to really provoke me to action. I'd love it if the world were populated by geeks, but I'm not going to adopt a proactive agenda to promote geekdom.
Some values are important enough for me to provoke me to action, but legislation is but only one tool to promote an agenda and not always the best tool. I am passionately sex-positive and I think the world would be immeasurably better off if people in general were more educated and open-minded about sex. But I don't see legislation as the best tool to promote any sexual ethos. I'd rather educate people about their options than legislate my will.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And once you start, where do you stop?
Again, the answer to bad speech is never censorship. It is good speech.
o_O
Either you think that it's good for people to have bigoted attitudes but not racially discriminate, or you are saying that you think certain things, despite your disdain for them, should not be legislated, which would indicate that you don't want to just legislate your will.
I need to see a doctor. I think part of my prefrontal cortex has merged into a singularity with my Broca's area trying to understand what is going on [strike]fish[/strike] here.
It is my will that gay marriage be legal and that people should accept it, but I'm not about to support legislation that would require churches to perform the ceremonies. My will != my idea of good law. It is my will that people not have abortions, but I'm not about to support legislation banning the practice. Again, my will != my idea of good law. I'm sure you could think of a few examples in which this is the case for you.
My point was that I think it was the latter option in Scribe's case. Saying we all just want to legislate our will dodges the question entirely and attempts to address the concept of Democracy as mob rule rather than a system in which people are guaranteed rights.
Hey we agree. For once.
Dear Honk. Stop being a fascist please.
Regards,
Freedom
I had been aware of the Westboro Baptist Church, but when I read this mention of it, I looked it up on the internet. I laughed through the videos. These people are too crazed for me to worry about or get angry at. If they did have a following they would be scary, but they don't. I wonder about their source of income, however. It takes a lot of money to do what they do. It takes a lot of money for them to have huge families and send all their kids to college. Most employers would not want to hire any of them.
One response to this is simply to undo current legislation that exists solely to suppress open-minded attitudes about sex. You're right that legislation is not needed, rather, the absence of legislation would be helpful in a case like this.
I meant there are not millions of Americans who agree with them like there are millions of people who agree with Rush Limbaugh and Ayn Rand.
You don't understand how the right wing media echo chamber works then. I'd recommend starting here.
The censor's paradox!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Paradox shmaradox.
There are Objectivist philosophers, there are Bush apologists, and then there is that link you provided.
You'd find it insulting if I grouped the likes of you with the mouth breathing Hillary supporters.
I find it ironic that you think to point fingers at batshit echo chambers. Based on the poll provided by El Jeffe we can see so called debate and discourse in action with the participants round here all vigorously debating the best way to run everyone else's lives with everyone else's money. By any means necessary.