USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
There was an absolutely fantastic article in Scientific American about 22 years ago or so (+- 3 years) about the rise of Solidarity in Poland. It applied neural net theory to human society. I wish I could find a copy of it; obviously it has stuck in my mind for quite a while, which indicates how mind-blowing it was!
I'll try to translate what I recall of it into regular English....
Basically, the article was about the levels and densities of connections among people in a society. In the Communist countries before the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was essential to the leadership to eliminate any social connections among people. You had family connections, and in Poland back then, you had the Catholic Church (which was viewed as subversive and dangerous and was heavily suppressed), but nothing in between...no neighborhood associations, no regional associations, nothing to connect people into a sense of common bond and common purpose. Then, when Solidarity started to organize, it filled a "space" of intermediate "span" which "crystallized" quite rapidly into a very powerful social force, at an intermediate level, filling a major void. Its size and reach, larger than local community yet smaller than nation (it was mostly skilled workers, not "everyone" in society) filled an essential niche and gave it tremendous power in organizing and motivating its members.
I think of that article and that event from time to time (aside: there's a very different view of similar phenomena that occur in chemistry and physics in Murray Kauffman's book At Home in the Universe, which describes how, as you increase the density of connections among members of a system, you suddenly reach a critical point at which something brand new that never existed before suddenly takes on "a life of its own" so to speak: a few simple hydrocarbon compounds jostling around in a primordial soup keep bumping into each other, combining; and suddenly you have complex hydrocarbons.....single-celled organisms start absorbing other single-celled organisms and suddenly you have multi-celled organisms.....extended families in a conscribed area keep bumping into each other and suddenly you have clans....)
Anyway, when we lived in a small town, going to church on Sunday was an essential part of the overall social fabric. Our kids would complain, "why to we have to go?" and we explained "that's how we check up on each other and take care of each other." There was only one service, with coffee and donuts after for the adults and CCD for the kids, so that we developed a nice, tightly-knit community. We also had regular activities as a community every several months; be it a square dance or a family night at the rec center (we'd rent the entire rec center for the evening).
During the time we lived there, the Columbine massacre occured. Our town of 12,000 people saw five teen suicides in six weeks immediately afterward, none of them among our church group. Apparently we had stumbled upon something by accident that later we honed by deliberate design: the best way to help teens with their family troubles is to help them develop healthy relationships with adults outside their own family. These connections could not be forced, they needed to develop spontaneously: and so we'd arrange events at which they could occor on their own (hey, "father-son" / "mother-daughter" events were not unique to us; they've been around for millenia and this insight helps explain why...)
I know I'm meandering a little....my "point" here is that this level of social fabric that is essential to a healthy functional society is starting to fray. People are disassociating from that level of commmunity that unites us, retreating into smaller enclaves. In our church group, for example, we'd have a rotating group that would meet once a month to plan weekly visits to people who were sick and housebound, who had just had a baby, who just had a death in the family. Anyone who knew someone in need would submit the name and we'd have a group make three or four visits once a week. It didn't matter who they were planning to vote for or what their political views were, it didn't even matter if they themselves were church members themselves if they were friends or family of church members. What mattered is that they were neighbors in need.
That sense of communal spirit is under attack from two sides. One, from the relentless forces of capitalism: it's more profitable for businesses for everyone to have their own appliances rather than share them; for everyone to stay at home all night every night watching advertisements interspersed with entertainment rather than visiting people face to face; for everyone to have superficial "friends" in a mutual "look-at-me aren't I cool" admiration society at the cost of any deep enduring connection).
Now, I am going to make a subtle distinction here between well-meaning people who are unaware of unintended consequences, and a much smaller cadre of cold-hearted manipulators....The other attack on communal society comes from the progressive agenda: we are told that we cannot rely on each other because everyone is selfish and cares only about themselves, the only entity we can trust to watch out for each other is the government. and this brings us back to where we started in this post: we need a new "solidarity" level of structures today; we lack that intermediate-sized social entity that unites us, not on a national level, yet beyond our restricted protected enclaves, something outside of politics entirely.
Sometimes I rail about "too much" government influence in our lives like a typical [whatever]; however, my concerns are more deeply rooted: there is something pernicious and dangerous about relying solely on government or on our employers as our only intermediary between each other.
There was an absolutely fantastic article in Scientific American about 22 years ago or so (+- 3 years) about the rise of Solidarity in Poland. It applied neural net theory to human society. I wish I could find a copy of it; obviously it has stuck in my mind for quite a while, which indicates how mind-blowing it was!
