Support NeoGAF

[#Phonepunk#]

So we all know the "Ok, boomer" meme. But has anyone considered:

Why is there a generational divide at all?

If you look at traditional cultures, pre-commercial/industrial, the children do not dress differently and listen to different music than their parents. They don't work drastically in different careers. In fact they probably carry on their family's work, learning the skills directly from them. They may even live their entire lives with their parents.

Yet when you consider the modern pop culture, it is seen as shameful to live with your parents. "You live in your mother's basement" is a common insult. The idea is that living with your family is wrong. Each generation is out for themselves. Materialist individualism is presented as diametrically opposed to the traditional family structure.

Why is this? IMO it seems to be driven by a number of factors, largely cultural. First there is pop culture and consumerism, wherein demographics are aggressively targeted. This involves alienating people and turning them against one another. In marketing, the young, sexy person of roughly 20s-30s age is the ideal. Middle age people are tolerated and elderly people are openly belittled and told "We can't wait until you die off". This generational divide involves dehumanization on a vast scale.

What turns generations against themselves? It is largely an anti-family attitude. The family must be shunned in order that the individual can find worth in their consumer identity. There is not a popular consumer identity where living with your parents is cool. These days we have coupled this generation clash with political issues, leading many people to hyperbolically declare entire generations as Nazis or whatever. More dehumanization.

Where does it come from? School is place where anti-family behavior is encouraged. The state demands that you send your children to be raised by other people, away from the home, by strangers, for a large chunk of the day. There they will learn the values of the state and their peers, rather than of the family that raised them. The demands of capitalism force parents to be at work all day anyways, cut off from their children, so it is seen as a convenience, a sort of free government-run daycare. At school, it is survival of the fittest, it is social darwinism. In order to fit in to a group, to gain protection from bullying or further alientation, you may need to dress a certain way, listen to certain music, etc. to hang out with certain people. These cliques are invariably not the kind of clubs your parents could ever join.

So yeah, i dunno where I'm going with this. Just a lot of thoughts. I have been noticing pop culture lean more and more on this generational divide, pushing anti-family messaging across franchises. All you need to do is look at the pre-eminent pop mythology Star Wars, where nobody has a functioning adult relationship, all marriages inevitably split up, nobody has an intact family, and in fact the only person who "find family" finds it after all the people in that family are literally dead. This is a pattern repeated across media, that you have to "kill the past to become what you are", that people are not allowed any more to find their identity through traditional family. Consumerism requires alienation, IMO this is why this theme is pushed so hard.

What yall think?

 

[GreyHorace]

I wouldn't say it's consumerism. Maybe it's more individualism? Western society tends to value the individual more than the collective unlike here in Asia. Not to say people here can't be individuals, but we tend to value the group dynamic more than anything, especially families.

As an example, I read somewhere that some American children only know of their first cousins. But in a Filipino family like mine, I know my second to fourth degree cousins.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Western society tends to value the individual more than the collective unlike here in Asia

yes and this is a good point. but Western society itself was different before the modern consumer era. even in America it was not unheard of for an entire family to all live together up until the mid 20th century. remember the opening to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? this was only 50 years ago.

 

[SpartanN92]

I think that the baby boomer generation was really the first generation that could afford NOT to live together. Throughout all of human history, families have had to rely on one another to survive. In the mid 1950's that all the sudden wasn't quite as necessary as it used to be and just continued on that trajectory.

 

[GreyHorace]

I think that the baby boomer generation was really the first generation that could afford NOT to live together. Throughout all of human history, families have had to rely on one another to survive. In the mid 1950's that all the sudden wasn't quite as necessary as it used to be and just continued on that trajectory.

Exactly this. Coupled with the aggressive urbanization during the latter part of the 20th century, along with the growth in wealth with booming economies, people could afford to strike out on their own rather than lean on the family unit.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

It is intentional subversion by academia / "The Left".

