Originally Posted by Adina

What were the 1990s immigration debates like?

Ah, yes -- Pat Buchanan. His speech at the 1992 GOP convention eliminated any flirting I'd ever done with Republicanism when I was trying to nail down my position in the political spectrum -- and has to this day. As the late Molly Ivins quipped, "It sounded better in the original German."

The debate in the 1990s was more an issue about illegals taking jobs. The debate today is more about border crime, the drug trade and the drain on social services. I think that's because a lot of the people who made the remarks in the 1990s are unemployed today and won't *do* the jobs the illegals are doing, but that's just a theory...

Originally Posted by Adina

What were the 1990s immigration debates like?

Oh, you know. Rioting, blood on the streets, displaying the severed heads of opponents on pikes, otter-abuse, widespread arson, dogs and cats living together. The standard stuff of a 3T.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Oh, you know. Rioting, blood on the streets, displaying the severed heads of opponents on pikes, otter-abuse, widespread arson, dogs and cats living together. The standard stuff of a 3T.

Oh, gosh. Sounds horrible. I'm glad I'm too young to remember that. I thought Unravelings were supposed to be positive times.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Today the upper right is galvanized again. But even if they're successful in the 2010 election (which I doubt) the results they desire will not materialize leading to further demoralization.

All I can say is, that would be nice. I think it's very powerful though, and it has big backing from corporate America, which the Supreme Court just gave a big helping hand; a Supreme Court that tends to side with the upper right quite often.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

All I can say is, that would be nice. I think it's very powerful though, and it has big backing from corporate America, which the Supreme Court just gave a big helping hand; a Supreme Court that tends to side with the upper right quite often.

The upper right are the good guys, right?

Originally Posted by Adina

I thought Unravelings were supposed to be positive times.

Not for the poor lutrinae, they aren't...

Originally Posted by Adina

The upper right are the good guys, right?

no! they are the bad guys who talk about "freedom" but are enabling greed.

Adina, you are so cute! :ruffles your hair:

I would never diagnose anyone over the internet. It's unethical. It's also impractical since you never know if someone is who they say they are. For all I know, you're actually an 85-year-old man. I do have a question though:

Has anyone ever suggested to you or your parents that you might possibly be on the autism spectrum? (Also, someone could have suggested it to your parents but your parents didn't tell you. You could ask.)

Remember when you posted that you wanted your mom to text you, and then you'd talk in response? Because when you're surfing the web on your phone, it's easier to read a text than to listen to someone's words, but then it's also easier to talk than to interrupt your surfing to type a reply?

Well, see...you can't both do that. I mean: If your mom is texting you and you are talking in response, then obviously your mom can't get texts from you and then herself get to talk in response. The average person would assume that having to listen to someone's words while using one's phone is equally inconvenient to everyone, and that having to send texts rather than talk is likewise equally inconvenient to everyone.

But you thought only of what would be most convenient for you. It didn't occur to you to think of your mom's convenience. Your words had the effect of asking your mom to submit to the inconvenience you had just explained *you* didn't want to suffer.

The above -- it *not occurring to you* to consider others' reactions *even though you maybe can understand them when you do consider them* (aka "lack of *instinctive* theory of mind" even though you may have intellectual ToM) -- is *the* core symptom of autism spectrum disorders. Well, according to many researchers. Others (both researchers and those on the spectrum) may disagree.

So I just wonder if someone who knows you IRL may have observed you behaving this way. I mean, maybe you only act this way online. Again, I am not diagnosing you over the internet; I'm just wondering what people who know you IRL think.

As for this thread: Tact requires you to at least say you believe no political position represents the "good guys" or "bad guys." Just so you know. (Are the upper right the people you agree with? Net culture says you should find out by rereading earlier pages in the thread rather than by asking.)

And Justin, stop picking on the poor 5-year-old/autie/fake-autie/Valentine-trying-to-learn-what-aspects-of-her-writing-are-childish/troll/whatever.

You are a left social libertarian.

Left: 6.35
Libertarian: 7.66
Foreign Policy: -9.61
Culture: -8.52

Originally Posted by Adina

The upper right are the good guys, right?

There is a book on the Gilded Age by Henry Adams, who was there. David Kaiser recommended it but I can't remember the name. You could probably find it on Google, and you might find it informative.

Nothing tells you more about any given period than the writings of that period, and that was the last time the upper right was the dominant philosophy, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

There is a book on the Gilded Age by Henry Adams, who was there. David Kaiser recommended it but I can't remember the name. You could probably find it on Google, and you might find it informative.

Nothing tells you more about any given period than the writings of that period, and that was the last time the upper right was the dominant philosophy, wasn't it?

