Ugh. I don't want to sound too stupid, but it still makes absolutely no sense.

from wikipedia: Castor canadensis
"the North American Beaver ( Castor canadensis) s the only species of beaver in the Americas, native to native to North America and introduced to South America. In the United States and Canada, where no other species of beaver occurs, it is usually simply referred to as beaver. Its other vernacular[ 2] names, including American beaver[ 2] and names, including American beaver and[ 6] Canadian beaver,[ 6] distinguish this species from distinguish this species from the one other extant beaver, Castor fiber, native to Eurasia. ("Canadian beaver" also refers to the subspecies Castor canadensis canadensis.)"

So?

Can you just explain it. And what do you mean by a "beaver's beaver"?

Originally Posted by Adina

Ugh. I don't want to sound too stupid, but it still makes absolutely no sense.

from wikipedia: Castor canadensis
"the North American Beaver ( Castor canadensis) s the only species of beaver in the Americas, native to native to North America and introduced to South America. In the United States and Canada, where no other species of beaver occurs, it is usually simply referred to as beaver. Its other vernacular[ 2] names, including American beaver[ 2] and names, including American beaver and[ 6] Canadian beaver,[ 6] distinguish this species from distinguish this species from the one other extant beaver, Castor fiber, native to Eurasia. ("Canadian beaver" also refers to the subspecies Castor canadensis canadensis.)"

So?

Can you just explain it. And what do you mean by a "beaver's beaver"?

"Beaver" is Boomer slang for public hair.

What doesn't make sense? An otter trying to get it on with a beaver? Not true to life, but funny as all get-out, especially since otters are playful fellows. Also google for "Pepe Le Pew", a cartoon skunk who keeps trying to court a kitty-cat.

"Beaver" is slang for "The hair down there". Not a joke to tell to children.

Originally Posted by Odin

"Beaver" is Boomer slang for public hair.

Ew. That's disgusting.

Originally Posted by Adina

Ew. That's disgusting.

What's disgusting about a natural part of the human body?

Anyway, can we get back to discussing political archetypes.

Originally Posted by Wes84

Anyway, can we get back to discussing political archetypes.

Yes, please.

I will endeavor to be good. It was the challenge you see...anyhoo, agreed back to politics...

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Democracy, HTH

Yay!!

It is very good to see you still with us. For stopping by... kiitos.

" Originally Posted by Odin View Post
"Beaver" is Boomer slang for public hair. "

Public, Odin? Not in the circles I move in!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

" Originally Posted by Odin View Post
"Beaver" is Boomer slang for public hair. "

Public, Odin? Not in the circles I move in!

OOPS, that was a typo!

Originally Posted by Ted '79

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.

There is a solution favored in the upper portion of the chart -- tort law. The law sets general principles and precedent is set on a case-by-case basis. So exceptions do get worked in, but they don't tend to produce bureaucracy since anyone wishing to rely on unusual case law will need to demonstrate why their case resembles one of these outliers rather than the standard case.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

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

Neither. When society has overcompensated in the direction of complexity, you remove a bunch of rules and start over with more clear general rules. When the general rules again produce habitual interpretations that put people at the mercy of authority figures, you start adding complexity back in. It's a cycle. The question that determines your archetype is where do you think we are right now?

Originally Posted by Ted '79

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?

Nope, true left -- about 180 degrees and close to the center. You definitely don't have a strong opinion either way on the vertical axis. Your viewpoint will be the political center toward the end of the next Awakening.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

There is a solution favored in the upper portion of the chart -- tort law. The law sets general principles and precedent is set on a case-by-case basis. So exceptions do get worked in, but they don't tend to produce bureaucracy since anyone wishing to rely on unusual case law will need to demonstrate why their case resembles one of these outliers rather than the standard case.

The problem I have with tort law is that it requires a long decision-making process. I can think of a lot of situations where having to wait for a court case to be resolved would be very harmful.

For example, school districts are legally required to provide a free and appropriate public education to children with disabilities -- but in the case of autistic children, "appropriate" has been defined by case law (under specific civil statutes, not torts, but still). Autistic children need intensive early intervention -- they can't wait years for a court case to be resolved. So it's become standard practice for parents to just hire a private therapist or send the kid to a private school, then sue the school district for reimbursement. But that only works for parents who can afford to pay out of pocket and wait -- often 3 years or more -- to be reimbursed.

When there are "rules for exceptions" written into the law, or you can ask a powerful person for an exception, often you only need one or two short meetings to prove your case. That's a much better solution when there's time pressure.

When society has overcompensated in the direction of complexity, you remove a bunch of rules and start over with more clear general rules. When the general rules again produce habitual interpretations that put people at the mercy of authority figures, you start adding complexity back in. It's a cycle. The question that determines your archetype is where do you think we are right now?

No strong opinion.

