Originally Posted by Odin

I'm an INFJ and even I hate this postmodern nonsense that "everyone has a piece of the truth". It is one thing to study all the sides affected by an historical event and the differing perspectives, that's good, unbiased historical research. it's quite another thing to declare that all perspectives must be taken at face value and that we must reject taking all those perspectives and weaving an objective and fact-based historical narrative

On a rare occasion some blithering idiot or reeling drunk says something original and profound. I don't know when, but I just can't rule it out. Far more likely one expects a profane and harsh judgment unworthy of repetition.

Some people have no piece of the truth. Some are pathological liars all too obvious to too many people. Some alternate between plain-folks bosh and absolute falsehood (at this I may be discussing some politicians whose presence on the scene suggests that this country is in deep trouble). There is no opposite side to serial murder, the Atlantic slave trade, or Axis war crimes.

Because few of us are eyewitnesses to every event that we may find of interest we must have the capacity to pass judgment on the veracity of sources. Is the speaker credible? It is possible to find narratives of slave owners who saw themselves as 'benefactors' to those unfortunate people that they exploited. About every political theory has a backstory behind it, and because Karl Marx got his history wrong it is easy to see his prediction of the future as very wrong.

It is generally safe to intrapolate (so long as one has a function that doesn't do crazy things in the zone of interpolation, as with division with very small numbers approaching zero in the zone of intrapolation), but it is not so safe to extrapolate functions that make no obvious sense, as with the function between the the Dow Jones between May and early September in 1929. Some of us know this; many of us don't.

I predict that we are going to become less tolerant of reckless interpretations and unfounded assertions than we recently were. Post-modernism will be just another piece of 3T junk to be discarded unceremoniously, with a return to more classical views of core reality.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

On a rare occasion some blithering idiot or reeling drunk says something original and profound. I don't know when, but I just can't rule it out. Far more likely one expects a profane and harsh judgment unworthy of repetition.

Some people have no piece of the truth. Some are pathological liars all too obvious to too many people. Some alternate between plain-folks bosh and absolute falsehood (at this I may be discussing some politicians whose presence on the scene suggests that this country is in deep trouble). There is no opposite side to serial murder, the Atlantic slave trade, or Axis war crimes.

Because few of us are eyewitnesses to every event that we may find of interest we must have the capacity to pass judgment on the veracity of sources. Is the speaker credible? It is possible to find narratives of slave owners who saw themselves as 'benefactors' to those unfortunate people that they exploited. About every political theory has a backstory behind it, and because Karl Marx got his history wrong it is easy to see his prediction of the future as very wrong.

It is generally safe to intrapolate (so long as one has a function that doesn't do crazy things in the zone of interpolation, as with division with very small numbers approaching zero in the zone of intrapolation), but it is not so safe to extrapolate functions that make no obvious sense, as with the function between the the Dow Jones between May and early September in 1929. Some of us know this; many of us don't.

I predict that we are going to become less tolerant of reckless interpretations and unfounded assertions than we recently were. Post-modernism will be just another piece of 3T junk to be discarded unceremoniously, with a return to more classical views of core reality.

Surely a consummation devoutly to be wished, but. . I'm not sure. One of my main sources on the Gilded Age is Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. One of the big issues of the period was civil service reform, that is, picking people for government service based on ability instead of because they served with you in the 24th Massachusetts regiment. The bulk of the Republican Party had no compunction about arguing that practical experience, particularly in the war, was far more important than educational qualifications. Things didn't begin to change seriously until the progressives took over. Both our Left and our Right have become quite anti-intellectual.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

On a rare occasion some blithering idiot or reeling drunk says something original and profound. I don't know when, but I just can't rule it out. Far more likely one expects a profane and harsh judgment unworthy of repetition.

Some people have no piece of the truth. Some are pathological liars all too obvious to too many people. Some alternate between plain-folks bosh and absolute falsehood (at this I may be discussing some politicians whose presence on the scene suggests that this country is in deep trouble). There is no opposite side to serial murder, the Atlantic slave trade, or Axis war crimes.

Because few of us are eyewitnesses to every event that we may find of interest we must have the capacity to pass judgment on the veracity of sources. Is the speaker credible? It is possible to find narratives of slave owners who saw themselves as 'benefactors' to those unfortunate people that they exploited. About every political theory has a backstory behind it, and because Karl Marx got his history wrong it is easy to see his prediction of the future as very wrong.