Democracy, HTH

I'm having a really hard time placing myself on the Horner chart.

Simple vs. complex rules -- when the consequences of the rules actually applying yet people still breaking them are worse, I prefer simple rules. When the consequences of needing an exception but being forced to follow the rules anyway are worse, I prefer complex rules that are more likely to detect the necessity of exceptions. Though, in the latter situation you're often better off having a thoughtful individual who is empowered to grant exceptions to the simple rules. But then, individuals with such power often *aren't* thoughtful, so the rules often *do* need to be idiot-proof and specify the common exceptions... Serious problems choosing, here.

Challenge vs. deference to authority -- I never had much trouble understanding anything I set out to, so for a long time I figured hey, anyone who wants to can figure out on their own what they should do, no experts needed. I found that when I tried to understand the experts' POV, I did -- even if I didn't agree with it. But as an adult, I've met people who have tried very hard to understand what some expert was trying to say and still couldn't grasp it, so they just had to decide whether to take it on trust; I've also met many who simply don't bother to try to understand. I've also learned from experience that sometimes you just don't have time to try -- you've got to earn money for food / take care of your family / etc. So I've become less libertarian. Still, I'm most comfortable understanding the experts' positions, and would hesitate to do something just because some authority said so. Closer to "challenge to authority" here.

So True Left, I guess, but I wouldn't want to take it to an extreme -- I'd stay closer to the center than most. (OTOH you might say I flip between upper and lower left depending on the issue.)

You know what, though -- I have moved counterclockwise around your chart since I first became politically aware. When I was 12, I called myself a "populist"...looking back I'd say I was True Right. Then I became an extreme libertarian. Then I concluded that although simple rules leave fewer loopholes for the corrupt...well, they also leave fewer openings for those to whom they genuinely don't apply. AKA "the rules can be harmful" -- which I guess moved me from right-libertarian to left-libertarian. Hey, now my views are respectable again for the first time since I was 12!

And very recently my direction of change has been toward more respect for authority again...because lately I've met so many people who could not or did not understand various experts and without any respect for their expertise, found themselves utterly unable to protect themselves from harm.

Maybe by my later years I'll be True Bottom to Lower Right. Which would make me an elder reactionary/curmudgeon after all...just like so many Lost.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

I'm having a really hard time placing myself on the Horner chart.

Simple vs. complex rules -- when the consequences of the rules actually applying yet people still breaking them are worse, I prefer simple rules. When the consequences of needing an exception but being forced to follow the rules anyway are worse, I prefer complex rules that are more likely to detect the necessity of exceptions. Though, in the latter situation you're often better off having a thoughtful individual who is empowered to grant exceptions to the simple rules. But then, individuals with such power often *aren't* thoughtful, so the rules often *do* need to be idiot-proof and specify the common exceptions... Serious problems choosing, here.

The fact that you discuss having a thoughtful individual empowered to grant exceptions is notable since you're pulling in authority concepts when discussing the structure of the rules. Based on this and other parts of your post you sound like True Left but slightly above the horizontal axis. If you took the Moral Politics test we could get greater clarity (I recommend turning the hints on).

Originally Posted by Ted '79

So True Left, I guess, but I wouldn't want to take it to an extreme -- I'd stay closer to the center than most. (OTOH you might say I flip between upper and lower left depending on the issue.)

Most people are not perfectly consistent with their archetype, which isn't surprising since we're talking about how you make political decisions when there is doubt.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

You know what, though -- I have moved counterclockwise around your chart since I first became politically aware.

As a late wave Xer with an individualistic temperament, that would make sense. You're reacting to the social trend of the Unraveling (which was the exact opposite).

Originally Posted by Ted '79

And very recently my direction of change has been toward more respect for authority again...because lately I've met so many people who could not or did not understand various experts and without any respect for their expertise, found themselves utterly unable to protect themselves from harm.

Maybe by my later years I'll be True Bottom to Lower Right. Which would make me an elder reactionary/curmudgeon after all...just like so many Lost.

Could be, but keep in mind that expertise and authority are not equivalent. While related, a person on the left side of the chart can still rely on expert knowledge which they themselves do not possess. Consider a situation where a non-physicist is watching two physicists argue where on physicist is older and well-known and the other is a grad student. If the observer is on the right side of the chart, they will gravitate toward the older physicist's argument despite not fully understanding the matter under dispute. Someone on the left will consider the possibility that the younger person may have found something new that changes the current state of knowledge, potentially even to the point of assuming that's the case.