But lately, I'd be very reluctant to *ever* start over with simple rules, because I'd be afraid they'd be too simple to handle exceptions. Even if I thought the rules had become too complex!

Nope, true left -- about 180 degrees and close to the center. You definitely don't have a strong opinion either way on the vertical axis. Your viewpoint will be the political center toward the end of the next Awakening.

How are you determining which angles map to which positions on your chart?

Say I really wanted to keep the rules at the degree of complexity they are now. Would you expect society to trend toward simpler rules? If it did, mightn't I react against this trend and move toward the bottom?

Likewise, if I really wanted to keep "respect for authority" at the level it's at now, then if society moved toward less respect for authority, mightn't I move toward more?

You said my views would probably solidify during the Crisis. Wouldn't that imply that I would decide what direction society needed to be pushed in...and then keep trying to push it in that direction even after it changed in the next Awakening? Thus ending up pushing it in a direction I mightn't actually want it to go, if only I realized that?

Is your position that that's what each generation tends to do?

Originally Posted by Ted '79

The problem I have with tort law is that it requires a long decision-making process. I can think of a lot of situations where having to wait for a court case to be resolved would be very harmful.

Well, part of the problem there is that we don't really have a pure tort system. Legislative law frequently overrides precedent and then the civil system adapts to that. The speed of the legal system is something that could also be reformed, but I digress.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

How are you determining which angles map to which positions on your chart?

I'm using the their rules axis as if it were a 45 degree line from lower left to upper right, with positive toward the lower left. So, if you have a negative Order score and a positive Rules score, you'll be on the left side, but where vertically will depend on the relative magnitude of the two scores (and technically, you would thus need a negative rules score in order to end up in the far upper portion of the left side). Very low and similar magnitudes on both axes means that the two lines intersect right at the horizontal axis.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Say I really wanted to keep the rules at the degree of complexity they are now. Would you expect society to trend toward simpler rules? If it did, mightn't I react against this trend and move toward the bottom?

Possibly, but it won't really trend toward concision for another decade yet, so even if your archetype is still forming you won't react that way. And, since you're a Nomad, your views are probably not going to continue shifting. (You could, but, at this point, the Nomad generation is pretty much set in its views.)

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Likewise, if I really wanted to keep "respect for authority" at the level it's at now, then if society moved toward less respect for authority, mightn't I move toward more?

You might, but the vast majority of Xers will not. Millenials, on the other hand, will probably turn out to be more authority oriented than Xers -- but I'm sure that's because they'll have wise, no-nonsense leaders like us to set an example for them.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

You said my views would probably solidify during the Crisis. Wouldn't that imply that I would decide what direction society needed to be pushed in...and then keep trying to push it in that direction even after it changed in the next Awakening? Thus ending up pushing it in a direction I mightn't actually want it to go, if only I realized that?

Is your position that that's what each generation tends to do?

Exactly, they keep hammering that nail until it's in the damn board and not coming out again. (Because back in '29 people used to step on nails and they had to get shots, and you don't want to go back to those dark times!) Then some wet behind the ears kid comes along and asks, what've you got against nails? Then some other kid points out that the real question is, what've you got against wood? Chaos ensues.

You could, but, at this point, the Nomad generation is pretty much shifting. (You could, but, at this point, the Nomad generation is pretty much set in its view

What are the average Xer views?

Originally Posted by Adina

What are the average Xer views?

Historically I might have said cynicism and lack of optimism about their future. These days I'm not so sure those are the most common traits, though.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Historically I might have said cynicism and lack of optimism about their future. These days I'm not so sure those are the most common traits, though.

and average political views? (I though that not everyone is alike, of course)

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Historically I might have said cynicism and lack of optimism about their future. These days I'm not so sure those are the most common traits, though.

Do you think that Xers are picking up some Millie traits?

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Historically I might have said cynicism and lack of optimism about their future. These days I'm not so sure those are the most common traits, though.

Well, that's because we're at the point of the saeculum where the Millies have to pull the Xers out of their cynicism. It's a common point in most stories that the Hero archetype in stories has to pull back from the brink the Nomad archetype, because they know that together they can beat the evil in the world. It's the stereotypical conversion of the so-called "evil" character. What usually happens is that the Hero archetype starts converting the near-cohort Nomads (i.e. Late Nomads) and then the Hero children of the earlier Nomads convert them. It's a conversion to not only save the Nomads from themselves, but provide allies to help the Heroes grow and become their full potential.

It's a very predominant theme in the stories of Western Civilization and part of the key to the early Crisis, IMO. We Millies have to convince the Xers that yes, a better world is possible, together we can fight the wickedness and corruption which has brought our society to the brink and harmed you as children. Together we can build a better world for your and our children to live in. You can lead us and give us your experience, we'll do the dirty work. Just point us in the right direction.