I'll try to translate what I recall of it into regular English....
Basically, the article was about the levels and densities of connections among people in a society. In the Communist countries before the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was essential to the leadership to eliminate any social connections among people. You had family connections, and in Poland back then, you had the Catholic Church (which was viewed as subversive and dangerous and was heavily suppressed), but nothing in between...no neighborhood associations, no regional associations, nothing to connect people into a sense of common bond and common purpose. Then, when Solidarity started to organize, it filled a "space" of intermediate "span" which "crystallized" quite rapidly into a very powerful social force, at an intermediate level, filling a major void. Its size and reach, larger than local community yet smaller than nation (it was mostly skilled workers, not "everyone" in society) filled an essential niche and gave it tremendous power in organizing and motivating its members.
I think of that article and that event from time to time (aside: there's a very different view of similar phenomena that occur in chemistry and physics in Murray Kauffman's book At Home in the Universe, which describes how, as you increase the density of connections among members of a system, you suddenly reach a critical point at which something brand new that never existed before suddenly takes on "a life of its own" so to speak: a few simple hydrocarbon compounds jostling around in a primordial soup keep bumping into each other, combining; and suddenly you have complex hydrocarbons.....single-celled organisms start absorbing other single-celled organisms and suddenly you have multi-celled organisms.....extended families in a conscribed area keep bumping into each other and suddenly you have clans....)
Anyway, when we lived in a small town, going to church on Sunday was an essential part of the overall social fabric. Our kids would complain, "why to we have to go?" and we explained "that's how we check up on each other and take care of each other." There was only one service, with coffee and donuts after for the adults and CCD for the kids, so that we developed a nice, tightly-knit community. We also had regular activities as a community every several months; be it a square dance or a family night at the rec center (we'd rent the entire rec center for the evening).
During the time we lived there, the Columbine massacre occured. Our town of 12,000 people saw five teen suicides in six weeks immediately afterward, none of them among our church group. Apparently we had stumbled upon something by accident that later we honed by deliberate design: the best way to help teens with their family troubles is to help them develop healthy relationships with adults outside their own family. These connections could not be forced, they needed to develop spontaneously: and so we'd arrange events at which they could occor on their own (hey, "father-son" / "mother-daughter" events were not unique to us; they've been around for millenia and this insight helps explain why...)
I know I'm meandering a little....my "point" here is that this level of social fabric that is essential to a healthy functional society is starting to fray. People are disassociating from that level of commmunity that unites us, retreating into smaller enclaves. In our church group, for example, we'd have a rotating group that would meet once a month to plan weekly visits to people who were sick and housebound, who had just had a baby, who just had a death in the family. Anyone who knew someone in need would submit the name and we'd have a group make three or four visits once a week. It didn't matter who they were planning to vote for or what their political views were, it didn't even matter if they themselves were church members themselves if they were friends or family of church members. What mattered is that they were neighbors in need.
That sense of communal spirit is under attack from two sides. One, from the relentless forces of capitalism: it's more profitable for businesses for everyone to have their own appliances rather than share them; for everyone to stay at home all night every night watching advertisements interspersed with entertainment rather than visiting people face to face; for everyone to have superficial "friends" in a mutual "look-at-me aren't I cool" admiration society at the cost of any deep enduring connection).
Now, I am going to make a subtle distinction here between well-meaning people who are unaware of unintended consequences, and a much smaller cadre of cold-hearted manipulators....The other attack on communal society comes from the progressive agenda: we are told that we cannot rely on each other because everyone is selfish and cares only about themselves, the only entity we can trust to watch out for each other is the government. and this brings us back to where we started in this post: we need a new "solidarity" level of structures today; we lack that intermediate-sized social entity that unites us, not on a national level, yet beyond our restricted protected enclaves, something outside of politics entirely.
Sometimes I rail about "too much" government influence in our lives like a typical [whatever]; however, my concerns are more deeply rooted: there is something pernicious and dangerous about relying solely on government or on our employers as our only intermediary between each other.
Last edited:
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
If I recall correctly, it is an axiom from anthropology / sociology that if a society's opportunities for young adults become constricted, then the duration of adolescence in that society is extended.
We see a correlation of that axiom during recessions, when people spend more time in educational institutions than during expansions (this correlation is pretty well documented in the literature of economics but I'm not going to cite sources here if you don't mind).