If folks read a bit more about what plans Marx and Engels had for the traditional family unit, it wouldn't be such a puzzle as to why modern society chips away at the concept.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf

Marx and Engels thought their ideas applied to all aspects of humanity, not just economy and government. This is often forgotten which is a shame because some of their most hilarious ideas are in the realm of the family unit. They were obsessed with non-traditional marriage practices and with theories about prehistoric human family formation. They believed the contemporary model for a family was fundamentally flawed. The concept of husband + wife + children was partially to blame for the economic/civic woes that Marx and Engels wrote about:

- the woman was oppressed and not properly compensated for contributing her children to the next generation, something The State should step up and compensate her for (enter the single-mother welfare of the 20th century, and the female-centric divorce laws)

- the man was chained to his role as a provider and was not properly compensated for contributing his labor to the benefit of his family, something The State should help him with (enter the unions, wage controls, guaranteed jobs, and bread lines of the 20th century)

- the child was robbed of the knowledge and experience of the wider society (and The State) by relying on their parents, something The State should alleviate (enter public education, child services, and forced child labor when mom and dad get shipped to gulag)

If one takes it a step further an accepts the concept of the extended family -- not just wife + husband + children but aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc -- then one must begin to consider what is the best model for the family. What important roles do these extended relatives fill? How can this be leveraged to ensure the survival of all members? What methods work and what methods don't? Attempting to answer these questions inevitably points back toward conservative / right-wing values. It's not that conservatives know all the right answers about the family, but conservatism is the repository for the answers that've worked so far.

The extended family is the building block of a clan / tribe / dynasty, which then leads to full-blown society which passes down values and wealth and knowledge through the generations to maintain cohesion. A huge percentage of the values that human societies adopted over the millennia have to do with protecting and incentivizing the establishment of family units.

Strife between children and parents is nothing new, but during the times of communist revolution it was far more common for disenfranchised children to join up with the revolutionaries, whether they were learning about it in their university days or joining the mob instead of working in the factory. In a way they were the OG modern punk-rockers / "this isn't just a phase" delinquents.

EDIT: spelling errors

 

[Vicetrailia]

We can all easily survive as individuals now. Thank you technology.

 

[JordanN]

We can all easily survive as individuals now. Thank you technology.

Yet there are still people who die of homelessness. Or look at the rest of the [non-Western] world who ask for foreign help.

 

[JordanN]

By the way, in response to OP's question, I'm reminded of certain trends that show the complete obliteration of the family unit in other races.

Starting around the 1970s, the out of wedlock skyrocketed and Whites didn't start catching up until the mid 90s.

What could have caused this? Well, look at what government programs have been introduced over the years? Also, look at when the Feminist movements took off?

Combine the two and what do we get? Single Mother family households being propped up by the government.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Yet there are still people who die of homelessness. Or look at the rest of the [non-Western] world who ask for foreign help.

Are you saying that there was any advantage 200, 500, 2000 years ago?

 

[JordanN]

Are you saying that there was any advantage 200, 500, 2000 years ago?

Since when is there an advantage today? Technology wont stop you from having a roof over your head. Or committing bad decisions that put you in jail.

Your survival has always came at the expense of someone else. Like the police or military who protect you from greater threats. The day they give up and it turns to anarchy, "individuals" will be culled.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Since when is there an advantage today? Technology wont stop you from having a roof over your head. Or committing bad decisions that put you in jail.

Your survival has always came at the expense of someone else. Like the police or military who protect you from greater threats. The day they give up and it turns to anarchy, "individuals" will be culled.

Technology is why there are so many roofs over our heads, from construction to banks to etc.

Rugged individualism was always in the USA's dna, so what did you think would happen when it became easier for us to survive on our own? With income, wealth, technology, etc?

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Feminism.

 

[JordanN]

Technology is why there are so many roofs over our heads, from construction to banks to etc.

Ok, now tell me who built this? I bet you didn't go around building all the banks or houses. Nor are these services paid for by a single person (taxes much?).

