I do not like musicals, normally. Oklahoma and Fiddler On the Roof will be part of my soundtrack punishment in hell.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think my post already clarified that. Ideas and values are worthy, or not; judging people as such is problematic, and not a prophet or boomer activity in my opinion. Maybe statistically, it's a slight tendency. But to judge prophets as judgmental (as you did), is you doing what you attribute to prophets as doing.

I see the entire red vs blue dynamic as being a poorly arranged game of "who wants to be a second class citizen?" It's why the can't make effective systems. Rules that would follow in either sides agenda would effectively be unconstitutional if challenged. So the law makers weasel, and do some really half assed laws with tons of exceptions to force it to work, but really that's what it's about doing. "Whose side can I put down and try to shame and demonize so I can feel oh so gloriously right like I think I should be?" It's why you can't get Millennials to march for you guys. Civics hate that stuff.

Essentially with the Red vs. Blue thing you have each side trying to impose its values on the other. Which doesn't work, each side is too strong and too determined. So we end up with a (so far) cold civil war. And festering of harsh, outer world problems, such as the crap sack economy.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Essentially with the Red vs. Blue thing you have each side trying to impose its values on the other. Which doesn't work, each side is too strong and too determined. So we end up with a (so far) cold civil war. And festering of harsh, outer world problems, such as the crap sack economy.

This is not as true as it should be. We do have a very dogmatic party, and its partisans are interested in removing constraints from their side - the 1%, primarily, though the religous zealots get some gratuitous attention as well. The less dogmatic party is interested in fulfilling the dreams of its most partisan niches - primarily gender, race and ethnic minorities. What we lack is a party that opposes the very dogmatic platform. The Tea Party seems to fill the opposition role on minority rights and privileges.

Meanwhile, the economy continues to consolidate into fewer hands, and the risk of a climate catastrophe gets short shrift. Why? Because opposition to those issues is embedded in the very dogmatic party position. The less dogmatic party is too busy to address them, being focused on a wide array of niche issues that have little if anyhing to do with either. I can't see this as a balanced condition. If each side dominates in the areas it emphasizes, a crap sack 1T may be one of the great understatements of all time.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I see the entire red vs blue dynamic as being a poorly arranged game of "who wants to be a second class citizen?" It's why (they) can't make effective systems.

Since your comment is in the context of your opinion of "prophets," I assume "they" refers to boomers. But in any case, the assumption that the "red and blue thing" refers to boomers is false.

Rules that would follow in either sides' agenda would effectively be unconstitutional if challenged. So the law makers weasel, and do some really half assed laws with tons of exceptions to force it to work, but really that's what it's about doing. "Whose side can I put down and try to shame and demonize so I can feel oh so gloriously right like I think I should be?" It's why you can't get Millennials to march for you guys. Civics hate that stuff.

Again, I guess "you guys" refers to boomers, and "either sides" also refers to boomers, and boomers are supposedly the ones creating the red and blue thing. False, false and false. And it has nothing to do with one side shaming and putting down the other. False again.

And you can't say the millennials "will not march" with us. It's too early to say; for example, at this point in previous 4Ts, no one was marching, and GIs were sitting down in factories.

There are "half-assed laws," but what is "this about?"

The situation is really quite simple, and though the 3T has a lot to do with it, particular generations have very little to do with it. The civic perspective is needed to add now to that of the other generations; it was missing in the 3T. So millies have a lot to contribute; not just by marching to the beat of the boomers, but by educating themselves (as they have not yet done) about their civic responsibilities so that they can bring about a more civic-minded approach to our politics. The need is not for "effective systems." That might be a delusion among some tech-obsessed civics and X/Y cuspers like yourself. No, that's NOT the issue. The issue is simple justice and fairness, and to remove from power those who protect the powerful-- now known as the red side.