It is generally safe to intrapolate (so long as one has a function that doesn't do crazy things in the zone of interpolation, as with division with very small numbers approaching zero in the zone of intrapolation), but it is not so safe to extrapolate functions that make no obvious sense, as with the function between the the Dow Jones between May and early September in 1929. Some of us know this; many of us don't.

I predict that we are going to become less tolerant of reckless interpretations and unfounded assertions than we recently were. Post-modernism will be just another piece of 3T junk to be discarded unceremoniously, with a return to more classical views of core reality.

Reality is oftened darkened by our individual worldview.

Who was it that said recently on this forum that no one is completely bad or completely good? Well very few people have all the answers. Many business models are now running their companies with a wholistic approach. They find the solutions to many of their problems by inviting someone from every department, including maintenance and houskeeping, to brain storm solutions. You might be amazed at how many solutions are arrived at through this all inclusive process. Business as usual is not going to be the norm as we go into the future.

Just as they solved the serious malfunctions on the Appollo mission from thinking outside the box, this will be true in many aspects of life. The answer isn't always mainstream or from whom you would normally expect. So to discount anyone from having a piece of the truth, may be disgarding a valuable resource.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, what an interesting exchange.

We all know that there were continual conflicts, more or less bloody, between white people and Indians as the white people moved across the country. Lady Vagina argues that they were genocidal (whether in intent or simply in effect is not clear.) Most of us do not think that they were consciously genocidal. But what she thinks, apparently, is that anyone who was President for even one day while such a conflict was going on, even three thousand miles away (Oregon) in an age when I don't believe there was even transcontinental telegraph as yet, is guilty of genocide. I think, actually, that she believes in collective guilt of all white people, or at least all white people in authority, for this "genocide" as she calls it. I think the responsibility for particular events falls on the people who set them in motion and actually carried them out.

I would like first to ask her a question: do you think that the world would be a better place if white people had never come to America or if the Indians had quickly united to wipe them out?

And a second question: you say you are part Seminole. Are you part white? If you are, then allow me to point out that you would not be on this earth if white people had not come to America. (Nor would I.) We are all products of human history as it happened, not as we would want it to happen.

I am equally uncomfortable with the idea that "everyone has a piece of the truth." Everyone has their own truth about what they lived through, yes. But I believe that historical truth, to the extent that it can be ascertained, is reflected in primary documents written by people who were there. That doesn't mean that you can trust every document, it means that you have to try to read every document you can and decide what the most likely event seems to be.

Now if I were to write, "Lady Vagina sounds like another lazy bitter Indian," I would be accused, rightly, of being a bigot. She wrote that I sounded like another spoiled rich while male. That is the statement of a bigot. I was brought up to hate bigotry and I still do. I'm going to give her a chance to answer my questions, above, and then I'm going to put her on my ignore list. She may not be a troll, but she is a bigot.

Ask yourself why you feel the need to brag about your rich daddy. Who cares? and you do act spoiled. pointing out your weakness and fraility does not make me a bigot.
Maybe being humbele would make you a better man.

Harrison could have ended the ethnic cleasing in Florida. he did not. That disproves your Amercian militarists are good peacemakers lie.

Taylor could have done the same in Oregon.

I have already said that I am mostly Caucasian, but I am proud of my native American heritage, passed to me from my Oklahoma great grandparents. Being mostly Caucasian does not make you bad. Defending caucasian genocide, as you do, does. Perpetuating it as you does makes you bad.

It is sad. In some ways, you seem to have much to offer, as with your Bachmann post.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In return, tell us why this has anything even remotely to do with the next election cycle.

Unlike Harrison and Taylor and Obama, we should pick a "commander in chief" who will end our genocidal wars immediately.

I like Cynthia Mckinney, but perhaps you have a better choice.

btw, nice name.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Unlike Harrison and Taylor and Obama, we should pick a "commander in chief" who will end our genocidal wars immediately.

I like Cynthia Mckinney, but perhaps you have a better choice.

btw, nice name.

Reading your stuff makes me think of someone driving a golf ball in a tile bathroom.

.

Originally Posted by TnT

Reading your stuff makes me think of someone driving a golf ball in a tile bathroom.