Rugged individualism was always in the USA's dna,

The U.S wasn't anarchist though. Or even a libertarian state. The U.S even fought a civil war to prevent the country from breaking itself up.
There was always freedom within limits. Like the government not taking away your guns for example. But that's written in the constitution.

so what did you think would happen when it became easier for us to survive on our own? With income, with technology?

i think the USA should have continued doing what it did before 1965. Successful companies, happy families, that understood the greatest amount of progress was made when the nation was homogeneous instead of throwing away culture for GDP.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Ok, now tell me who built this? I bet you didn't go around building all the banks or houses. Nor are these services paid for by a single person (taxes much?).

Society built it and provided the mechanisms by which individuals can take advantage of it more easily now than ever. That's my point.

i think the USA should have continued doing what it did before 1965. Successful companies, happy families, that understood the greatest amount of progress was made when the nation was homogeneous instead of throwing away culture for GDP.

Apparently you're some kind of culture hawk huh.

 

[JordanN]

Society built it

Ok, that's all I wanted to hear from you.

Apparently you're some kind of culture hawk huh.

Because culture is necessary for success. Even the idea of "individualism" is still at the mercy of what the majority population wants.

It's why a 100% Libertarian or Anarchist society cannot work. Eventually, you will get a monopoly of other individuals who will come together and outright conquer anyone smaller than them.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Ok, that's all I wanted to hear from you.

Why would you want to hear that from me when I always acknowledged that it's easier today to survive as an individual. That's obviously from the advancement of society. That was never a conflict point, that was my point.

It's why a 100% Libertarian or Anarchist society cannot work. Eventually, you will get a monopoly of other individuals who will come together and outright conquer anyone smaller than them.

Those fantastical "societies" we're never in the picture anyway.

 

[Bogey]

In one word: selfishness.

Your parents are getting old and need someone to care for them? Fuck off to the nursing home, boomer!

You'd need to cut short your career so your kids can actually see you more than 5 minutes a day? Yea right.. Yea right, freeze your eggs first and then send 'em off to boarding school!

You'd need to make any kind of concession in your relationship for your partner? No way in hell, plenty of fish in the sea!

Feels like our generation - i unfortunately can't even exclude myself - isn't used to doing anything other than what's immediately best for ourselves, and only ourselves.

 

[JordanN]

Why would you want to hear that from me when I always acknowledged that it's easier today to survive as an individual. That's obviously from the advancement of society. That was never a conflict point, that was my point.

We can all easily survive as individuals now. Thank you technology.

Sorry, but that does conflict.
Clearly not everyone can survive, regardless of whatever technological advances exist. Even in the next 50 years, unless everything is somehow automated, individuals will still depend on others to live.
Edit: Actually, using automation is a misnomer. It now means we replace society with people still depending on robots to live. And of course, if those robots aren't self repairing, then someone else will still have to come along and fix it.

Those fantastical "societies" we're never in the picture anyway.

Well then, lets hope our societies don't reach that point of collapse. Unfortunately, not even I think I can guarantee that based on how the West is heading.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Sorry, but that does conflict.
Clearly not everyone can survive, regardless of whatever technological advances exist. Even in the next 50 years, unless everything is somehow automated, individuals will still depend on others to live.
Edit: Actually, using automation is a misnomer. It now means we replace society with people still depending on robots to live. And of course, if those robots aren't self repairing, then someone else will still have to come along and fix it.

I think you over interpreted, or I wasn't specific enough, which I thought I was after I followed up with your housing comment. Construction = mass construction capability, and funding capability. Banks = financial instruments, regulation, mass capital, credit system, etc.

Homelessness was always a thing. You're not saying this, but the existence of homelessness doesn't have much to do with the average individuals ever-increasing ability to survive. Especially since at the flick of the wrist, we could take survival as far as we wanted to with social programs (and you'd still have homeless people). If we wanted to, you couldn't do that in the 20s.

 

[appaws]

Good post, OP. There are so many conflating factors, all worth discussing, that have gone into this trend. I would also point to the decline of religion in the west as a major factor. This changes (IMO, damages) morality. Combine this with the destruction of the manufacturing economy, the growth of what Paul Gottfried calls the "therapeutic state," and the distrust fostered among humans who remain tribal in nature, but find themselves living among those with whom they have no ties of blood, religion, or history.

