Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 159: Just How God Made Us

(+) Yeah! (+)

To be fair, I don't think society is in any sort of moral decline. As a whole, it's more tolerant and accepting than it's ever been and any temporary setback (electing a racist) is generally met with a pretty righteous and justified resistance from the population. We still have our issues and problems but as Martin Luther King Jr said: The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

So like yeah I guess if you guys wanna think the 50's were amazing have fun with that. I have no nostalgia for that, personally.
---

None of us have nostalgia for the 50s because we weren't alive back then lol

And I wouldn't say it's a moral decline but like just an overall complete decline in the way society is made up. Feminism isn't the lone contributor but it has a lot to do with it.
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

And I wouldn't say it's a moral decline but like just an overall complete decline in the way society is made up.

Based on what?
---

And keep in mind nostalgia can extend anything in the past. There's literally Utah GOP representatives longing for the days when women couldn't vote.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Based on what?

Everyone being fucking miserable, for starters.
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Based on what?

Everyone being fucking miserable, for starters.

We ranked 14th among 150 countries polled in terms of happiness rating in 2017.

Are you sure we're miserable?
---

Society is in decline because there hasn't been a major economic frontier that has changed our world since the late 90s/early 00s internet.

All the economic frontiers since the internet take off have been about "trimming the fat". Some examples nobody buys digital cameras anymore, their cell phone is their camera. Nobody buys MP3 players, their phone is their MP3 player. While we save money on this as consumers, its a combination of impressive and good but also scary when Kodak used to employ 145,000 people in the late 80s, and Instagram today has like 13.

The 90s/early 00s/even 2003/2004ish saw the internet takeover
The 80s saw the personal computer and the rise of personal technology
The 70s were the biggest recession post WW2 until the housing collapse of 07/08 (energy crisis, death of manufacturing in the rust belt)
The 50s and 60s saw the superhighway system and rise of TV to revolutionize our economy

The past 10 years we've seen things like the "big data" revolution, which has been great, but nothing like other times in history.
---

Well, the human condition is to be miserable so yes, but it has nothing to do with feminism (except that it makes ExTha miserable)
---

Metal_DK posted...

The 50s and 60s saw the superhighway system and rise of TV to revolutionize our economy

no
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Based on what?

Everyone being fucking miserable, for starters.

Modern era social media is the number 1 cause of people being miserable. Cell phones & 3G/4G/beyond internet in our pockets has made people miss out on so many opportunities its crazy. I would also argue its caused people in their 30s and older to still play "games" and not grow up in the dating market.
---

NFUN posted...

Metal_DK posted...

The 50s and 60s saw the superhighway system and rise of TV to revolutionize our economy

no

yep

https://classroom.synonym.com/impact-tv-economy-1950s-41061.html
http://www.dummies.com/education/history/american-history/the-impact-of-the-television-in-1950s-america/
---

Metal_DK posted...

Cell phones & 3G/4G/beyond internet in our pockets has made people miss out on so many opportunities its crazy. I would also argue its caused people in their 30s and older to still play "games" and not grow up in the dating market.

Wait what

The first thing makes hooking up so much easier
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Metal_DK posted...

Cell phones & 3G/4G/beyond internet in our pockets has made people miss out on so many opportunities its crazy. I would also argue its caused people in their 30s and older to still play "games" and not grow up in the dating market.

Wait what

The first thing makes hooking up so much easier

Its also made people not commit in the long term, and while its easier to "meet new people" because of it, its also caused everyone to drop each other quickly since they can just go back to tinder or some other crap and try again.

Nobody thinks long term in the social media era.
---

Am I just now realizing that Metal DK's casual revolution thing isn't a bit?
---

Not only is it not a bit, but actual cultural psychologists kind of agree with him
---

I've been sayin it for over 5 years now....
---

I sincerely thought you were playing a character and just really committed to it.
---

The 1950's marked the beginning of the Postwar Period of the Western world. The destruction caused by the Second World War provided opportunities for extravagant economic growth in both America in Europe. Almost completely untouched by war, America had an outstanding industrial advantage over war-torn Europe, whose industrial base was nearly demolished. In fact, the demands for military hardware prompted the growth of new factories and industrial methods which were converted post-war to create consumer goods and vehicles. Through the 50's, and to a lesser extent the 60's, the United States was by far the dominant industrial power catering to the demands of the Western World.