In the US economy these days, we are hit with a "double whammy" so to speak: because of longevity improvements, people are not only living longer, they also are living healthy lives longer, and the the switch from defined benefit pensions to 401ks makes people more dependent upon their own savings habits and investment acumen (or lack thereof) Toss in inadquate savings and stock market volatility, and now people have to work longer rather than retire sooner, resulting in fewer positions to fill due to turnover. Concurrently, anemic economic growth also means that business startups are down, while expanded regulations have caused established businesses to cut back on new hires.
We see these forces playing out in many ways; however it is not uncommon, especially among males, to see adolescence now persisting well into their mid-20s.
When I was a kid, all my friends and I couldn't wait to grow up. We saw the power, confidence, control, mastery exhibited by the adult males in our lives and wanted to emulate that. The economy was growing, technological innovation was helping to drive the boom, and there were plenty of opportunities for young men to grow into adults at a relatively young age, especially compared to today.
I am concerned when I see how rampant immaturity is becoming even among people in their 30s and 40s. Posters on this board actually brag about being bullies.
Not only are they knowingly, deliberately rude and hurtful to others, they actually are proud of it. Our media celebrates people who party 24 / 7 as role models.
At one time, feminists wanted to empower women to take control over their own lives. They neither wanted men to hold them back because of outdated prejudices, nor did they view dependency upon males as an objective to be attained. Nowadays, the supposed "feminist" looks to some paternalistic central government to watch out for them, apparently because they now lack the confidence to take care of themselves on their own (the old-time feminists would not want the government dictating to them about who was supposed to have control over their bodies; nor did they expect the government to pander to them over reproductive rights as a covert way to make them dependent again in a new, subtler, and more subversive way!)
Every now and then, when I see the news, I wonder, "whatever happened to all the grown ups?"
Even our President complains that adversity is "not his fault." [memo: no one cares whose "fault" it is, we merely want you to do something constructive about it. so much forthat hope, eh?
If I recall correctly, it is an axiom from anthropology / sociology that if a society's opportunities for young adults become constricted, then the duration of adolescence in that society is extended.
We see a correlation of that axiom during recessions, when people spend more time in educational institutions than during expansions (this correlation is pretty well documented in the literature of economics but I'm not going to cite sources here if you don't mind).
In the US economy these days, we are hit with a "double whammy" so to speak: because of longevity improvements, people are not only living longer, they also are living healthy lives longer, and the the switch from defined benefit pensions to 401ks makes people more dependent upon their own savings habits and investment acumen (or lack thereof) Toss in inadquate savings and stock market volatility, and now people have to work longer rather than retire sooner, resulting in fewer positions to fill due to turnover. Concurrently, anemic economic growth also means that business startups are down, while expanded regulations have caused established businesses to cut back on new hires.
We see these forces playing out in many ways; however it is not uncommon, especially among males, to see adolescence now persisting well into their mid-20s.
When I was a kid, all my friends and I couldn't wait to grow up. We saw the power, confidence, control, mastery exhibited by the adult males in our lives and wanted to emulate that. The economy was growing, technological innovation was helping to drive the boom, and there were plenty of opportunities for young men to grow into adults at a relatively young age, especially compared to today.
I am concerned when I see how rampant immaturity is becoming even among people in their 30s and 40s. Posters on this board actually brag about being bullies.
Not only are they knowingly, deliberately rude and hurtful to others, they actually are proud of it. Our media celebrates people who party 24 / 7 as role models.At one time, feminists wanted to empower women to take control over their own lives. They neither wanted men to hold them back because of outdated prejudices, nor did they view dependency upon males as an objective to be attained. Nowadays, the supposed "feminist" looks to some paternalistic central government to watch out for them, apparently because they now lack the confidence to take care of themselves on their own (the old-time feminists would not want the government dictating to them about who was supposed to have control over their bodies; nor did they expect the government to pander to them over reproductive rights as a covert way to make them dependent again in a new, subtler, and more subversive way!)
Every now and then, when I see the news, I wonder, "whatever happened to all the grown ups?"
Even our President complains that adversity is "not his fault." [memo: no one cares whose "fault" it is, we merely want you to do something constructive about it. so much forthat hope, eh?
Last edited:
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Do you have any evidence of what seems like a rather sexist comment?
Do you have any evidence of what seems like a rather sexist comment?
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
That central government that you mention is the entity that can restrict their control over their bodies. You know, by passing laws making things like abortion illegal. By passing personhood crap.