I used to be a lolbertarian and imagine that the state just grew out of nowhere like a force of pure evil, but I have lately come to understand the way the state has to move in and attempt to reforge the chains the previously bound people together. And it is a natural occourence. If family and church fray and nobody is going to support grandma...then the state has to do something. And it is right and proper.

 

[JordanN]

Good post, OP. There are so many conflating factors, all worth discussing, that have gone into this trend. I would also point to the decline of religion in the west as a major factor. This changes (IMO, damages) morality. Combine this with the destruction of the manufacturing economy, the growth of what Paul Gottfried calls the "therapeutic state," and the distrust fostered among humans who remain tribal in nature, but find themselves living among those with whom they have no ties of blood, religion, or history.

I used to be a lolbertarian and imagine that the state just grew out of nowhere like a force of pure evil, but I have lately come to understand the way the state has to move in and attempt to reforge the chains the previously bound people together. And it is a natural occourence. If family and church fray and nobody is going to support grandma...then the state has to do something. And it is right and proper.

I had a lolbertarian phase too. I still believe in individual rights of course, but I realized, these rights are only possible when there's actually a like minded society to enforce them.

Like, I already brought up gun rights in this thread. The U.S constitution guarantees it at a federal level, yet when you start looking at places like Viriginia where a Democratic majority exists, then suddenly society can take those people's guns away, regardless of what a piece of paper says.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Your parents are getting old and need someone to care for them? Fuck off to the nursing home, boomer!

Hasn't this been a thing since forever?

 

[Weiji]

By the way, in response to OP's question, I'm reminded of certain trends that show the complete obliteration of the family unit in other races.

Starting around the 1970s, the out of wedlock skyrated and Whites didn't start catching up untill the mid 90s.

What could have caused this? Well, look at what government programs have been introduced over the years? Also, look at when the Feminist movements took off?

Combine the two and what do we get? Single Mother family households being propped up by the government.

I would be really curious to see where asians fall on the graph. On the one hand there is probably a lower %. On the other hand there are probably less children too.

In fact I wonder if that chart inversely correlates with birth rates by race.

 

[JordanN]

I would be really curious to see where asians fall on the graph. On the one hand there is probably a lower %. On the other hand there are probably less children too.

In fact I wonder if that chart inversely correlates with birth rates by race.

Even though this is anecdotal, I have never once met an Asian family that is single mother/father. It's also not unusual to still see them living with their grandparents, or bringing them along when they do move countries.

They at least appear to have their family unit on lockdown, for the same reasons I almost never see homeless Chinese or Japanese people. They always have somewhere to live and work.

 

[Cutty Flam]

There are some sick, sinister, and abominable plots at work. There always has been

It’s important to live as one people, and show love. I have had hatred in my heart towards others, all it does is weigh you down and keep you down

 

[SpartanN92]

By the way, in response to OP's question, I'm reminded of certain trends that show the complete obliteration of the family unit in other races.

Starting around the 1970s, the out of wedlock skyrocketed and Whites didn't start catching up until the mid 90s.

What could have caused this? Well, look at what government programs have been introduced over the years? Also, look at when the Feminist movements took off?

Combine the two and what do we get? Single Mother family households being propped up by the government.

Lyndon Johnson single handedly broke the African American family unit with his policies of The Great Society.

 

[Birdo]

Who needs to raise a family as validation, when you have internet likes.

 

[Son Tofu]

By the way, in response to OP's question, I'm reminded of certain trends that show the complete obliteration of the family unit in other races.

Starting around the 1970s, the out of wedlock skyrocketed and Whites didn't start catching up until the mid 90s.

What could have caused this? Well, look at what government programs have been introduced over the years? Also, look at when the Feminist movements took off?

Combine the two and what do we get? Single Mother family households being propped up by the government.

That graph looks eerily similar to the increase in school shootings.

 

[autoduelist]

Our tribes used to be defined by geography.

With widespread availability of goods, plus the internet, tribes are now defined by hobbies and interests. We still seek solidarity in tribes, so we tailor our 'look' [clothes, haircut, ink, etc.] to signal to strangers who we believe we are / want to present as.