Ironically, the destruction also allowed Europe to prosper. To one degree or another, before the war all of Western Europe was deeply behind the times in terms of industrial techniques. Their factories were outdated, their population rural, and it was arguable that the region was even less prosperous and had lower standards of living than it did in 1914; the Continent still hadn't recovered from the last Great War, especially taking into account German hyperinflation in the 1920's and the worldwide Depression in the 30's. Starting from around 1950, most countries of Western Europe experienced Wirschaftswunder, La Trente Glorieuse, the Economic Miracle, as the countries "caught up" to the industrial standards of the time. Economic inequality shrunk as the poorer countries grew at tremendous rates: Italy grew at rates of 6.5-7% per year for a decade, for example, but even wealthier countries such as France grew at an average rate of 5%.

Sure, the US benefited from advertising and television as a wealthier citizenry on both sides of the oceans could better afford the luxury goods advertised, but one large part of this was because of a huge decrease in the costs of food and clothing. I don't remember the exact statistic, but, IIRC, the portion of a typical European family's budget that was dedicated to food and clothing shrunk from over 50% to less than 20%. In general, however, Europe was less enamored with television than was the US, and it didn't begin to take off to any meaningful extend in France or Germany until the 1960's, and the growth of Europe's highways had a different trajectory than that of the US (for example, Germany's Autobahn was built by Hitler).

The prosperity felt by the United States went hand-in-hand with that of Europe. I won't deny that the interstate highway system was a very good thing for the US economy, but to claim that it and television were the main drivers of the mindblowing economic growth the Western world experienced for nearly 30 years post-WW2 is ludicrous.

I didn't use Wikipedia for any of this information besides specific growth rates (I can find sources if you want), but I like how it organizes the reasons for the growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion#Causes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States#Postwar_prosperity:_1945%E2%80%931973

You get one sentence for new products and one for the highway system.

Your article says that people bought houses, vacuum cleaners, TVs, and credit card debt, and I'm sure this was the first or second Google result for "television economy 1950's". My favorite part is that you don't even expound on this, you just toss a link and say "yep".

In conclusion, I don't want to go to sleep.

I'm no economist, but would advertisements, as you theorize, actually even benefit the economy much in this way? They create demand, but the money is going somewhere anyway and a lot of advertising is competitive, trying to get consumers to prioritize one product over another. In any case, that's besides the point.
---

Im just here for Randy Orton...

\_O__/
---

context: the last essay I wrote began "Like much of post-war Europe, Italy was blessed with an economic miracle, a period of unprecedented economic growth that turned the previously agrarian, backwards nation into a fairly prosperous welfare state. Throughout the entiriety of the 1950s, Italy had a booming economy, and the economy grew at a good pace (a few hiccups aside) during the 60s. "
---

NFUN posted...

The 1950's marked the beginning of the Postwar Period of the Western world. The destruction caused by the Second World War provided opportunities for extravagant economic growth in both America in Europe. Almost completely untouched by war, America had an outstanding industrial advantage over war-torn Europe, whose industrial base was nearly demolished. In fact, the demands for military hardware prompted the growth of new factories and industrial methods which were converted post-war to create consumer goods and vehicles. Through the 50's, and to a lesser extent the 60's, the United States was by far the dominant industrial power catering to the demands of the Western World.

Oh don't get me wrong, the fact that the USA didn't get bombed into submission was a major factor for USA dominating in the 50s. It also was the reason why all our infrastructure was in place for us to transition to a less military life. But if you honestly think the TV and interstate system didnt revolutionize our economy during those decades and open up massive frontiers you are nuts.
---

Metal_DK posted...

NFUN posted...

The 1950's marked the beginning of the Postwar Period of the Western world. The destruction caused by the Second World War provided opportunities for extravagant economic growth in both America in Europe. Almost completely untouched by war, America had an outstanding industrial advantage over war-torn Europe, whose industrial base was nearly demolished. In fact, the demands for military hardware prompted the growth of new factories and industrial methods which were converted post-war to create consumer goods and vehicles. Through the 50's, and to a lesser extent the 60's, the United States was by far the dominant industrial power catering to the demands of the Western World.