By voting against people who would pass such laws, they actually took control of the situation rather than sitting back and hoping for the best or trusting that conservatives wouldn't go that far.
Do you see this? Let me say it again... They took control of their bodies by voting the way that they did.
Do you really believe your drivel?
I mean, you can type whatever you want, but you should at least have it stand up to basic logic.
That central government that you mention is the entity that can restrict their control over their bodies. You know, by passing laws making things like abortion illegal. By passing personhood crap.
By voting against people who would pass such laws, they actually took control of the situation rather than sitting back and hoping for the best or trusting that conservatives wouldn't go that far.
Do you see this? Let me say it again... They took control of their bodies by voting the way that they did.
Do you really believe your drivel?
I mean, you can type whatever you want, but you should at least have it stand up to basic logic.
Last edited:
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Gurt's right. It's pretty amusing to see people who complain of too much government advocate laws allowing government to dictate moral and religious beliefs.
Gurt's right. It's pretty amusing to see people who complain of too much government advocate laws allowing government to dictate moral and religious beliefs.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
I love the irony of conservative voters accusing the left of using scare tactics all the while insisting that Obama wants to turn America into a police state in which all its inhabitants are zombies sucking at the government's teet. Also teachers aren't the problem but it's another nice scare tactic. Neither of my children have yet to face a teacher I wouldn't back and while their teachers have been great they are ahead of the curve because of the time and effort my wife and I put into their daily life. Your children will get out of their education what they and their parents put into it and no single bad apple of the teacher bunch can get in the way of that.
I love the irony of conservative voters accusing the left of using scare tactics all the while insisting that Obama wants to turn America into a police state in which all its inhabitants are zombies sucking at the government's teet. Also teachers aren't the problem but it's another nice scare tactic. Neither of my children have yet to face a teacher I wouldn't back and while their teachers have been great they are ahead of the curve because of the time and effort my wife and I put into their daily life. Your children will get out of their education what they and their parents put into it and no single bad apple of the teacher bunch can get in the way of that.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Apparently you totally missed this one entirely. I suggest that the government should not be involved one way or the other.
You seem to say that the government should be involved on the "right" side to protect people from the government being controlled by people from the "wrong" side. Very very different.
Apparently you totally missed this one entirely. I suggest that the government should not be involved one way or the other.
You seem to say that the government should be involved on the "right" side to protect people from the government being controlled by people from the "wrong" side. Very very different.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Amusing?!? I call that downright frightening!
We all saw what a disaster Prohibition was, yet we still have laws making marijuana use or cocaine use illegal? all that does is enrich drug dealers and corrupt law enforcement and the courts with bribes, while ruining countries like Mexico and Colombia.
We have laws (except in Nevada) prohibiting prostitution, and all that does is subject women to abuse by pimps and dangerous johns, while contributing to the spread of STDs.
The government should not be involved in these kind of personal moral decisions one way or the other. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, encourage people to get help. That's fine. Outlaw it? Clearly doesn't work; or as they say, "the cure is worse than the disease." I really like Hippocrates primary rule: First, do no harm.
Amusing?!?
I call that downright frightening!We all saw what a disaster Prohibition was, yet we still have laws making marijuana use or cocaine use illegal? all that does is enrich drug dealers and corrupt law enforcement and the courts with bribes, while ruining countries like Mexico and Colombia.
We have laws (except in Nevada) prohibiting prostitution, and all that does is subject women to abuse by pimps and dangerous johns, while contributing to the spread of STDs.
The government should not be involved in these kind of personal moral decisions one way or the other. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, encourage people to get help. That's fine. Outlaw it? Clearly doesn't work; or as they say, "the cure is worse than the disease." I really like Hippocrates primary rule: First, do no harm.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Very open minded of you.
The problem is that large elements of your side want to be intimately involved. As long as that's the case, women who care about having control over their bodies will need to vote against conservatives.
Just because some conservatives see things the way that you do doesn't mean that other conservatives aren't a threat to women's rights. Those conservatives hold more offices (and power) than ones like you.
The left doesn't want to be involved in this beyond keeping government out of it.
Did you really need me to connect those dots for you?
Very open minded of you.
The problem is that large elements of your side want to be intimately involved. As long as that's the case, women who care about having control over their bodies will need to vote against conservatives.
Just because some conservatives see things the way that you do doesn't mean that other conservatives aren't a threat to women's rights. Those conservatives hold more offices (and power) than ones like you.