It's possible your political views will keep evolving, but as the Crisis continues, your drifting will most likely slow down and cease. You're a late-wave Nomad so your birth cohort comes into power toward the end of the Crisis, which means you have some more time to refine your views, but once you've reached that late in life most people of that birth cohort will be firm in their views. By comparison, with the Crisis now underway, I would expect nearly all Boomers to be immovable from their archetype. They've "seen it all before" so-to-speak.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Oh, you know. Rioting, blood on the streets, displaying the severed heads of opponents on pikes, otter-abuse, widespread arson, dogs and cats living together. The standard stuff of a 3T.

Oh, that otter abuse makes me long for those days.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

There is a book on the Gilded Age by Henry Adams, who was there. David Kaiser recommended it but I can't remember the name. You could probably find it on Google, and you might find it informative.

Nothing tells you more about any given period than the writings of that period, and that was the last time the upper right was the dominant philosophy, wasn't it?

Well, the name "Gilded Age" was coined by Mark Twain, but since he was at the far end of the curmudgeon zone at the time using his name for the period is sort of like relying on Ayn Rand to tell you what the 50s were like. One thing we can say about that period is that civil society was rock solid. Citizen participation in everything from voting to charity to labor organizations was extremely widespread. This was a High to end all Highs.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Democracy, HTH

VIRGIL! Welcome back!!!

Originally Posted by Ted '79

I'm having a really hard time placing myself on the Horner chart.

Simple vs. complex rules -- when the consequences of the rules actually applying yet people still breaking them are worse, I prefer simple rules. When the consequences of needing an exception but being forced to follow the rules anyway are worse, I prefer complex rules that are more likely to detect the necessity of exceptions. Though, in the latter situation you're often better off having a thoughtful individual who is empowered to grant exceptions to the simple rules. But then, individuals with such power often *aren't* thoughtful, so the rules often *do* need to be idiot-proof and specify the common exceptions... Serious problems choosing, here.

Challenge vs. deference to authority -- I never had much trouble understanding anything I set out to, so for a long time I figured hey, anyone who wants to can figure out on their own what they should do, no experts needed. I found that when I tried to understand the experts' POV, I did -- even if I didn't agree with it. But as an adult, I've met people who have tried very hard to understand what some expert was trying to say and still couldn't grasp it, so they just had to decide whether to take it on trust; I've also met many who simply don't bother to try to understand. I've also learned from experience that sometimes you just don't have time to try -- you've got to earn money for food / take care of your family / etc. So I've become less libertarian. Still, I'm most comfortable understanding the experts' positions, and would hesitate to do something just because some authority said so. Closer to "challenge to authority" here.

So True Left, I guess, but I wouldn't want to take it to an extreme -- I'd stay closer to the center than most. (OTOH you might say I flip between upper and lower left depending on the issue.)

You know what, though -- I have moved counterclockwise around your chart since I first became politically aware. When I was 12, I called myself a "populist"...looking back I'd say I was True Right. Then I became an extreme libertarian. Then I concluded that although simple rules leave fewer loopholes for the corrupt...well, they also leave fewer openings for those to whom they genuinely don't apply. AKA "the rules can be harmful" -- which I guess moved me from right-libertarian to left-libertarian. Hey, now my views are respectable again for the first time since I was 12!

And very recently my direction of change has been toward more respect for authority again...because lately I've met so many people who could not or did not understand various experts and without any respect for their expertise, found themselves utterly unable to protect themselves from harm.

Maybe by my later years I'll be True Bottom to Lower Right. Which would make me an elder reactionary/curmudgeon after all...just like so many Lost.

Heh, I went the opposite direction. I went from True Bottom in 2000 to True Left now.

The fact that you discuss having a thoughtful individual empowered to grant exceptions is notable since you're pulling in authority concepts when discussing the structure of the rules.

That's based on personal experience with "simple rules that harm an atypical individual": When I've seen people stuck in that situation, often what's saved them was someone who had the power to make an exception. I guess I'm assuming there always will be such a person, because in my experience, there always has been (someone who has the power, not someone who's necessarily willing to use it -- I'm just assuming we won't have anarchy anytime soon). OTOH, the other choice in my experience has always been more/more complex laws.

For example:

I will never forget a conversation I had with a mom whose 12-year-old needed access to college-level academics for his own sanity (most 18-year-olds would not cope well in 7th grade, and neither did this kid).

She said that she always preferred to get the laws changed rather than to get an individual exception, because:
1. This way no one could accuse her family of getting special, secret, unfair deals.
2. This way the accomodation could not suddenly be taken away when the person in power changed (indeed, that had happened to me).
3. She had younger kids with similar needs, and she didn't want to have to fight the same battle over again for each of them.