The theme is most recently revisited in the movie Inception, where (late Xer) Cobb has corrupted himself so much he's lost contact with the outside world & hope for a future. It takes (early Millie) Ariadne to get him to face his demons and fight for a better life. Xers have been focused on stories of redemption for a while (think Pulp Fiction), well now's the time for redemption to occur.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Adina

Do you think that Xers are picking up some Millie traits?

Actually I think Millies have become more nihilistic and cynical in the past two years.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Actually I think Millies have become more nihilistic and cynical in the past two years.

You may be right about that.

A lot of that cynicism is because of the rapid rise and fall of public opinion of the democrats in politics currently.

We went from "we can do anything and save the world from the neo-cons" in 07 to "nothing we do will change anything" in a period of 3 years. All the while the outside world continues an ever accelerating death spiral, and our elected leaders appear either incapable, at best, or unwilling, at worst, to do anything about it.

How many college students, like myself, are seeing how quickly graduation approaches and can't help but realize that a diploma is the end of the line. And instead of being the gateway to employment, it seems more and more like a useless piece of paper that died with the economy two years ago. It is like the laste spitefull gasp of the boomers; to lead us like lemmings into this college path, only to turn around when were in it and tell us that it is only going to put us into debt and the number of graduates has diminished the value of a degree.

Well, those are my feelings anyway! I guess we will get to see how it turns out.

We went from "we can do anything and save the world from the neo-cons" in 07 to "nothing we do will change anything" in a period of 3 years.

Basically, I've found the happiest people are the ones that don't pay attention to politics. No matter what, somebody won't be satisfied about it. So rather than wasting time kvetching about it, just ignore it. Other than a few behind the scenes changes, so far, politics have not really affected our lives much. And besides, politicians rarely focus on anything I'm even remotely interested in. I think we should be more like Xers when it comes to politics.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

A lot of that cynicism is because of the rapid rise and fall of public opinion of the democrats in politics currently.


How many college students, like myself, are seeing how quickly graduation approaches and can't help but realize that a diploma is the end of the line. And instead of being the gateway to employment, it seems more and more like a useless piece of paper that died with the economy two years ago. It is like the laste spitefull gasp of the boomers; to lead us like lemmings into this college path, only to turn around when were in it and tell us that it is only going to put us into debt and the number of graduates has diminished the value of a degree.

Well, those are my feelings anyway! I guess we will get to see how it turns out.

Remember... You are still young, there are many years for the situation to improve for you and for others like you. In future years your electoral power and thus the ability to affect change in the ways you need will increase. Politicians will have no choice but to listen!

Originally Posted by Adina

Basically, I've found the happiest people are the ones that don't pay attention to politics. No matter what, somebody won't be satisfied about it. So rather than wasting time kvetching about it, just ignore it. Other than a few behind the scenes changes, so far, politics have not really affected our lives much. And besides, politicians rarely focus on anything I'm even remotely interested in. I think we should be more like Xers when it comes to politics.

I wouldn't say the Xers aren't interested in politics. I think the more appropriate thing to say is that we see very little people who reflect our views in office or are running for office right now. We see it as being dominated by the boomers who are very polarized. Most people I know around my age, whether they lean to the left or lean to right, agree with some issues from both sides. It's more of a case of having chose between the lessor of two evils. And they tend to pick the candidate who most represents how they feel on certain issues that are important to them personally. If they can't find a candidate who reflects how they feel, they tend to not vote at all. This is the case with my husband who hasn't voted in the past two elections. It's not that he doesn't care. It's just that both candidates have things about them that he likes and that he dislikes, but is not comfortable with voting for either one of them because of the things they stand for that he disagrees with. But he does care about the shape the country is in.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Well, that's because we're at the point of the saeculum where the Millies have to pull the Xers out of their cynicism. It's a common point in most stories that the Hero archetype in stories has to pull back from the brink the Nomad archetype, because they know that together they can beat the evil in the world. It's the stereotypical conversion of the so-called "evil" character. What usually happens is that the Hero archetype starts converting the near-cohort Nomads (i.e. Late Nomads) and then the Hero children of the earlier Nomads convert them. It's a conversion to not only save the Nomads from themselves, but provide allies to help the Heroes grow and become their full potential.

It's a very predominant theme in the stories of Western Civilization and part of the key to the early Crisis, IMO. We Millies have to convince the Xers that yes, a better world is possible, together we can fight the wickedness and corruption which has brought our society to the brink and harmed you as children. Together we can build a better world for your and our children to live in. You can lead us and give us your experience, we'll do the dirty work. Just point us in the right direction.

The theme is most recently revisited in the movie Inception, where (late Xer) Cobb has corrupted himself so much he's lost contact with the outside world & hope for a future. It takes (early Millie) Ariadne to get him to face his demons and fight for a better life. Xers have been focused on stories of redemption for a while (think Pulp Fiction), well now's the time for redemption to occur.

~Chas'88

The movie where archetypes always seem easiest to apply is Star Wars. The relevant comparison being the relationship between Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia and Han Solo.