The simple fact is that the 1% have stifled prosperity and life for the 99%, and that the red side supports the 1%. The article that Mr. Beecher posted on his new thread summarized the situation well, as do the other authors like Reich and Krugman (both boomers) and Piketty (French) and Moyers (Silent) as well as Bernie Sanders (war baby), and many others. The question is only whether more people are going to realize what is going on. The two great issues of inequality and ecology can seem a bit vague compared to "taxed enough already" and "welfare cheats" and so on. But the people need to wake up and be ready to address these issues.

Specific things need to be done. A constitutional amendment to take money out of politics, and an end to gerrymandering and easy filibusters. Higher taxes on the wealthy and higher minimum wages. Energy conversion. Restore social investments and programs. As the article said,

"Relatively small changes, like increasing the minimum wage or paid family leave, can ease some of the burdens. Bigger changes, like expanding Social Security, or establishing a basic income, or adjusting the tax code to confront gross economic inequality, will take more political muscle. But various egalitarian movements in our history have shown that Americans are capable of standing up to a system that strips them of the possibility for a good education, a decent career and even a normal family life. A system of ruthless oppression that takes away so much from us as human beings is not our inevitable fate."

This is not a generational issue, and it's not a matter of "effective systems." It is a matter of practical justice. If millennials can't "follow and march" to that banner, even if led by some boomers among others, then they are just going to fail as fully as any generation has failed, and to fail to meet the challenge that they already understand.

No reforms can proceed under the still-dominant trickle-down philosophy. A country ruled by a faction that says no reforms can or should be done, cannot move forward. The red side needs to be defeated. Then these reforms will go forward like water rolling off a duck's back.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Essentially with the Red vs. Blue thing you have each side trying to impose its values on the other. Which doesn't work, each side is too strong and too determined. So we end up with a (so far) cold civil war. And festering of harsh, outer world problems, such as the crap sack economy.

A 4T is a time to decide. The blue side needs to defeat the red side in the cold civil war. The red side may be determined; thus our crisis. But the crisis has to have a victory for the right side, as it always has before. A 4T is no piece of cake; it is a struggle. More of us need to be ready to join the fight, and not make excuses or raise red herrings.

And if you aren't a member of one of those partisan niches, voting for the less dogmatic party serves only to block the more dogmatic party.


I wonder why we haven't had a Regeneracy yet.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

And if you aren't a member of one of those partisan niches, voting for the less dogmatic party serves only to block the more dogmatic party.

Which is quite a good idea. Once the more dogmatic party is blocked, some reforms can begin. If the people make the less dogmatic party their voice, this will happen faster.

I wonder why we haven't had a Regeneracy yet.

Because the double rhythm applies, and the civil war anomaly does not. We are 1850s redux. There was no regeneracy in the 1850s.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I agree that Prophets tend to see different ideas or values as better or worse, but I don't think I agree that they tend to see different people as inherently better or worse as people. Some prophets may, but is this a "trait" of prophets per se? Racism, for example, I don't see as a prophet trait. Prophets might be more partisan, but nomads don't seem to resist that trend at all.

Boomers' "consciousness-raising" seems to be about becoming different and better as a person. My Silent mom tried a consciousness-raising group, but quit because the young women there were focusing on personal development, and she had been looking for political analysis.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Prophets might be more partisan, but nomads don't seem to resist that trend at all.

How are you defining "partisan"?

If it's "joining one party/group and agreeing with their every position," then Nomads are not very partisan at all. Nomads come up in an environment where everyone was encouraged to develop their own beliefs, and so each Nomad has their own weird, idiosyncratic set of beliefs, which usually doesn't fit into any political party/group. And may well be extremist. In "both" political "directions" at once!

If it's "being eager to defend who they see as 'their group,'" then Nomads are very partisan. We usually apply that more to "identity" groups than political groups, though. The Nomad attitude toward identity groups could be described as: "My group is no better or worse than any other, but it's mine. If another group starts a fight, I'll help mine finish it, and 'starting a fight' includes 'insulting' my group (even if it just sort of sounds like an insult and they blatantly didn't mean it that way)." As XerTeacher said: X is the generation who invented the term "diss."

