Vital Statistics from the Netscrape
Jennie Kermode
safe to say whatever you liked? Well you were wrong! :p For the first
time, I have been in a position to archive the Netscrape this time around,
and I've been doing some research on the information which it offered up,
finding out a little more about the stuff of which alt.gothic is made. I
shall try to discern more interesting trends in the future, but I'm sure
you'll appreciate that this has taken me quite a wee while as it is, so
it's all you're getting for now.
There had been some recent discussions as to the average age of
a.g. posters, and whether it had gone up or down. As it happens, our very
youngest regular posters, and a few of our older ones (perhaps bored after
habing done it so many times before) did not contribute to the Netscrape,
so this sample isn't perfect. We also come up against the problem of
people answering the Netscrape but keeping their ages a secret - seventeen
people are guilty of this. Of those, based on my own knowledge and what I
have been able to discern from other sources, two are in their early
teens, perhaps worried about seeming too young to be taken seriously; five
are in their mid-twenties, and would seem to be being deliberately obscure
for no obvious reason; at least four are in their thirties and four to six
are over forty.
The mean average age of those who did contribute fully is twenty
four, a year down from the last time this was measured. This is mostly
because we have a lot of people aged between twenty and twenty three; the
number of people at each age after that is fairly constant. Taking into
account those who didn't contribute fully, the age of Netscrape posters as
a whole is over two thousand years!
The newsgroup breaks down remarkably evenly on sex lines, with
fifty one contributors stating that they're female and fifty one stating
that they're male. Three identified as in between, with two refusing to
say anything on the subject. Women were more than twice as likely as men
to say that they didn't feel comfortable with the roles expected of them
because of their sex.
Only six of our contributors are parents - between them, they
averaged one point two five children. It should be noted that two posters
either failed to answer or were too incoherent to convey whether or not
they had children. Twelve posters made references to eating children and
thirty were vehement about insisting that they would never have any at
all. Sixty four posters talked about their pets in the 'children'
category.
Seventy percent of contributors are from the USA. Eight percent
are from England, with another eight percent coming from various parts of
Canada. Four percent are Australian, two are from Scotland, one is from
South Africa and one is from the Netherlands. Recent observation of the
group outwith the Netscrape suggests that there are considerably more
Australians, Scots and Dutch posters out there, as well as one or two from
other places, so come on you lot, don't let the side down. ;)
Of those people prepared to show us their net.dicks, siani had
the most impressive. ;) She was the only contributor to have been here
since the group began in 1991. We had a huge influx of people around late
1996 and early 1997, most of whom, it would seem from this, have stuck
around, and post a great deal. Interestingly, those who arrived on a.g. in
1994 and in 1998 tend to write longer posts, so perhaps we go through
separate phases of attracting mopies and attracting perkies. Only five
people admitted to having joined the group last year, but that could well
be explained by shyness and by the fact that many can be expected to still
be in lurk mode. Three people joined this year, one of them just the night
before the Netscrape came out. ;)
So what are your chances of hooking up with one of these lovely
people? Only thirty two percent of posters described themselves as
available, though some of them were quite enthusiastic about it. Thirty
five percent are definitely uninterested in any new offers, either due to
being attached already, being far too busy, or just not liking that kind
of thing, with a few still being bitter and stressed after recent
break-ups. These categories apply fairly evenly to males and females. Four
posters wouldn't talk about the matter at all, but the remaining twenty
six percent said maybe, and were open to some degree of negotiation,
though that negotiation might need to be done with their current partners
as well as with themselves.
And that, my dears, is all the information I have to offer just
now. Perhaps it will help you to figure out how you compare to others
here, and whether you're in fashion or stylishly different. ;) Goodbye,
and thankyou for playing Netscrape! :)
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
Webpages at: http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"The government of Athens was democratic because people took
the law into their own hands." - Richard Lederer
siani evans
Jennie Kermode wrote:
> Of those people prepared to show us their net.dicks, siani had
> the most impressive. ;) She was the only contributor to have been here
> since the group began in 1991.
hey! i didn't say that! i made a bad horror movie reference. i think
i've been here since '92, but i honestly can't remember quite when. the
NG was about 1 yr old when i arrived, as i recall. it started in nov.
91, right? so i was here in late 92-early 93. i posted sporadically
off my dad's account before getting my own first email address.
unfortunately i can't recall my dad's addy. :(
siani
random_soul
> Thought no-one was reading it anyway, and that it was therefore
>safe to say whatever you liked? Well you were wrong! :p For the first
>time, I have been in a position to archive the Netscrape this time around,
>and I've been doing some research on the information which it offered up,
>finding out a little more about the stuff of which alt.gothic is made. I
>shall try to discern more interesting trends in the future, but I'm sure
>you'll appreciate that this has taken me quite a wee while as it is, so
>it's all you're getting for now.
Jennie, you are the greatest!
On behalf of all of us statistic junkies, Thank You. :-)
--
gothae subnoto baritus
(who is guilty of being a non-contributor this go-around, and would have
skewed the kid count if I did)
Liz
"Jennie Kermode" <jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn98qeok...@triffid.demon.co.uk...
> Only six of our contributors are parents - between them,
they
> averaged one point two five children. It should be noted that two
posters
> either failed to answer or were too incoherent to convey whether
or not
> they had children
Um, one of those would be me. It was very late at night when I
filled out the Netscrape, and I accidentally skipped the question.
For the record I have no human children, but I have recently adopted
two black kittens that are just soooo cute, Coco (f) and Groucho
(m), they are now about 10 weeks old, desexed and brother and
sister. I also have 2 Australian Cattle dogs that live with my
mother, Cher (f) and Blade (m), both around 11 years old, desexed
and just wary allies :-P I think the different aesthetic in names I
have chosen for my children reflects the changes in personality I've
experienced over the last few years, although I had no choice in
Blade, he was 18 months when I adopted him and it would have
confused him too much to change his name.