.

How do you drive a golf ball?

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

How do you drive a golf ball?

Exactly...which probably is TNT's point.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Exactly...which probably is TNT's point.

Should we give it wheels?

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Should we give it wheels?

If we do, the wheels will only make it go backwards, in circles or just crash into other vehicles.

Originally Posted by TnT

Reading your stuff makes me think of someone driving a golf ball in a tile bathroom.

.

You have a better choice than Cynthia Mckinney? You want to stick with Obama?

Exclusive: Financial Sector Helps Barack Obama Score Big Money
President Barack Obama has relied more on well-connected Wall Street figures to fund his re-election than he did four years ago when he campaigned as an outsider and an underdog.

One-third of the money Obama's elite fund-raising corps has raised on behalf of his re-election has come from the financial sector, according to a new Center for Responsive Politics analysis.

Individuals who work in the finance, insurance and real estate sector are responsible for raising at least $11.8 million for Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, according to the Center's research. All of Obama's bundlers have raised a minimum of $35 million so far this year.

During his entire 2008 presidential bid, bundlers who worked in the finance, insurance and real estate sector were responsible for a minimum of $16.1 million, according to the Center's research. That's about 21 percent of the $76.5 million estimated minimum amount that these top fund-raisers brought in for Obama's presidential campaign.

The Center also found:

• Bundlers within the securities and investment industry have been particularly active this year, as have the traditional staple of lawyers.
• None of Obama's bundlers are active lobbyists, but seven are former lobbyists, who collectively raised at least $1.35 million.
• Obama has also raised a minimum of $2.2 million from openly gay and lesbian individuals who were not bundlers for his presidential campaign four years ago.
• About 60 percent of Obama's 244 re-election bundlers did not bundle for his 2008 presidential campaign. New bundlers brought in about half of the money raised by bundlers so far.

Exact dollar amounts for how much cash these top fund-raisers have collected during the past few months is not known because the Obama campaign provided only broad ranges of how much money each bundler collected. » Read More

• New OpenSecrets.org profile of Obama's 2012 bundlers

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Ask yourself why you feel the need to brag about your rich daddy. Who cares? and you do act spoiled. pointing out your weakness and fraility does not make me a bigot.
Maybe being humbele would make you a better man.

Harrison could have ended the ethnic cleasing in Florida. he did not. That disproves your Amercian militarists are good peacemakers lie.

Taylor could have done the same in Oregon.

I have already said that I am mostly Caucasian, but I am proud of my native American heritage, passed to me from my Oklahoma great grandparents. Being mostly Caucasian does not make you bad. Defending caucasian genocide, as you do, does. Perpetuating it as you does makes you bad.

It is sad. In some ways, you seem to have much to offer, as with your Bachmann post.

I have never bragged about my rich daddy, partly because I never had one. I lived in very average three-bedroom houses as a kid and went to public schools until I was 16. Just for the record.

Meanwhile, thank you very much for confirming everything I said about you, and good-bye.



I have

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

You have a better choice than Cynthia Mckinney? You want to stick with Obama?

Bernie Sanders.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Bernie Sanders.

Howard Dean.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I think this might be a good point to bring up a Myers-Briggs detail, the difference between the thinking type and the feeling type. Thinking and feeling, as Jung used those terms and as they have gone into the M-B diagram, refer to two ways of making decisions about the environment. (Sensation and intuition refer to two ways of perceiving that environment, which isn't the same thing.)

Thinking is the use of reason, evidence, logic, scientific method. It's most useful for answering questions of objective fact: questions about what is.

Feeling is the use of judgment, value estimation, social skills, and empathy. It's most useful for answering questions of value: questions about what should be.

Most people lean towards one of these, and are deficient in the other one. It's a common error to try to apply thinking to questions that are more appropriate for feeling or vice-versa. For example:

1) Questions of value cannot be finally answered by logical reasoning from first principles or from material evidence. Ultimately, a judgment must be made on a non-rational basis -- a feeling judgment, not a thinking one. A good example of this is a religious believer trying to assert moral arguments on the basis of reasoning from Scripture. Such arguments are rarely convincing even among people all of whom believe in the Scripture being used, because one's own feeling function -- the appropriate tool for value judgments -- trumps any logic.