Oh don't get me wrong, the fact that the USA didn't get bombed into submission was a major factor for USA dominating in the 50s. It also was the reason why all our infrastructure was in place for us to transition to a less military life. But if you honestly thing the TV and interstate system didnt revolutionize our economy during those decades and open up massive frontiers you are nuts.

wow
---

also how exactly did personal computers revolution the economy in the 80s
---

You know who makes my human condition miserable?

Randy Orton, Monday Nights on Raw.
---

NFUN posted...

also how exactly did personal computers revolution the economy in the 80s

You need to go to sleep if you don't know, same if you really think the TV and interstate system didn't change consumerism in the 50s/60s....don't give me just some 1 word "wow" crap (especially when your links mention the interstate system). I don't think we are as far off as you wish we were though in this discussion.

"We'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R706isyDrqI
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80scomputers.html
"By the time the 1980s came to an end, it was unusual for a household to be without a personal computer"

The 80s was also the decade when personal technology in general were much more prominent in day to day life (especially for kids), and modern era coding type careers started to become more mainstream.
---

Metal_DK posted...

don't give me just some 1 word "wow" crap

I gave you 500 words

You responded "you're right, but anybody that doesn't think the way I do without having provided facts or information must be nuts"

I mean, you can make a case for it. I would probably disagree, but we could have an actual back and forth. But to claim that I didn't generate an actual response to your claim is hysterical.

Metal_DK posted...

"By the time the 1980s came to an end, it was unusual for a household to be without a personal computer"

so what
---

NFUN posted...

I gave you 500 words

Youre entire post could be summed up essentially with "the usa wasnt destroyed in WW2 and this allowed us to take a lead" Which is absolutely a massive factor, not denying that. Your post about Europe also growing fast is mostly due to the fact that they had so much work to do, they had nowhere to go but up. Using a % growth is a bit misleading here because they lost so much during the war.

The television changed the way humans live. That alone causes massive economic changes. Advertising (a major aspect of the world economy) departments around the country saw a huge overhaul in how they do their jobs. The TV is no question a large reason why the 50s/60s saw economic growth.

NFUN posted...

so what

The same thing to what I just wrote applies. Anything that changes the way humans live causes economic frontiers. Computers are one of the biggest things that changed how we live (especially post ww2, same with TV, interstates, etc).

Im going to bed, so if i dont respond its not because I'm ignoring you. Thanks for the discussion so far.
---

The Casual Revolution could be summed up in a Randy Orton Punjabi Prison match.
---

The NRA is being investigated by the FBI for accepting funds from a Kremlin-backed banker in order to help Trump win the presidency.
---

every time I see Sarah Huckabee Sanders speak, I'm reminded that -- despite the fierce competition -- she is somehow still the most aggravating and annoying member of Trump's insane administration. sorry, Stephen Miller

just wanted to throw that opinion out there
---

Metal_DK posted...

Its also made people not commit in the long term, and while its easier to "meet new people" because of it, its also caused everyone to drop each other quickly since they can just go back to tinder or some other crap and try again.

Nobody thinks long term in the social media era.

this isn't my experience at all. a lot of my friends are extremely concerned with settling down, getting married and having kids. most of my friends are in their mid-to-late 20s.

sure, there's people who just want to quickly hook up and drop people as well, but to claim that when it comes to our generation "everyone drops each other quickly" is silly.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

this isn't my experience at all. a lot of my friends are extremely concerned with settling down, getting married and having kids. most of my friends are in their mid-to-late 20s.

sure, there's people who just want to quickly hook up and drop people as well, but to claim that when it comes to our generation "everyone drops each other quickly" is silly

Well that's good for you. Marriage rates, birth rates have plummeted. People use each other for likes, retweets, follows and all sorts of dopamine rushes that social media cause.

Now marriage rates and birth rates plummeting isn't entirely social media's fault, but it has severely contributed to "grass is always greener" type mentalities and causing people that don't "immediately connect with each other" to just say fuck it and try with someone new
---

haven't marriage rates been plummeting since way before the casual revolution, though? i feel like the "marriage and kids is the ideal" idea is super archaic (the kind of thing the alt right is nostalgic for).

birth rates plummeting is probably a good thing when you look at the overpopulation problem, btw.
---

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/us/white-supremacist-killings-adl-report/index.html

Not that the numbers matter, but it is sad that the DHS isnt focusing at all on white supremacists
---

It also shows you don't understand demographic transition very well.