Liz
--
"Nothing can cure the soul but the senses,
just as nothing can cure the senses but the soul"
- The Picture of Dorian Grey, Oscar Wilde
mykal d'archangel
Kermode) wrote:
>For the first
>time, I have been in a position to archive the Netscrape this time around,
>and I've been doing some research on the information which it offered up,
>finding out a little more about the stuff of which alt.gothic is made.
Yikes - we've been profiled! Wrap them numbers up and send them off
to a marketing company ;)
> So what are your chances of hooking up with one of these lovely
>people? Only thirty two percent of posters described themselves as
>available, though some of them were quite enthusiastic about it.
I'd like to recind my Netscrape Availability Status. My crush on the
pretty pistol has *misfired* and I am now no longer enthusiastic about
being "single". Where as in the past I was a happy hermit, I am now
*offcially* "open to negotiation".
Or if there's a categorey for "good for random smoochin" in the
Netscrape, I'd prolly check that box as well.
> And that, my dears, is all the information I have to offer just
>now. Perhaps it will help you to figure out how you compare to others
>here, and whether you're in fashion or stylishly different. ;) Goodbye,
>and thankyou for playing Netscrape! :)
Thanks for the work Jennie - it was definitely interesting to see how
things stacked up.
Pauline Law
> And that, my dears, is all the information I have to offer just
> now. Perhaps it will help you to figure out how you compare to others
> here, and whether you're in fashion or stylishly different. ;) Goodbye,
> and thankyou for playing Netscrape! :)
*sniff*
I got busy during the past few weeks, so I didn't read a.g. as religiously
as usual.. which means I actually /missed/ Netscrape.
Ah well.
-P.
Metamorph
> Thought no-one was reading it anyway, and that it was therefore
> safe to say whatever you liked?
Yes...
> Well you were wrong! :p
Figures. <shrug>
> We also come up against the problem of
> people answering the Netscrape but keeping their ages a secret - seventeen
> people are guilty of this. Of those, based on my own knowledge and what I
> have been able to discern from other sources, two are in their early
> teens, perhaps worried about seeming too young to be taken seriously; five
> are in their mid-twenties, and would seem to be being deliberately obscure
> for no obvious reason; at least four are in their thirties and four to six
> are over forty.
Which you could only know because we blab elsewhere. ;-p
> The mean average age of those who did contribute fully is twenty
> four, a year down from the last time this was measured. This is mostly
> because we have a lot of people aged between twenty and twenty three; the
> number of people at each age after that is fairly constant. Taking into
> account those who didn't contribute fully, the age of Netscrape posters as
> a whole is over two thousand years!
So does this mean you are ready to be the Birthday Lady?
Metamorph, lost that hat a long time ago
--
Success is getting what you want. Happiness is liking what you get.
Jennie Kermode
>So does this mean you are ready to be the Birthday Lady?
>Metamorph, lost that hat a long time ago
Phew... well, somebody needs to do it, I guess.
Do you have a list which is even remotely current? I'll have a
go, but it would take me a while to get it organised relying just on
Netscrape data, especially considering that we have a few regulars here
who missed filling that in.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
Webpages at: http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"Everybody thinks I'm high and I amn't."
Jennie Kermode
<somesilly.p...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I got busy during the past few weeks, so I didn't read a.g. as religiously
>as usual.. which means I actually /missed/ Netscrape.
There have been a few late entrants posting to it over the past
few days. It's still not too late.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
Webpages at: http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Nyx
<slrn98qeok...@triffid.demon.co.uk>:
> There had been some recent discussions as to the average age of
>a.g. posters, and whether it had gone up or down. As it happens, our very
>youngest regular posters, and a few of our older ones (perhaps bored after
>habing done it so many times before) did not contribute to the Netscrape,
>so this sample isn't perfect. We also come up against the problem of
>people answering the Netscrape but keeping their ages a secret - seventeen
>people are guilty of this. Of those, based on my own knowledge and what I
>have been able to discern from other sources, two are in their early
>teens, perhaps worried about seeming too young to be taken seriously; five
>are in their mid-twenties, and would seem to be being deliberately obscure
>for no obvious reason; at least four are in their thirties and four to six
>are over forty.
I thought saying "The Summer of Love" was pretty clear. Obviously it was
1969.
I could have been really obscure and said "I was born on the day of
greatest darkness, in the year the bear totem was shattered." It wouldn't
really be true, but I like it. One goth point for anyone who gets the
reference.
But, just for the sake of accuracy, and since I usually told the truth on
previous netscrapes, I was born July 26, 1969. In the summer of love, on
the 6th day people were walking around on the moon.
Nyx
--
"Demented and sad, but social."
ICQ: 9744630 AIM: nyxxxxx (5x's) Yahoo: nyxxxx (4x's)
JeanCroix
>jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk (Jennie Kermode) wrote in
><slrn98qeok...@triffid.demon.co.uk>:
>>so this sample isn't perfect. We also come up against the problem of
>>people answering the Netscrape but keeping their ages a secret - seventeen
>>people are guilty of this. Of those, based on my own knowledge and what I
>>have been able to discern from other sources, two are in their early
>>teens, perhaps worried about seeming too young to be taken seriously; five
>>are in their mid-twenties, and would seem to be being deliberately obscure
>>for no obvious reason; at least four are in their thirties and four to six
>>are over forty.
>
>I thought saying "The Summer of Love" was pretty clear. Obviously it was
>1969.
The Summer of Love was 1967.
-JC
--
D a.g.s-f: Semper Monemus Sed Non Audiunt, Ergo Lartus E
http://web.raex.com/~jcroix "Yes I'll see you
Only _2432702_ days until X-Day! dancing in the ruins tonight..."
V Ordo Templi Ashus: First SubChurch of Ash, Patron of Shotgun & Chainsaw O
siani evans
JeanCroix wrote:
> >I thought saying "The Summer of Love" was pretty clear. Obviously it was
> >1969.
>
> The Summer of Love was 1967.
no, it was 69. i did some research on the subject when planning my
parents anniversary part. they were married in the summer of love.
1969.
siani
IHCOYC XPICTOC
My understanding has always been that the Summer of Love was '67, the last
year that LSD was legal. '69 is in fact the year of Altamont, the year
that whole scene fell apart for good.