The left doesn't want to be involved in this beyond keeping government out of it.
Did you really need me to connect those dots for you?
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
NOT "my" side. See post # 350.
also, you and I actually do agree: the government should be entirely kept out of it. It should not be subsidizing birth control nor abortion; nor should it be preventing access to birth control or early-term abortion. You want those, you can have those, just not paid for by taxpayers (or borrowed money).
I also hope we can agree that partial-birth "abortion" is pre-birth infanticide and not "abortion" at all. Something like 90% of the American public agrees with this sentiment, by the way. You make your "choice" relatively early on; absence of action in the first several months is a de facto choice to proceed. You cannot smother your new-born, you cannot kill an 8-month old fetus just because it hasn't left the womb yet.
NOT "my" side. See post # 350.
also, you and I actually do agree: the government should be entirely kept out of it. It should not be subsidizing birth control nor abortion; nor should it be preventing access to birth control or early-term abortion. You want those, you can have those, just not paid for by taxpayers (or borrowed money).
I also hope we can agree that partial-birth "abortion" is pre-birth infanticide and not "abortion" at all. Something like 90% of the American public agrees with this sentiment, by the way. You make your "choice" relatively early on; absence of action in the first several months is a de facto choice to proceed. You cannot smother your new-born, you cannot kill an 8-month old fetus just because it hasn't left the womb yet.
Last edited:
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
I don't know a single conservative that doesn't agree with you...the problem is the school districts complain that the problem is money, not enough money is there to help the children to succeed when in reality the problem is the parents don't care and don't push and don't help. No matter how much money you pump in to that system, you can't fix it if the student/parents dont want to fix it.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
True. People generally don't have an issue with teachers (though the teachers union is rubbish). There are good and lousy teachers, just like any profession. But there's a lot of teachers out there doing their best in a system that makes it very difficult. The amount of paperwork a teacher has to fill out no a regular basis is staggering, and takes them away from actually focusing on teaching.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
I agree with you.
or 
Bob, regarding your paperwork comment and this retort is a bit of a different angle, but my Parise my kids come home with so much paperwork (so much of it that I find pointless) that their school (which I imagine has to be like many others) is just wasting money as far as I am concerned. I know not every family has a home computer or perhaps can't afford to print, I would love to be able to sign the kids up with a "paperless" option when it comes to all the information that comes home. I'm obviously not referring to homework, but fliers about this or that - I get e-mails on my phone daily from their teachers - why not give me the option to be able to view all the paperwork they send home, view it and then print at will if I want? I would't think it would that logistically difficult to implement and the school could save $xxx per pupil per year in the end.
I agree with you.
or Bob, regarding your paperwork comment and this retort is a bit of a different angle, but my Parise my kids come home with so much paperwork (so much of it that I find pointless) that their school (which I imagine has to be like many others) is just wasting money as far as I am concerned. I know not every family has a home computer or perhaps can't afford to print, I would love to be able to sign the kids up with a "paperless" option when it comes to all the information that comes home. I'm obviously not referring to homework, but fliers about this or that - I get e-mails on my phone daily from their teachers - why not give me the option to be able to view all the paperwork they send home, view it and then print at will if I want? I would't think it would that logistically difficult to implement and the school could save $xxx per pupil per year in the end.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Bullshiat. You're the stereotypical Fark Independent(TM). Anyone who reads what you post knows what side you're on for about 95 percent of the issues.
Bullshiat. You're the stereotypical Fark Independent(TM). Anyone who reads what you post knows what side you're on for about 95 percent of the issues.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Some may disagree, some may agree, some will go "meh", but Pat Buchanan is always a good read - or in this case about Pat...
http://buchanan.org/blog/mind-of-the-new-majority-5388?
Some may disagree, some may agree, some will go "meh", but Pat Buchanan is always a good read - or in this case about Pat...
http://buchanan.org/blog/mind-of-the-new-majority-5388?
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
FYP.
You seem to subscribe to the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don't believe that. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, and that's it.
Because I am critical of Obama and the Dummycrats does NOT make me laudatory to the Repugnicans.
I don't trust either. The latter are out of power. Hence little to say about them since they don't have a chance to do anything harmful.
FYP.
You seem to subscribe to the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don't believe that. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, and that's it.
Because I am critical of Obama and the Dummycrats does NOT make me laudatory to the Repugnicans.
I don't trust either. The latter are out of power. Hence little to say about them since they don't have a chance to do anything harmful.