We don't have as many kids because most of them now survive to adulthood
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

haven't marriage rates been plummeting since way before the casual revolution, though? i feel like the "marriage and kids is the ideal" idea is super archaic (the kind of thing the alt right is nostalgic for).

birth rates plummeting is probably a good thing when you look at the overpopulation problem, btw.

Wanting marriage and kids should not be considered alt right....maybe demanding everyone has to should be, or maybe just be considered authoritarian idk.

When studies state entire generations biggest fear is dying alone....well people still seem to want long term romantic and sexual companionship and must be considered to keeping citizens of a country happy...

The casual revolution definitely didn't start the decline of marriage and birth rates, it's had plenty of other effects and contributed to continuation though
---

Metal_DK posted...

The casual revolution definitely didn't start the decline of marriage and birth rates, it's had plenty of other effects and contributed to continuation though

I don't think that can safely be said when the things that led to them declining in the first place haven't really stopped.

If it's already snowing, I can't really say Ted going outside and dancing contributed to the snowfall with any certainty.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

If it's already snowing, I can't really say Ted going outside and dancing contributed to the snowfall with any certainty.

Bad analogy because social media definitely changed how people interact with each other, and that is a major aspect of friendship, dating, sex.

Dancing in the snow doesn't change the weather
---

StartTheMachine posted...

every time I see Sarah Huckabee Sanders speak, I'm reminded that -- despite the fierce competition -- she is somehow still the most aggravating and annoying member of Trump's insane administration. sorry, Stephen Miller

just wanted to throw that opinion out there

I honestly kind of laugh every time I see her
---

Metal_DK posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

If it's already snowing, I can't really say Ted going outside and dancing contributed to the snowfall with any certainty.

Bad analogy because social media definitely changed how people interact with each other, and that is a major aspect of friendship, dating, sex.

Dancing in the snow doesn't change the weather

So do you have proof that social media DIRECTLY has contributed to plummeting marriage and birth rates? Not just "Well, it changed how people interact, and..."
---

It's a good thing birth rates are down. How many kids enter the foster system as it is? That's a big part of the reason I decided to adopt rather than have kids. There's a lot of kids out there who need homes, that don't have them.
---

Metal_DK posted...

When studies state entire generations biggest fear is dying alone....well people still seem to want long term romantic and sexual companionship and must be considered to keeping citizens of a country happy...

you can have long term romantic and sexual companionship without either marriage or kids.
---

Birth rates getting too low can be a problem considering the younger pay taxes to keep elderly alive.

HashtagSEP posted...

So do you have proof that social media DIRECTLY has contributed to plummeting marriage and birth rates? Not just "Well, it changed how people interact, and..."

Do i really still need to post how social media changed interactions between people platonic and sexually? I post more sources for my claims than anyone who posts in these things....here's a quick 2.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/08/sex-americans-social-media

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/sexual-health/what-hookup-culture-millennials-having-less-sex-their-parents-n621746

Technology in general is causing more isolation than actual social interaction. Having your headphones in constantly with your Spotify playlist then coming home to netflix/steam/refreshing twitter to see if one more person liked your post but didn't interact with you at all, etc
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

you can have long term romantic and sexual companionship without either marriage or kids.

Long term relationships in general have declined in number
---

Metal_DK posted...

I post more sources for my claims than anyone who posts in these things....

you also make more controversial claims, though.

i just say stuff like "trump sucks." don't need to post a source for that >_>
---

Fair enough, the amount of people here who have said "I just come here to shitpost" is exceptionally high...

Saying the TV changed the economy immensely and how social media changed how humans interact (or lack of interaction) shouldn't fucking be controversial unless you are 15 or something....
---

My point is that while social media may have changed while humans interact, unless you have direct proof that that specific change in interaction has actually impacted marriage and birth rates, then you can't directly link them.

Basically, A began happening because of B, before C. So if A is happening and B never went away, without proof, you can't really just say "Well, C contributes to A, so D and E" and expect everybody to just nod and agree.
---

i wouldn't even say social media "changed how humans interact," it's just... added a different way humans interact. pretty sure that when you go to a pub now, the people there don't talk differently than the way they did 20 years ago.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i wouldn't even say social media "changed how humans interact," it's just... added a different way humans interact. pretty sure that when you go to a pub now, the people there don't talk differently than the way they did 20 years ago.

I don't know about you but when I go out with friends we all talk in memes and nothing else
---

Hmmm ... are we going to have a government shutdown?
---