And yes, I'm a million years old, and I remember dinosaurs. . . .
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus ihcoyc(at)aye.net
+ NOLI Vibrabimus volvemurque usque ad reditum boum. ABDUCI +
+ Ceterum censeo sedem Romanam esse delendam. +
**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****
siani evans
IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
>
> siani evans <sia...@home.com> wrote:
>
> :> >I thought saying "The Summer of Love" was pretty clear. Obviously it was
> :> >1969.
>
> :> The Summer of Love was 1967.
>
> : no, it was 69. i did some research on the subject when planning my
> : parents anniversary part. they were married in the summer of love.
> : 1969.
>
> My understanding has always been that the Summer of Love was '67, the last
> year that LSD was legal. '69 is in fact the year of Altamont, the year
> that whole scene fell apart for good.
>
> And yes, I'm a million years old, and I remember dinosaurs. . . .
heh. i think it's a regional thing. i did more research (help! i went
to hippy websites! i can't get the tie dye out of my eyes!) and found
out that there was a 'summer of love' festival in SF in 1967. i found
roughly the same number of sites claiming 67 and 69 as the 'summer of
love', but most of the '67 ones were west coast.
siani
random_soul
>
>My understanding has always been that the Summer of Love was '67, the last
>year that LSD was legal. '69 is in fact the year of Altamont, the year
>that whole scene fell apart for good.
Bah! People! This is the net.
Just look it up:
http://www.sftoday.com/enn2/sumdex.htm
---
gothae subnoto baritus
Siobhan
d'archangel) wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:04:10 GMT, jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk (Jennie
>Kermode) wrote:
>
>>For the first
>>time, I have been in a position to archive the Netscrape this time around,
>>and I've been doing some research on the information which it offered up,
>>finding out a little more about the stuff of which alt.gothic is made.
>
>Yikes - we've been profiled! Wrap them numbers up and send them off
>to a marketing company ;)
I got a brochure in the mail when I first moved into this house for
a singles agency in the area that specifically catered to freaks.
There was a woman in black makeup on the front and a man with a mohawk
on the back. I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't keep
it.
>> So what are your chances of hooking up with one of these lovely
>>people? Only thirty two percent of posters described themselves as
>>available, though some of them were quite enthusiastic about it.
>
>I'd like to recind my Netscrape Availability Status. My crush on the
>pretty pistol has *misfired* and I am now no longer enthusiastic about
>being "single". Where as in the past I was a happy hermit, I am now
>*offcially* "open to negotiation".
>
>Or if there's a categorey for "good for random smoochin" in the
>Netscrape, I'd prolly check that box as well.
I'm available for smooching, friendship, hanging-out-all-night-
drinking-and-talking-about-life or recreational sex.
Next person who says the word "relationship" in my hearing gets
stabbed in the eye.
>> And that, my dears, is all the information I have to offer just
>>now. Perhaps it will help you to figure out how you compare to others
>>here, and whether you're in fashion or stylishly different. ;) Goodbye,
>>and thankyou for playing Netscrape! :)
>
>Thanks for the work Jennie - it was definitely interesting to see how
>things stacked up.
Oh yeah. Thanks for doing that. :-)
Siobhan
....Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
http://www.virulent.org sio...@virulent.org
"A true friend stabs you in the front."~Oscar Wilde
Siobhan
<gust...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
>siani evans <sia...@home.com> wrote:
>
>:> >I thought saying "The Summer of Love" was pretty clear. Obviously it was
>:> >1969.
>
>:> The Summer of Love was 1967.
>
>: no, it was 69. i did some research on the subject when planning my
>: parents anniversary part. they were married in the summer of love.
>: 1969.
>
>My understanding has always been that the Summer of Love was '67, the last
>year that LSD was legal. '69 is in fact the year of Altamont, the year
>that whole scene fell apart for good.
And also the year of Woodstock.
I was Pissed As Fuck when I saw some stupid newscast that started
off talking about the latest Woodstock abortion by saying, "If you
were asked what was the most significant event in 1969 and answered
'Woodstock' you'd be right..." I started yelling at the television,
"Because the fucking MOON LANDING was just a piece of cultural TRIVIA,
the REAL news was a bunch of fucking hippies doing acid and getting
naked at a rock concert!"
My wives say I'm cranky.
Siobhan
....Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
{http://www.virulent.org} sio...@virulent.org
In theory one is aware that the earth revolves, but in
practice one does not perceive it, the ground upon which
one treads seems not to move, and one can live undisturbed.
So it is with Time in one's life. ~Proust
Jack & BlackIce
<snip>
> Phew... well, somebody needs to do it, I guess.
> Do you have a list which is even remotely current? I'll have a
> go, but it would take me a while to get it organised relying just on
> Netscrape data, especially considering that we have a few regulars here
> who missed filling that in.
I'm pretty sure that BlackIce has a list that she'd compiled back when she
was doing it, unless it was lost when her Mac's hard drive crashed. I'll
ask her about it when she gets home this evening.
--
-Jack-
"Death. It's not just for breakfast anymore."
Jack & BlackIce pictures: http://photos.yahoo.com/thrintum
Jennie Kermode
>siani evans <sia...@home.com> wrote:
>: parents anniversary part. they were married in the summer of love.
>: 1969.
>My understanding has always been that the Summer of Love was '67, the last
>year that LSD was legal. '69 is in fact the year of Altamont, the year
>that whole scene fell apart for good.
Mightn't it just be that, with enough LSD, what was perceived
to be one summer sort of stretched? Yous know what they say about one year
with the faeries equalling ten in the real world. ;)
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
Webpages at: http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
'De Satan ou de Dieu, qu'importe? Ange ou Sirene, / Qu'importe, si tu
rends, - fee aux yeux de velours, / Rhyme, parfum, lueur, o mon unique
reine! - / L'univers moins hideux et les instants moins lourds?'
Panurge
>My understanding has always been that the Summer of Love was '67,
Same here.
>the last year that LSD was legal.
Ah--I see, then! ;-)
>'69 is in fact the year of Altamont, the year
>that whole scene fell apart for good.