2) On the other hand, questions of fact have nothing to do with morality, or with social interactions such as compromise. For example: "The truth lies somewhere between the two" is a feeling statement with no place in answering questions of objective fact; if for instance a discussion ensues between a creationist and someone arguing on the basis of evolution, the truth does not lie in a compromise between the two. The creationist is simply wrong, period. That a conclusion based on evidence is somehow perceived as immoral is irrelevant here, and that's another common error.

Each function is very important and each has its appropriate type of question to answer. It is a fundamental error to apply either to the wrong sort of question. There has been a fair amount of that on this thread.

First of off, I like how you described the T and F functions. But I love you use only used Christians as examples of how to use them the wrong way. No bias there. I mean I don't go around making back handed digs about atheism, pantheism, or animism when I talking about personality functions or some other completely unrelated subject. Could you at least try to be less offensive to those of us who chose to believe Christianity. You are a writer so I know you know what you are doing.

Dennis Kucinich.

Originally Posted by pizal81

First of off, I like how you described the T and F functions. But I love you use only used Christians as examples of how to use them the wrong way.

I wasn't using Christian examples at all. Look again. I didn't say "trying to assert moral arguments on the basis of reasoning from the Bible," now did I? No, I said Scripture. The Bible is indeed Scripture, but so is the Koran, so is the Baghavad Gita, so is the Book of Mormon, or at least believers in those religions think they are. I could also have referenced Sam Harris' attempt to assert a scientific basis for morality, and have done so on other occasions, but I didn't want to get too long-winded so I picked only one.

In the other example, I said "creationism," which isn't an explicitly Christian idea at all. Other religions have an idea of a Creator, too, you know. One could be a Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu creationist as easily as a Christian one.

So you see, this isn't bias on my part. It's oversensitivity on yours.

P.S. thanks for the compliment in re the T versus F function.

Originally Posted by Aldaris

Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis doesn't have the charisma to use the bully pulpit effectively, Howard Dean does.

Holy Hannah! I never dreamed that Bernie would say this!

So my suggestion is, I think one of the reasons the president has made the move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama believes he’s doing. [...] So I would say to Ryan, discouragement is not an option. I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/201...primary-obama/

As a later Boomer who read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and Black Elk Speaks, it is just intellectually and emotionally (for both sets of Meyers-Briggs) undifferentiated to label an entire group, with a few exceptions as wholly evil and every other group as its victim. And it kind of makes me puke for the simplistic crap the most vehement of my generation has foisted on younger gens historically. Read some medieval history if you want to see real hell. And I not only know but lived through 1) the sexual revolution (second wave) 2) feminism (second wave) 3) civil rights (ditto) but dealt with English Departments and the insane Marcuse, Foucault, Derrida, Marxist and Feminist "glosses" on every single piece of writing that passed underneath my eyes. It was all political and it was often a territorial sideshow which had little to do with the text and everything to do with theory. The interpretations were often utterly out of context and filled with agenda.

And Lady V you bought it hook line and sinker. It's adolescent claptrap and lacks perception and context and worst of all, humanity.


It is as idiotic and narrow thinking as White Supremists' views. Knee-jerkism is the same no matter what "side" you're on. And I'm speaking as a very white bleeding liberal who is writing about my slave-owning ancestors and who has been in contact with the descendents of the people my family owned. ]

In realistic terms Cynthia MCKinney has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected to president. Sanders and Kucinich have a slightly better chance, but not much. I deeply value their voices, especially the latter two.

We're in a 4 friggen T. And what I'm seeing right now is the Right is totally out of control and the Left isn't far behind.

But unthinking polemic, no matter where is comes from is still polemic.

Originally Posted by annla899

And it kind of makes me puke for the simplistic crap the most vehement of my generation has foisted on younger gens historically. [...] And Lady V you bought it hook line and sinker.

I agree -- Lady V comes off as having been "brainwashed by Boomers." (BTW, the other day I wrote a whole screed about a certain subculture of Millies who she reminds me of...but before I could post it, the discussion moved on...oh well.)

I want to take this a step further, though. Because I think this isn't always because of Boomers' deliberate political twisting of the truth. I think often it's because of differences in context...a generation gap, but one that neither generation is fully aware of.

This is hard to put into words, so I hope I do ok...