This has been further magnified by a media that actively sought to dismiss the value of a functional family unit since at least the 80s. Where we once had extended families [often matriarchical, as women live longer and became grandmothers], we descended into latch key kids with little sense of self garnered from homelife.

 

[SpartanN92]

Who needs to raise a family as validation, when you have internet likes.

NO ONE LIKE THIS POST

 

[Hulk_Smash]

There’s a difference between “I live with my parents.” and “My parents live with me.”

My parents live with me. What’s the difference? I pay the mortgage. I handle the household bills except ones exclusive to my parents. In traditional cultures there’s a sharing of responsibilities and even ownership and eventually, especially after the children get married or after the parents retire a total transfer of ownership.

What you’re describing is what manbabies do because they’re too busy collecting sports memorabilia or action figures and playing video games to get a real career and actually try to find a wife.

Girls are different. They use to get a free pass for living at home but with all the independent wymynz stuff today, it seems frowned upon to stay at home.

THAT is what our culture is reacting to. Not the choice to stay at home.

 

[Jon Canon]

Interessting topic.

I live in a western country. This comes down to how the society you live in is structured. Its not about selfishness, or consumerizm and it goes both ways, both parents and children enjoy the FREEDOM that living in a country with healthcare, elderlycare and a living wage from almost any job provide.

 

[Breakage]

The root, in my view, is the so-called sexual revolution. It encourages young people to view life as nothing but the pursuit of pleasure. On this view, any limitations imposed by religion or traditional family obligations or values are undesirable and therefore worthy of elimination. Nothing can get in the way of one's desires.

Why do young people want to get away from their parents these days? It's mostly because they want to have sex and be “free”. In the modern Western world, this is what is really meant when a young person says they want their independence. Here in Britain, being promiscuous in your teens and 20s is a rite of passage for many young people, particularly among the native population.

The young people who don't view their parents with hostility or see their families as something to get away from also tend to hold conservative views in regard to sex and relationships. In my experience such people tend to happier and more resilient. Notice how young people from traditionally conservative east and south Asian families are less likely to hold their parents in contempt. It is not a coincidence that there is less dysfunction among these groups in the West. Admittedly, this is slowly changing among western born young Asians, but in general family breakdowns are nowhere near as numerous as the number of breakdowns among more “liberated” groups.

The liberation brought about by the so-called revolution hasn't resulted in an enormous increase in happiness and contentment. Instead it has contributed to the increase in dysfunction and misery in society. Yet many continue to buy into the misguided idea that the more sexual freedom they have, the happier they will be.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Feminism.

Ye.

 

[Durask]

In one word: selfishness.

Your parents are getting old and need someone to care for them? Fuck off to the nursing home, boomer!

The thing though in the old days if you were old and sick you did not live very long.
These days modern medicine can prolong life of demented old people in diapers for years and taking care of someone like that is truly life-sucking exhausting 24/7 job.

 

[Ballthyrm]

This has been going on since the beginning of time hasn't it?

We went from the family unit to the tribe to the ethnicity to the nation to the state.

Poor societies are lower down the ladder and rich one higher. But along the way, there is anthropological example of people being brought up by the tribe.

The family unit is not a requisite for a functional society, or at least we don't know if it is. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Gargus]

Women. A lot comes from women. They will regardless of actual reasons or situations 98% of the time write a guy off as a loser, a cheap, unemployed, unfuckable, retarded nerd and they are above them. Most women want a guy that will spend money on them, buy them things, drive them around, etc. A lot of women equate a man's worth to what he has. That alone casts a damaging shadow on a guy that lives his parents or whatever. Even day time talk shows like the view will broadcast coast to coast that a man needs to be this or that and a woman should find a man worthy of her. It's a constant horn sounding of women very publicly that a man should this or that or he is just a loser. And women love to perpetuate that to each other, especially now in the whole "women are super awesome and deserve everything" mentality.