What happened at Altamont was tragic, fer shur, but you'd think it would
take more than that to bring down a movement that meant to Change The
World. I always thought of it as something that either splintered (not
necessarily a bad thing--expanding possibilities is always good) or
transformed itself. I suppose some people got disillusioned, though--too
bad they didn't make more of an effort to save what they could.
--
The old is dying and the new cannot be born. In the interregnum, a
variety of strange and morbid symptoms appears. --Antonio Gramsci
Bem
Kermode) wrote:
> There have been a few late entrants posting to it over the past
>few days. It's still not too late.
Since you asked for dutch input, I just filled in my form...
Bem
--
Be Well.
Endymion
> What happened at Altamont was tragic, fer shur, but you'd think it would
> take more than that to bring down a movement that meant to Change The
> World. I always thought of it as something that either splintered
I think Altamont was something that brought home the divisions and helped
trigger the splintering. It was an object lesson in the sad fact that there
are good freaks and bad freaks, and that all the peace and love in the
world and all the distance you can get from the Establishment won't stop
the bad freaks from bashing your skull in and bringing the party to a
crashing halt.
> I suppose some people got disillusioned, though--too
> bad they didn't make more of an effort to save what they could.
I think too many of them were only in it for show and kicks. Some people
who were a little more committed did save what they could. It's not like
western culture was right back where it started when the counterculture
faded.
--
Endymion disinte...@mindspring.com
Siobhan
wrote:
>IHCOYC XPICTOC <gust...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
>>'69 is in fact the year of Altamont, the year
>>that whole scene fell apart for good.
>
>What happened at Altamont was tragic, fer shur, but you'd think it would
>take more than that to bring down a movement that meant to Change The
>World. I always thought of it as something that either splintered (not
>necessarily a bad thing--expanding possibilities is always good) or
>transformed itself. I suppose some people got disillusioned, though--too
>bad they didn't make more of an effort to save what they could.
Personally I think the scene was long over by that point anyway.
Movements like the hippie one always start out with a group of
individuals who actually beleive in the principles that the "scene"
represents -- but as soon as they get some attention from larger
culture they get overrun by people who see only the external
trappings. "Ooo, look. Lots of casual sex and drugs. I'll have me some
of that." And the whole DIY/individuality/universal
brotherhood/whatever message gets drowned out by hedonism and bad
fashion choices.
I don't think the underlying principles of these movements really
go away though, they just get picked up by the next one that comes
along.
Albatross
wrote:
> Movements like the hippie one always start out with a group of
>individuals who actually beleive in the principles that the "scene"
>represents -- but as soon as they get some attention from larger
>culture they get overrun by people who see only the external
>trappings. "Ooo, look. Lots of casual sex and drugs. I'll have me some
>of that." And the whole DIY/individuality/universal
>brotherhood/whatever message gets drowned out by hedonism and bad
>fashion choices.
Yup.
Sounds a hell of a lot like some other
sub-cultural phenomenon ...
You show up on alt.g and get told that it's
just a party, its just about the music, baby.
It's just about tarting up the sexy death chixx.
Whatever... if all I wanted was a party, it isn't too
hard to find one anywhere...
A
~
Albatross
<disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Panurge <jbl...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
>> What happened at Altamont was tragic, fer shur, but you'd think it would
>> take more than that to bring down a movement that meant to Change The
>> World. I always thought of it as something that either splintered
>
>I think Altamont was something that brought home the divisions and helped
>trigger the splintering. It was an object lesson in the sad fact that there
>are good freaks and bad freaks, and that all the peace and love in the
>world and all the distance you can get from the Establishment won't stop
>the bad freaks from bashing your skull in and bringing the party to a
>crashing halt.
I think Altamount is just a symobolic moment. Symbolic of the
reality that nature isn't all benevolent and kind. There are also
beasts in our nature. When you give nature free rein, you expose
yourself to its darker aspects. There is a lot that will be learned
regarding this lesson for people in our generation. The only reason we
haven't already learned it, collectively, is that we have less heart
than the 60s generation had.
>> I suppose some people got disillusioned, though--too
>> bad they didn't make more of an effort to save what they could.
>
>I think too many of them were only in it for show and kicks. Some people
>who were a little more committed did save what they could. It's not like
>western culture was right back where it started when the counterculture
>faded.
To say the very least.
A
~
Ruhiel
Jennie Kermode wrote:
>
> For the first
> time, I have been in a position to archive the Netscrape this time around,
> and I've been doing some research on the information which it offered up,
Wow, Jennie. That's impressive. Rather interesting findings you've got
there :)
--
Ruhiel
A friend of mine confused her Valium with her birth control
pills. She has 14 kids, but she doesn't really care.
New and Improved! http://ruhiel.noom.com
Monday Drowning
> Thought no-one was reading it anyway, and that it was therefore
> safe to say whatever you liked? Well you were wrong! :p For the first
> time, I have been in a position to archive the Netscrape this time around,
<screeeech>
*blink*
Stay. right. there.
*scurry*
Hee.
*scamper*
(This is gonna be good.)
Scurrying away mysteriously,
Monday Drowning
Panurge
> I think Altamont is just a symbolic moment. Symbolic of the
>reality that nature isn't all benevolent and kind. There are also
>beasts in our nature.
I wonder if, through a sort of collective game of psychological
"telephone", that lesson hasn't been massively _overlearned_. "Falsely
profound questions about, Are we really not just animals at bottom" (Jacob
Bronowski) seem to be at the heart of the mythology of our collective
psyche these days--"I want to fuck you like an animal", "extreme"
this-and-that, XFL, WWF, Jerry Springer et al, "reality TV", Woodstock
'99, "let's fuck some shit up", etc.
<Proposed new Net abbr.: "TLGO&O"--"the list goes on and on.">
>There is a lot that will be learned
>regarding this lesson for people in our generation.
IB stoopid. Can you elaborate?
I just always figured everyone agreed on what The Lessons Of Altamont were
(whether properly learned or not). What's important to me is that it
seems those lessons weren't really put to good use.
>The only reason we haven't already learned it, collectively,
>is that we have less heart than the 60s generation had.