I've mentioned before that I don't dislike Boomers -- unlike many Xers. I think this is because, since I had Silent parents and was very curious what their lives had been like, I was more aware of the context in which Boomers said what they said -- I was more aware of where Boomers were coming from.

For example, when the intense feminist teacher bit little kids' heads off for mistakenly calling her "Miss" instead of "Ms." -- most of the little Xers were just hurt. But I knew she was coming from a place where people were constantly criticizing her for wanting to be "Ms.," and some of them expressed that by violating her wishes "accidentally-on-purpose." She was wrong in thinking that of little kids, but she thought that because adults really had done that to her. So I wasn't as hurt.

Now here comes a new generation who also heard Boomers' words in a different context than the Boomers were speaking them. But unlike Xers, who were hurt and reacted by ignoring them -- this new generation looked up to and believed them.

Lady V's political attitudes remind me of Adina's ridiculously strict attitude toward alcohol.

And here's how I remember what happened with her: The Xers, older Millennials, and some Silents were all trying to help her out by teaching her that her views didn't have to be so extreme...and then along came a Boomer whose impassioned speech on the evils of alcohol made it extremely clear just where Adina was getting her ideas from.

(I'm sorry, I truly can't remember if that was you. But either way --) My point is not that the Boomer was wrong. My point is that she was right -- in context. I knew where she was coming from, and I wasn't trying, it wasn't a conscious effort; her context was similar to mine. If asked right after reading the speech whether I ageed, I'd have said yes.

But -- then there was Adina. And she made me realize that the place Millennials were listening from was not the same place Boomers were speaking from.

The Boomers who convinced Adina that alcohol needed to be prohibited were coming from a place where "everyone knew" alcohol was no big deal. Where "s/he was drunk" was a mitigating factor in bad behavior, including rape and manslaughter. Where, in 1984, my 1970 brother's older friend calmed his fears about being caught as an underage, unskilled driver with, "Don't worry, if the cops see you make a mistake they'll just think you're drunk" (Millennials: "-- and ignore it," was what everybody didn't just know, but automatically assumed; it never would have occurred to them there would be any other result). Every word the Boomers said was in reaction to, in the context of, the attitude they were used to having to fight.

And that's how I heard it. But Adina heard it in a world where "everyone knows" that "drunk drivers" are the extremely irresponsible scum of the earth. Where of course you get a designated driver -- and where "s/he was drunk" only makes someone's crime worse.

And I'm not saying Boomers are out of touch! You could just as easily say -- and I often do, on issues important to me -- that Millennials are out of touch, that they're ignorant of context, of history. That they don't appreciate the sacrifices older generations have made for them. I often feel that way, and by "older generations" I don't mean Xers (we're mostly sacrificing for the New Artists, I think). I mean Boomers and Silents. They improved things for Millennials in many ways, and Millennials often don't realize the extent of that because they're not aware of recent history. (Remember Adina's, "Who's Chelsea Clinton? Is she related to Hillary?")

There's a generation gap here. And I think that's a major reason why Millennials can develop attitudes like Adina's and Lady V's, and seem "brainwashed by the most extreme of the Boomers."

Originally Posted by annla899

As a later Boomer who read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and Black Elk Speaks, it is just intellectually and emotionally (for both sets of Meyers-Briggs) undifferentiated to label an entire group, with a few exceptions as wholly evil and every other group as its victim. And it kind of makes me puke for the simplistic crap the most vehement of my generation has foisted on younger gens historically. Read some medieval history if you want to see real hell. And I not only know but lived through 1) the sexual revolution (second wave) 2) feminism (second wave) 3) civil rights (ditto) but dealt with English Departments and the insane Marcuse, Foucault, Derrida, Marxist and Feminist "glosses" on every single piece of writing that passed underneath my eyes. It was all political and it was often a territorial sideshow which had little to do with the text and everything to do with theory. The interpretations were often utterly out of context and filled with agenda.

And Lady V you bought it hook line and sinker. It's adolescent claptrap and lacks perception and context and worst of all, humanity.


It is as idiotic and narrow thinking as White Supremists' views. Knee-jerkism is the same no matter what "side" you're on. And I'm speaking as a very white bleeding liberal who is writing about my slave-owning ancestors and who has been in contact with the descendents of the people my family owned. ]

In realistic terms Cynthia MCKinney has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected to president. Sanders and Kucinich have a slightly better chance, but not much. I deeply value their voices, especially the latter two.