Because of her and others' efforts, several states passed laws providing pathways to higher education for kids in 9th grade and up, often complete with funding (rich kids had previously gone to college anyway by dropping out of high school and paying their own tuition, but poor kids of course could not).

and then...

Even though it was in most cases against the law, nevertheless high schools started creating more and more extra rules about which of their students would be allowed to take this path. Often it was restricted to 11th & 12 graders (so our 12-year-old has to either enter 11th grade full time or just suffer), and/or to classes not "already provided at the high school" (but at half the pace, which doesn't work well for our kid who needs an extra fast pace as it is), etc.

So. Has the existence of this law (more complex rules about access to higher education than what had come before) helped a lot of people? Yes. Did it initially, for a short period, make things much easier for those 12-year-olds who needed access to higher education? Yes. Was its spirit quickly defeated by the proliferation of corrupt bureaucracy (even *more* complex rules)? ...yes.

Will this happen to every initially helpful law?

I'm afraid the answer may be yes.

So should we rely on exceptions granted by authority figures instead? Or should we just...fight *excessively* complex rules?

That's where I'm undecided.

What I'm certain of is that I'd *never* want society to have no way at all to handle exceptions to its rules.

You're reacting to the social trend of the Unraveling (which was the exact opposite).

Aha! I had wondered about that.

If the observer is on the right side of the chart, they will gravitate toward the older physicist's argument despite not fully understanding the matter under dispute. Someone on the left will consider the possibility that the younger person may have found something new that changes the current state of knowledge, potentially even to the point of assuming that's the case.

I would definitely consider the possibility, but I would definitely not assume it.

As a teen, I had a few online discussions with David Deutsch (speaking of physics!) because we were both supporters of youth rights, and I learned to respect him. So when he began pushing his new "theory of everything," I was inclined to support it despite not fully understanding it. OTOH...I disagreed with some parts of it I did feel I understood, so I wasn't going to swallow it whole!

So I did listen to the new guy. Not because he was new but because I already respected him. But I was still willing to disagree if I found a good reason to.

OK, Moral Politics test:

I took it with hints on. Often none of the answers fit my position, but I thought it would be more helpful to pick a position instead of "none of the above," so I always picked a position. If the hints seemed to change the meaning I tried to go with the hints and not the summary, but a couple of times this left me with nothing that fit my position, and in those cases I went with the summary instead. That said:

-2 on Moral Order and 1.5 on Moral Rules.

Would that make me lower left?

Well, see...you can't both do that. I mean: If your mom is texting you and you are talking in response, then obviously your mom can't get texts from you and then herself get to talk in response. The average person would assume that having to listen to someone's words while using one's phone s equally inconvenient to everyone, and that having to send texts rather is equally inconvenient to everyone, and that having to send texts rather than talk is likewise equally inconvenient to everyone But you thought only of what would be most convenient for you. It didn't occur to you to think of your mom's convenience. Your words had the effect of asking your mom to submit to the inconvenience you had just explained *you* didn't want to suffer The above -- it *not occurring to you* to consider others' reactions *even though you maybe can understand them when you do consider them*(aka "lack of *instinctive* theory of mind" even though you may have ntellect

But see, there was another reason as well. She was talking about other diners in the restaurant, so it was kinda embarrassing, and since she can't speak any other language that is likely to be completely unintelligible to the other people in the restaurant, texting was the most private option.

Originally Posted by annla899

Oh, that otter abuse makes me long for those days.

An amorous otter named Cleaver
Fancied himself quite the deceiver
While handling "business"
With one C. canadensis
Was shocked to find her a beaver!

Originally Posted by Tone70

There was an otter, named Cleaver
Who fancied himself, a deceiver
While handling his "business"
With a C. Canadensis
He was shocked to find her a beaver!

Please explain.

Originally Posted by Adina

Please explain.

That is a limerick. They are designed to be funny. Mine, about an amorous otter, may or may not be.

Originally Posted by Adina

Please explain.

I have revised the limerick for the purposes of clarity, rhythm and humor (maybe).

Originally Posted by Tone70

I have revised the limerick for the purposes of clarity, rhythm and humor (maybe).

I still don't get it. There's a deceiving otter named Cleaver, who did business with a beaver that was C. Canadensis. That doesn't make any sense at all. I looked up C. Canadensis:
"Conyza canadensis (formerly Erigeron canadensis L.) is an annual plant native throughout most of North America and Central America. Common names nclude Horseweed, Canadian Horseweed, Canadian Fleabane, Coltstail, Marestail and Butterweed."

Castor Canadensis is, however, the north american beaver, familiar to most of the males on this forum. I further revised and believe it makes sense now. The limerick is about an amourous otter and his suprise at a beaver's beaver.