If we haven't learned it by now, will we ever?
I wrote:
>>> I suppose some people got disillusioned, though--too
>>> bad they didn't make more of an effort to save what they could.
>"Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>I think too many of them were only in it for show and kicks.
True.
>>It's not like western culture was right back where it started when the
>>counterculture faded.
>
>
> To say the very least.
True. That had to wait for the Reagan era... :-P
<HUEY LEWIS>
"It's not too hard to figure out; you see it everyday,
and those that were the farthest out have gone the other way.
You see them on the freeway--it don't look like a lot of fun,
But don't you try and fight it--'an idea whose time has cooooome'!"
</HUEY LEWIS>
IS axiomatic TM that the '80s and '90s have been rather tradition-oriented
(and by "tradition" I specifically mean "before ThemDamnHippies") than the
'70s and late '60s were. Even putatively hip culture has played along,
sometimes it seems only nominally for irony's sake--after a while it's so
hard to tell the difference that the underlying motivation ceases to have
much importance to me. It might just be a matter of fashion (or my
interpretation of it), but then these days fashion (music, clothes, hair,
slang, politics, whatever) seems to have an aspiration toward
socio-cultural meaning that it didn't seem to have even in the hippie
era--and after all, "externals" are where we live our lives.
Albatross
wrote:
>Albatross <tpa...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>> I think Altamont is just a symbolic moment. Symbolic of the
>>reality that nature isn't all benevolent and kind. There are also
>>beasts in our nature.
>
>I wonder if, through a sort of collective game of psychological
>"telephone", that lesson hasn't been massively _overlearned_. "Falsely
>profound questions about, Are we really not just animals at bottom" (Jacob
>Bronowski) seem to be at the heart of the mythology of our collective
>psyche these days--"I want to fuck you like an animal", "extreme"
>this-and-that, XFL, WWF, Jerry Springer et al, "reality TV", Woodstock
>'99, "let's fuck some shit up", etc.
I don't think the examples you've chosen show what has been
learned. Rather, they demonstrate that, in fact, we are animals at
bottom. I don't believe this lesson has been overlearned - that is: I
don't think that we are individually in touch with the darker side of
our nature. We are still routinely told that if we all accepted our
nature and were happy with ourselves without condition that the world
would be a better place. The 60s message is still coming through loud
and clear, especially in places like this, where liberal educations
are the rule. To the degree we talk about the darker side of nature,
we invariably ascribe it to those filthy rednecks, or wacko
christians, or something outside ourselves. To look at yourself and
see your own darker side, as it really is, requires a moral effort
that very few people ever find themselves capable of. Thus the
emotional vilence in our lvies can always be ascribed to that loony
womn I lived with, or that creepy guy stalking me, etc.
>
><Proposed new Net abbr.: "TLGO&O"--"the list goes on and on.">
>
>>There is a lot that will be learned
>>regarding this lesson for people in our generation.
>
>IB stoopid. Can you elaborate?
Not without sounding a whole lot like John Everett.
>I just always figured everyone agreed on what The Lessons Of Altamont were
>(whether properly learned or not). What's important to me is that it
>seems those lessons weren't really put to good use.
>
>>The only reason we haven't already learned it, collectively,
>>is that we have less heart than the 60s generation had.
>
>If we haven't learned it by now, will we ever?
>
Oh when will they ever learn?
>IS axiomatic TM that the '80s and '90s have been rather tradition-oriented
>(and by "tradition" I specifically mean "before ThemDamnHippies") than the
>'70s and late '60s were. Even putatively hip culture has played along,
>sometimes it seems only nominally for irony's sake--after a while it's so
>hard to tell the difference that the underlying motivation ceases to have
>much importance to me. It might just be a matter of fashion (or my
>interpretation of it), but then these days fashion (music, clothes, hair,
>slang, politics, whatever) seems to have an aspiration toward
>socio-cultural meaning that it didn't seem to have even in the hippie
>era--and after all, "externals" are where we live our lives.
I'll try and comment on this sometime this evening.
A
~
Nyx
38ld30n.dialup.mindspring.com>:
>I just always figured everyone agreed on what The Lessons Of Altamont were
>(whether properly learned or not). What's important to me is that it
>seems those lessons weren't really put to good use.
The "Lessons of Altamont"? Oh, please.
The lesson of Altamont was don't be cheap and hire Hell's Angels to do
security. If you think there was any other lesson than that then you have
bought into all the bullshit the hippies spout about "changing the world".
They weren't. They just wanted to get stoned, have sex, and not get their
asses shot off in some insane war.
If you think there was anything more to the "Peace Movement" than that then
you have believed the lies the baby boomers fed you.
Nyx
--
Demented and sad, but social.
aim: nyxxxxx yahoo: nyxxxx icq: 9744630
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> I don't think the examples you've chosen show what has been
> learned. Rather, they demonstrate that, in fact, we are animals at
> bottom. I don't believe this lesson has been overlearned - that is: I
> don't think that we are individually in touch with the darker side of
> our nature. We are still routinely told that if we all accepted our
> nature and were happy with ourselves without condition that the world
> would be a better place. The 60s message is still coming through loud
> and clear, especially in places like this, where liberal educations
> are the rule. To the degree we talk about the darker side of nature,
> we invariably ascribe it to those filthy rednecks, or wacko
> christians, or something outside ourselves.
I suspect that the phrase you are looking for is "Original Sin." Granted,
that particular phrase is a hard one in contemporary English. Changes in
usage since it was coined make the words suggest that you are actually
talking about sins that are more creative or unprecedented than the usual
ones.
Then again, we wrongly understand "sin" to mean individual instances of
wrong acts. But since I can justify, or at least make excuses for, all
my -own- deeds in my own mind, it is hard for me to accept that there is
something fundamentally wrong with me at the very core of my own being.