Men. Now men on the other hand will automatically call someone a loser and automatically write them off as a waste for not having their own place because they are insecure dicks that live by the mantra of schadenfruede. They have to be little others to feel good about themselves. It doesn't happen as often but it does happen.

Then you have societys economic side as a whole that does it's best to get people to spend money. So society's economical side says you need to a house, a car, etc so it can keep making money as an industry. Western society is all about owning things and having money because it's all based around consumerism and companies have a great deal of influence.

But there are some left that look at the value of the individual. When I met my wife she made more money than me, had her own place, was better looking than I was. I lived with my mom, had thousands of comics, games, figures, etc but she still liked me for me. And she knew I was only staying with my mom for a couple years while I was in nursing school so I didn't have to take out a loan. But women wouldn't have done that.

 

[Vicetrailia]

But there are some left that look at the value of the individual. When I met my wife she made more money than me, had her own place, was better looking than I was. I lived with my mom, had thousands of comics, games, figures, etc but she still liked me for me. And she knew I was only staying with my mom for a couple years while I was in nursing school so I didn't have to take out a loan. But women wouldn't have done that.

Meh plenty of women who have careers would do that these days honestly.

 

[InterMusketeer]

I'm afraid this gap will only widen as well. Don't know what it's like in other countries, but in the Netherlands it's pretty common nowadays for both parents to be working fulltime. Their kid is sent off to the grandparents or daycare so the parents can work some more just so they can afford to buy a house and a car. Somehow all that stuff is incredibly expensive, yet wages hardly rise accordingly.

I still have some (vague) memories from my early childhood. Just being at home with my mom, going along when she walked my sister to school or bought groceries at the store. Those are some of my best memories. I fear children growing up nowadays won't have that. Mom and dad will end up becoming people they occasionally see in the evenings and weekends.

 

[Pagusas]

How does one have a serious relationship with someone if they live at home?

 

[Ten_Fold]

I never made fun of anyone for not having their own place, I wish we still had that family aspect. Like we dont even have to be blood related but working as a group. Nowadays its much better to either do things solo or with your significant other and leave family out.

 

[oagboghi2]

Everything is blamed on ”consumerism” as if wanting anything is some fucking crime.

we live separately from our families for a simple reason. We can afford to. Previous generations didn’t live together all their lives becuase it was great. They had no choice, they were poor as shit. We live in a richer society, where people have more choice to live the life they want.

people are going to move away and start their own family. Why would that be a surprise, or even undesirable?

Good post, OP. There are so many conflating factors, all worth discussing, that have gone into this trend. I would also point to the decline of religion in the west as a major factor. This changes (IMO, damages) morality. Combine this with the destruction of the manufacturing economy, the growth of what Paul Gottfried calls the "therapeutic state," and the distrust fostered among humans who remain tribal in nature, but find themselves living among those with whom they have no ties of blood, religion, or history.

I used to be a lolbertarian and imagine that the state just grew out of nowhere like a force of pure evil, but I have lately come to understand the way the state has to move in and attempt to reforge the chains the previously bound people together. And it is a natural occourence. If family and church fray and nobody is going to support grandma...then the state has to do something. And it is right and proper.

You also think women are to stupid to vote and make their own decisions in life. I wouldn’t want to live in your version of a welfare state

 

[Stiflers Mom]

"Family is like having friends you cannot choose yourself".

Not everyone has a great family. Usually most people that I know of don't get along so well with their relatives.
I am happy that I have great siblings (parents have been dead for a long time now already), but I can fully understand that some people jut had enough with their shitty family members.

 

[GeorgPrime]

The last thing i read was;

"I have climate fear thats why i dont want babies or a own family"

She was really serious about it with her rust colored hair and her "how dare you ask me about kids you sexist" face

 

[Halo is Back]

I feel like the dynamic of the traditional family is being destroyed in Western Society.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

It's extreme consumerism applied to people.

We are exploitable, expendable bags of flesh with an expiration date we don't really know, but we know we don't have much time until we are thrown in the trash to be replaced with another generation that will buy these new products that get made all the time and won't unreasonably want to hold on to old stuff, and that will do new jobs that they won't ever be able to fully grasp before it's their turn to be replaced.