We're in a 4 friggen T. And what I'm seeing right now is the Right is totally out of control and the Left isn't far behind.

But unthinking polemic, no matter where is comes from is still polemic.

Foucault? Derrida? BAH, you aren't in the big leagues of intellectual idiocy unless you make constant references to Lacan...

Originally Posted by Ted '79

I agree -- Lady V comes off as having been "brainwashed by Boomers." (BTW, the other day I wrote a whole screed about a certain subculture of Millies who she reminds me of...but before I could post it, the discussion moved on...oh well.)

I want to take this a step further, though. Because I think this isn't always because of Boomers' deliberate political twisting of the truth. I think often it's because of differences in context...a generation gap, but one that neither generation is fully aware of.

This is hard to put into words, so I hope I do ok...

I've mentioned before that I don't dislike Boomers -- unlike many Xers. I think this is because, since I had Silent parents and was very curious what their lives had been like, I was more aware of the context in which Boomers said what they said -- I was more aware of where Boomers were coming from.

For example, when the intense feminist teacher bit little kids' heads off for mistakenly calling her "Miss" instead of "Ms." -- most of the little Xers were just hurt. But I knew she was coming from a place where people were constantly criticizing her for wanting to be "Ms.," and some of them expressed that by violating her wishes "accidentally-on-purpose." She was wrong in thinking that of little kids, but she thought that because adults really had done that to her. So I wasn't as hurt.

Now here comes a new generation who also heard Boomers' words in a different context than the Boomers were speaking them. But unlike Xers, who were hurt and reacted by ignoring them -- this new generation looked up to and believed them.

Lady V's political attitudes remind me of Adina's ridiculously strict attitude toward alcohol.

And here's how I remember what happened with her: The Xers, older Millennials, and some Silents were all trying to help her out by teaching her that her views didn't have to be so extreme...and then along came a Boomer whose impassioned speech on the evils of alcohol made it extremely clear just where Adina was getting her ideas from.

(I'm sorry, I truly can't remember if that was you. But either way --) My point is not that the Boomer was wrong. My point is that she was right -- in context. I knew where she was coming from, and I wasn't trying, it wasn't a conscious effort; her context was similar to mine. If asked right after reading the speech whether I ageed, I'd have said yes.

But -- then there was Adina. And she made me realize that the place Millennials were listening from was not the same place Boomers were speaking from.

The Boomers who convinced Adina that alcohol needed to be prohibited were coming from a place where "everyone knew" alcohol was no big deal. Where "s/he was drunk" was a mitigating factor in bad behavior, including rape and manslaughter. Where, in 1984, my 1970 brother's older friend calmed his fears about being caught as an underage, unskilled driver with, "Don't worry, if the cops see you make a mistake they'll just think you're drunk" (Millennials: "-- and ignore it," was what everybody didn't just know, but automatically assumed; it never would have occurred to them there would be any other result). Every word the Boomers said was in reaction to, in the context of, the attitude they were used to having to fight.

And that's how I heard it. But Adina heard it in a world where "everyone knows" that "drunk drivers" are the extremely irresponsible scum of the earth. Where of course you get a designated driver -- and where "s/he was drunk" only makes someone's crime worse.

And I'm not saying Boomers are out of touch! You could just as easily say -- and I often do, on issues important to me -- that Millennials are out of touch, that they're ignorant of context, of history. That they don't appreciate the sacrifices older generations have made for them. I often feel that way, and by "older generations" I don't mean Xers (we're mostly sacrificing for the New Artists, I think). I mean Boomers and Silents. They improved things for Millennials in many ways, and Millennials often don't realize the extent of that because they're not aware of recent history. (Remember Adina's, "Who's Chelsea Clinton? Is she related to Hillary?")

There's a generation gap here. And I think that's a major reason why Millennials can develop attitudes like Adina's and Lady V's, and seem "brainwashed by the most extreme of the Boomers."

Good post. I often hear Boomers say that Millies "Take the victories of the 60s for granted".

Originally Posted by Odin

Good post. I often hear Boomers say that Millies "Take the victories of the 60s for granted".

Some Boomers might complain about that. I think it represents a victory myself.