Still, there seems to be something fundamentally wrong at the core
of -everybody else-. Logic suggests that I am probably not an exception to
this otherwise universal truth. This is what Original Sin means, at least
to me, and I think that once properly explained, the concept remains a handy
one.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
Here of the cosmopolitan Nicaeno of the will heresy the root of the switch
of the emergency never under Pennsylvanian Anabaptists, phlogiston of
Coriolis of the effect inside quaternaeren the supplement that monad
hieroglyphic he dissipates: with nevertheless for pluperfect - those and the
impelling mechanisms of stamens of vowel and pistils only agglutinierenden
behind, a precipitation of the watery aid of solfuri normally to obtain.
Tiny Human Ferret
You know, you are starting to make a rather constant habit of being just
plain wrong.
By the time it was all over, which is to say by the time I was in junior
highschool in the mid-1970s, you were mostly correct. But in 1968? Damn are
you outta line in probably half of the cases.
Especially about not getting their asses shot off in some insane war... that
was the way the world was, that they damned sure wanted to change that
particular aspect of the world.
>
> Nyx
>
> --
> Demented and sad, but social.
> aim: nyxxxxx yahoo: nyxxxx icq: 9744630
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
Tetsab
> these days fashion (music, clothes, hair, slang, politics, whatever)
> seems to have an aspiration toward socio-cultural meaning that it didn't
> seem to have even in the hippie era
Do you mean that these days people seek to ascribe socio-cultural
meaning (that there is some sort of meaing... any meaning... attached to
all externals) and that they didn't add a socio-cultural meaning to
externals in the hippie era?
Or do you mean that these days people have an aspiration towards a
specific sort of meaning that was different from the ones of the hippie
era?
Or do you mean something else that's just gone right past me? :)
If the 1st... if in the hippie era they didn't hook meaning onto
externals... what did they do?
If the 2nd... what is the specific meaning of today and what was the one
of the hippie era?
If the 3rd... Just plain try and explain what you did mean (and I hope
you do a better job than I just did above..)
Tetsab.
>^..^<
--
Anthonié la Noir always had issues with certain foods... It was hard
to uphold the Dark Mystique as a chilli cheese-dog trumpeted its way
through his bowels. He'd contemplated deeply going vegan like most of
the Dark Kindred... but *god* all those *beans*.
Nyx
<3A94DF6F...@clark.net>:
>
>You know, you are starting to make a rather constant habit of being just
>plain wrong.
>
>By the time it was all over, which is to say by the time I was in junior
>highschool in the mid-1970s, you were mostly correct. But in 1968? Damn
>are you outta line in probably half of the cases.
And you are just consistently incoherent. Altamont was in 69, for one
thing, not 68.
Also, name one change that the hippies actually made. One change that was
actually attributable to them rather than the Civil Rights movement.
They hippies never did anything. The world would have changed without them.
Endymion
> The lesson of Altamont was don't be cheap and hire Hell's Angels to do
> security.
I don't think that was just being cheap, though. I think part of it was the
idea that the Establishment is the - not a, the - threat, that if you have
cops or rent-a-cops at your gig they're just going to bust people for petty
bullshit, make everyone put their joints away, and otherwise generally
oppress people and bring bad vibes around, and that if you have to have
security, better to have freak security than Establishment security and
thus keep everything within the happy family.
What they learned is that there are worse people than cops, judges, and
draft boards, and that violence and other sorts of nastiness are not things
that only come from outside. That Rousseau may or may not have been right,
but it's not so easy to solve things by pointing at other groups and
calling them the source of the trouble.
> If you think there was any other lesson than that then you have
> bought into all the bullshit the hippies spout about "changing the
> world". They weren't. They just wanted to get stoned, have sex,
> and not get their asses shot off in some insane war.
I am sure that 80-90% of the people showing up at events were that way, but
I think there was a core of people who really did believe in the ethos of
the movement; who thought they could reshape society along more peaceful
and positive lines.
Unfortunately I don't seem to be getting Albatross' posts today (I'm only
seeing what's quoted by others); it looks like he had some insightful
comments on this issue.
--
Endymion disinte...@mindspring.com
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: Also, name one change that the hippies actually made. One change that was
: actually attributable to them rather than the Civil Rights movement.
: They hippies never did anything. The world would have changed without them.
Well, they got a lot of white kids smoking grass. Try as I might, I just
can't see to blame Martin Luther King for that.
Psychedelic styles lay at the bottom of glam rock. Look at the Monterey
Pop movie. Not all of the fashions in the audience carried over into goth
fashions. A lot of them do, especially the vintage fashion looks. The
chief difference is that theirs came in a broader spectrum of colours.
Hippie-bashing iss or was fashionable in certain circles; but I think that
may in fact be a recognition that we owe them so, so much. This was where
it all begins; and we owe our freedoms to those hippies.
Nyx
<3a957...@news.iglou.com>:
>Psychedelic styles lay at the bottom of glam rock. Look at the Monterey
>Pop movie. Not all of the fashions in the audience carried over into
>goth fashions. A lot of them do, especially the vintage fashion looks.
>The chief difference is that theirs came in a broader spectrum of
>colours.
Are we talking about the "message" of altamont, which I assumed would be
political or philosophical, or are we talking about fashion trends?
Because I really don't give a damn about the fashion.
Albatross
I think we'll probably come down in the same ballpark - though
the phrase carries carries a lot of baggage. Where I'd question you
is the assocaition of my 'darker side of nature' with your 'something
fundamentally wrong with me at the core of my being.' Mostly because I
haven't been clear - to myself even - as to what 'darker' means in
this context. It certainly means potentially destructive -btu
destructive towards what? Toward what isn't dark? Can our natures be
reduced to this dualistic conflict? Or, is it possible to trascend
these internal oppositions? It seems tom e that it is most dangerous
when we are willfully unaware of its reality. But, even where we
become conscious of it, it can take possesion of us in some
circumstances. There is a difference too when we talk about human
nature, which must include elements inherent in any human - and the
nature of an individual, which will only contain a portion of that
totality. Or - do all people contain the same essential elements?
Could anyone become Ted Bundy given the right set of circumstances?
A
~
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> Tiny Human Ferret <kla...@clark.net> wrote in
> <3A94DF6F...@clark.net>:
>
> >
> >You know, you are starting to make a rather constant habit of being just
> >plain wrong.