Of course this leads to individualism. You can't be expected to waste your limited time caring for people who are clearly from another age, but will drag themselves around for some more decades while having nothing in common with you.

Kids? Ain't nobody got time for that! Besides, they stink, they scream all the time, they're unreasonable, they can't do shit, and they take time away from other sweeter things.*

Your parents? Oh, they can take care of themselves. Except they may find themselves unemployed at an ever earlier age, with little savings, and when their health cripples away you'll be the only child that must take care of them, so you can't waste any more time than it's necessary with them cuz you have to work to pay for their care one day.

And of course, your relatives are all Nazis. All of them. Cut them off completely or they'll somehow make your life a nightmare.


(quite extreme, yeah. Some of it is true, though)


*reading thread after thread about this on old GAF made me so angry. I understand that some people don't want kids, but remember - you wouldn't be here if your parents had thought the same.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Yet there are still people who die of homelessness. Or look at the rest of the [non-Western] world who ask for foreign help.

yes and how ironically, we have robots now, exploring the uber wealthy campuses of our liberal coastal paradise, and they are actually a nuisance to the homeless blight in the area. all that wealth and knowledge and technology, and San Francisco is full of destitute people treated as trash.

It's extreme consumerism applied to people.

i do think there is some form of Hyper Consumerism going on right now. you see it in the fan wars. there are these elite tiers of tastemaker fans, hired or sponsored by the companies themselves, influencers, people like Jenny Nicholson, driving "toxic fan" wars and such. there is this narrative that we need to stop out "bad opinions" and "fans should not be catered to". some bizarre elitism hiding behind this idea that the great unwashed masses are undeserving or something. they don't know what they want and are fundamentally LESS than the true artistes that makes movies or the self proclaimed geniuses behind the commentariat class.

it's a kind of consumer elitism running rampant on message boards. anyone who has ever used "fan" in scare quotes when talking about someone else. it is another form of dehumanization and alienation. the consumer society needs us to be alienated from one another, to be competitive. because the only way you "win" is by BUYING MORE and being the best consumer possible. they want to turn every discussion into a possible transaction, a conflict of egos. they have evangelized consumerism. Consumer Evangelists.

IMO i think there is something there. i think you can draw a line from Adbusters style 90s anti ads and the Time & Eric detached ironically bad commercials back to the 90s slacker ethos of anti consumerism, the Gen X people that spawned our current culture. i think the reaction to the Anti Consumerism of the 90s has been Hyper Consumerism of the 2000s/2010s. now, everyone is about personal branding, selling out isn't even a concept anymore, and individualism (through winning at identity politics) is more important than ever. why are identities more important than ever? well, more data for the corporations to use to market to us with, silly!

 

[appaws]

You also think women are to stupid to vote and make their own decisions in life. I wouldn’t want to live in your version of a welfare state

I don't think women should not vote because they are stupid. Many millions of women are smarter than many men. It is a matter of men and women having different spheres. We are different, but complimentary. This has been the basis for every human family, nation, and culture for thousands of generations until the last hundred years.

You find my positions so distasteful...but you are the one who has the burden of defending the awful status quo, not I. What great things have we gained from women having political power? What have women gained? A society that grows worse and worse, where the feminine is degraded and commercialized for perpetually juvenile basement dwellers to coom to...?

It is amazing the arrogance with which moderns view the world. Watching civilization crumble around our heads, all while pointing and laughing at our retrograde ancestors....while we drowsily continue drifting on the fumes of the world they built for us.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

It is amazing the arrogance with which moderns view the world. Watching civilization crumble around our heads, all while pointing and laughing at our retrograde ancestors....while we drowsily continue drifting on the fumes of the world they built for us.

indeed presentism is rife these days. people had freedom in the past. they had choice. many people are locked into systems they did not ask to be born into. it still happens. families all worked together, and nowadays, the family-owned business is a much rarer thing, we prefer to let corporations run everything. is that really better? things were vastly different but in many ways the same. we have not evolved past them in many, many, many ways. the most important ways tbh.