Originally Posted by Kepi

I'm going to say not "go ahead and crush 'em" but more so that if you have a view point that is in the less than .01th percentile, why would you expect any recognition at all in terms of that point of view?

Two words: Overton Window.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Everybody has to conform to organizational standards of some sort to make society work. Not so much crushing, but definitely stamp 'em into cogs so they can integrate into the the vast social machine we're all operating in.

If you're not careful to avoid crushing, crushing happens. That's the lesson of the Artists.

I say set up the machine to make use of many different types of cogs, so that each...piece of raw material...can change as little as possible and still form into an acceptable cog shape. Because some of them aren't very malleable, and shatter easily; and let's not just throw them away.

Or to put it another way: Have both square and round holes, thus eliminating the problems caused by having both square and round pegs and only round holes to try to force them through.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

How are you defining "partisan"?

If it's "joining one party/group and agreeing with their every position," then Nomads are not very partisan at all. Nomads come up in an environment where everyone was encouraged to develop their own beliefs, and so each Nomad has their own weird, idiosyncratic set of beliefs, which usually doesn't fit into any political party/group. And may well be extremist. In "both" political "directions" at once!

If it's "being eager to defend who they see as 'their group,'" then Nomads are very partisan. We usually apply that more to "identity" groups than political groups, though. The Nomad attitude toward identity groups could be described as: "My group is no better or worse than any other, but it's mine. If another group starts a fight, I'll help mine finish it, and 'starting a fight' includes 'insulting' my group (even if it just sort of sounds like an insult and they blatantly didn't mean it that way)." As XerTeacher said: X is the generation who invented the term "diss."

It seems to me nomad Xers are not living up very well to their supposed independent nature. Many are following along with the Republican myths and attitudes. Our current red/blue divide could not exist without them; they are the most numerous voting generation today. Xer leaders in congress and governors so far seem to be either very right wing (the majority of them) or very left wing (some of them).

The general cynical attitude toward music and movies that I see, the music that they have produced, the programming choices by Xer TV executives, as well as their politicians, does not do the Xer generation credit in my opinion. Boomers may not have turned out to be all that we think we were, but the generations that criticized us (GIs in our youth, and Xers today) are certainly no better in what they produced and created.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Boomers' "consciousness-raising" seems to be about becoming different and better as a person. My Silent mom tried a consciousness-raising group, but quit because the young women there were focusing on personal development, and she had been looking for political analysis.



How are you defining "partisan"?

If it's "joining one party/group and agreeing with their every position," then Nomads are not very partisan at all. Nomads come up in an environment where everyone was encouraged to develop their own beliefs, and so each Nomad has their own weird, idiosyncratic set of beliefs, which usually doesn't fit into any political party/group. And may well be extremist. In "both" political "directions" at once!

If it's "being eager to defend who they see as 'their group,'" then Nomads are very partisan. We usually apply that more to "identity" groups than political groups, though. The Nomad attitude toward identity groups could be described as: "My group is no better or worse than any other, but it's mine. If another group starts a fight, I'll help mine finish it, and 'starting a fight' includes 'insulting' my group (even if it just sort of sounds like an insult and they blatantly didn't mean it that way)." As XerTeacher said: X is the generation who invented the term "diss."



Two words: Overton Window.



If you're not careful to avoid crushing, crushing happens. That's the lesson of the Artists.

I say set up the machine to make use of many different types of cogs, so that each...piece of raw material...can change as little as possible and still form into an acceptable cog shape. Because some of them aren't very malleable, and shatter easily; and let's not just throw them away.

Or to put it another way: Have both square and round holes, thus eliminating the problems caused by having both square and round pegs and only round holes to try to force them through.

Yeah, that'd be great if there was infinite time. Keep in mind I'm not talking about two options. I think there should be a lot more options in political discourse especially. However, if my nightly news starts cutting to various Neo-Nazi parties for an opinion on what to do about jobs or to a guy who believes GDP is related to ghosts, I'm turning it off. At a certain point, that unique view point had to add value to society, and no, merely having an alternative view is not value in its own right.