> >
> >By the time it was all over, which is to say by the time I was in junior
> >highschool in the mid-1970s, you were mostly correct. But in 1968? Damn
> >are you outta line in probably half of the cases.
>
> And you are just consistently incoherent. Altamont was in 69, for one
> thing, not 68.
I'm not talking about Altamont, I am talking about the original hippies and
student radicals being extremely activist and politically organized towards
radically changing the way the world worked, and they had some limited yet
far-reaching successes.
>
> Also, name one change that the hippies actually made. One change that was
> actually attributable to them rather than the Civil Rights movement.
Voting age in the US was lowered to 18 by Constitutional Amendment.
>
> They hippies never did anything. The world would have changed without them.
>
> Nyx
>
> --
> Demented and sad, but social.
> aim: nyxxxxx yahoo: nyxxxx icq: 9744630
--
Nyx
>> Also, name one change that the hippies actually made. One change that
>> was actually attributable to them rather than the Civil Rights
>> movement.
>
>Voting age in the US was lowered to 18 by Constitutional Amendment.
Which was a PR move by Richard Nixon and nothing more.
Notice how the under 21 voters didn't actually rush to the polls. Don't
even pretend that it actually changed anything. It was a bone tossed to a
dog, not a political change that actually meant anything.
Panurge
>Panurge wrote:
>
>> these days fashion (music, clothes, hair, slang, politics, whatever)
>> seems to have an aspiration toward socio-cultural meaning that it didn't
>> seem to have even in the hippie era...
>
>Do you mean that these days people seek to ascribe socio-cultural
>meaning (that there is some sort of meaning... any meaning... attached to
>all externals) and that they didn't add a socio-cultural meaning to
>externals in the hippie era?
I don't know about _all_ externals, but it seems to have started in
earnest in the hippie era, at least--maybe I should just go all the way
and add "political" to "socio-cultural". It just STM that the desire to
ascribe meaning (largely for the sake of a sort of social codifying
mechanism) has gotten more pronounced over time. Or maybe it just seems
that way, given the apparent diversity of our society relative to, say,
1967. Of course, I'm probably just talking out my ass here--what Endymion
pointed out about the hippies' own relationship to The Establishment
elsewhere in this thread is essentially what I'm talking about.
(Does this make sense? Do you ever get the feeling you're crashing and
burning in public?)
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> I think we'll probably come down in the same ballpark - though
> the phrase carries carries a lot of baggage. Where I'd question you
> is the assocaition of my 'darker side of nature' with your 'something
> fundamentally wrong with me at the core of my being.' Mostly because I
> haven't been clear - to myself even - as to what 'darker' means in
> this context. It certainly means potentially destructive -btu
> destructive towards what?
I tend to see it mostly as something akin to Poe's imp of the perverse, a
strange impulse to self-sabotage that bides its time within everyone.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> >Psychedelic styles lay at the bottom of glam rock. Look at the Monterey
> >Pop movie. Not all of the fashions in the audience carried over into
> >goth fashions. A lot of them do, especially the vintage fashion looks.
> >The chief difference is that theirs came in a broader spectrum of
> >colours.
> Are we talking about the "message" of altamont, which I assumed would be
> political or philosophical, or are we talking about fashion trends?
I'm not really talking about the "message of Altamont," so much as the
influence of hippies on just about -all- subsequent "alternative"
subcultures, and how even those that claim to reject them have their roots
there.
Panurge
>jbl...@mindspring.com (Panurge) wrote:
>> Albatross wrote:
>> >The only reason we haven't already learned it, collectively,
>> >is that we have less heart than the 60s generation had.
>
>actually, i think one of the main reasons that the forthcoming
>generations did not outstrip those in their late teens/ early twenties
>in the the 196o's in pure syruppy idealism is the 6p's generation
>themselves.
>
>so full of idealism and pot, they (as a whole, excluding a precious few)
>grew up to rape and pillage far worse than the WWI & WWII generations
>combined.
There was some damage done, sure. Surprise--they're *human beings*.
But "far worse than the WWI & WWII generations combined" strikes me as the
sort of overstatement that I've learned to expect by now. I still think
it's (culturally) unfounded, though. Mucn more of the damage done by that
generation was done by the Dan Quayles (and Bill Clintons?) than the Jerry
Garcias, IYAM. (Ken "R.U. Sirius" Goffman wrote an essay on Clinton at
his Web site that pretty much nails it--and I voted for Clinton in '92.)
To paraphrase a posting on plastic.com that I can't seem to find right now:
Of course the baby-boomers left their work half-done. So will we. So
does every generation. It's not a matter of apportioning blame--it's
just a matter of recognizing what still needs doing. The baby-boomers'
accomplishment was to get rid of reflexive moral and cultural rigidity.
OK, so what do we replace it with? That's our job, and I've long seen the
situation this way. Complaining about how ThemDamnHippies messed
everything up or wallowing in the situation as if nothing can be done is
beside the point, to say nothing of being wasted effort--and it allows the
neo-squares an opening to undo even what the baby-boomers did, putting us
even farther back.
>the amount what you can accomplish, and what mutual understanding you
>can come to is inversely proportional to the number of people present.
>anyone who has ever been subject to a managerial meeting to discuss a
>technical issue knows exactly what i'm talking about.
Then you're assuming the lack of a common body of knowledge.
>technical solutions to complex problems can be hammered out in an
>afternoon between two ot three like-minded people with a keen
>understanding of how things work. you can spend the same amount of time
>just trying to get one or two non-technical people to understand the
>problem.
This is, of course, an argument for (and from) elitism, y'know.
Albatrossssss
IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
>
> Albatross wrote:
>
> > I think we'll probably come down in the same ballpark - though
> > the phrase carries carries a lot of baggage. Where I'd question you
> > is the assocaition of my 'darker side of nature' with your 'something
> > fundamentally wrong with me at the core of my being.' Mostly because I
> > haven't been clear - to myself even - as to what 'darker' means in
> > this context. It certainly means potentially destructive -btu
> > destructive towards what?
>
> I tend to see it mostly as something akin to Poe's imp of the perverse, a
> strange impulse to self-sabotage that bides its time within everyone.
A goblin.
I love the word 'goblin.'
A
~
Nyx
<t9br8a8...@corp.supernews.com>:
>I'm not really talking about the "message of Altamont," so much as the
>influence of hippies on just about -all- subsequent "alternative"
>subcultures, and how even those that claim to reject them have their roots
>there.
But everyone is rooted in all that came before. The hippies had their roots
in the beliefs of thier conservative parents.
If you really want to start tracing back things to their roots then I could
make a damn good case for goth being part of the Thermidorean Revolution.
Jennie Kermode
> I don't think the examples you've chosen show what has been
>learned. Rather, they demonstrate that, in fact, we are animals at
>bottom. I don't believe this lesson has been overlearned - that is: I
I'm not really comfortable with the idea that we're 'animals at
bottom', at least not when it's phrased that way; it implies that
everything else is built up on top (which also implies a dubious notion of
hierarchy); I think it's much more subtly interwoven than that. Many of
our emotional responses are learned responses with an intellectual aspect
to them. We are not born with all of our adult instincts. They develop as
we age; for instance, it is not unusual for an individual who has been
perfectly civilised and responsible to go crazy when reaching hir teens,
purely for animal reasons.
>our nature. We are still routinely told that if we all accepted our
>nature and were happy with ourselves without condition that the world
>would be a better place. The 60s message is still coming through loud
Aye; that's something I've never cared for. I'm fairly sure
that I'd be happier with myself if I relaxed about certain aspects of my
nature, but I'm also sure that I'd be locked up or on the run before long,
and that what is natural and pleasant for me would not make the world
better for those around me in the least bit. The fluffy 'accept yourself'
message presupposes that everyone is naturally gentle, which is simply not
supported by biology. I've seen people whom Prozac has made
unconditionally happy with themselves; quite a few have lost all awareness
of social ethics; they've discovered they can hit people without feeling
bad about it, so thereafter they have hit people at the slightest
provocation, and have exulted in their new sense of liberty.
>are the rule. To the degree we talk about the darker side of nature,
>we invariably ascribe it to those filthy rednecks, or wacko
>christians, or something outside ourselves. To look at yourself and
>see your own darker side, as it really is, requires a moral effort
>that very few people ever find themselves capable of.
In part, this might also be a matter of perspective. It's
easier to identify unfamiliar things as disturbing or dangerous. When we
look at ourselves, we have fewer points of comparison. Sure, we might
identify rage, spite or aggressive lust, but when it comes to more
specific behaviours it's hard to know what is innate, what is a reaction,
what is specific to us and what is an ordinary aspect of being human. We
then need to discover a suitable moral framework within which to judge all
this. There is a trend in this society for people to be more accepting of
behaviours which are considered ordinary, as if that makes them morally
right.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
Webpages at: http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"Your face is okay, but your purse is too tight. I'm looking for pound
notes, loose change, blank cheques, anything. Gimme some money."
Jennie Kermode
>fundamentally wrong with me at the core of my being.' Mostly because I
>haven't been clear - to myself even - as to what 'darker' means in
>this context. It certainly means potentially destructive -btu
>destructive towards what? Toward what isn't dark? Can our natures be
Since we started off by talking about 'beasts' and 'animal
nature', and you went on to talk about 'emotional violence', I'd suggest
that 'darker side' might refer to those instinctive emotional responses
within our nature (either individually or collectively) which have a
destructive effect on our ability to live peacefully within the large
social groups central to our civilisation.
>totality. Or - do all people contain the same essential elements?
>Could anyone become Ted Bundy given the right set of circumstances?
I tend to think that anyone could. I have yet to meet a baby
which wasn't willing to enact violence on others to get what it wanted. It
can be argued that the baby has yet to learn that other experience pain
as it does - but can we _ever_ learn that, really, or is it simply
something which we choose to believe? Without experiencing others' pain
directly, we must take their word for it. As we grow older, most of us
come to consider that violence towards others, outwith consensual
situations or desperate conflicts, is wrong, and is therefore to be
avoided. However, this doesn't go along with us losing the ability to be
violent. Our instincts don't go away just because we override
them. Because we believe certain things about the experiences and nature
of other human beings doesn't mean that we can't disbelieve those things
at some later stage.
It might be argued that we exert differing degrees of moral
effort to keep ourselves from transgressing. The amount of effort needed,
however, inevitably depends on our individual circumstances. We find it
harder to be nice to people when we're tired after a hard day at work, and
so forth. Everyone's will is limited. Everyone has a breaking point.
Jennie Kermode
huge backlog of interesting a.g. stuff to catch up with. I hope yous will
forgive me for coming into this one late.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:48:02 -0500, Panurge <jbl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Albatross <tpa...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>> I think Altamont is just a symbolic moment. Symbolic of the
>>reality that nature isn't all benevolent and kind. There are also
>>beasts in our nature.
>I wonder if, through a sort of collective game of psychological
>"telephone", that lesson hasn't been massively _overlearned_. "Falsely
>profound questions about, Are we really not just animals at bottom"
It's a false dichotomy... or, at any rate, an _unnecessary_
dichotomy, I think. This has reached the point where various groups within
society seem determined to present themselves as wholly benevolent and
kind, whilst others, mostly the young rebels, present themselves as wholly
animalistic, driven by the most primal urges; some idealise calm elderly
men in neat suits, whilst the others idealise terror couples of wild
killing sprees; each extreme is held up by its supporters as an example of
freedom from the common restraints of being human. Of course, very few
people can pull off either with conviction; most just embarrass
themselves. I find it rather a shame that both, in their ways, are
rebelling against what I would see as a natural, healthy way of being
human - accepting all these disparate aspects of one's endocrinal
heritage. To struggle against it seems, more than anything, to be a
tremendous waste of time.
>"I want to fuck you like an animal"
I loved what 'Se7en' did with this... since then, I've been
rather fond of the song. It got more black. :)
>Jerry Springer et al, "reality TV"
Less opium for the people, in the old tradition of keeping them
conveniently glued to the box; more, I think, cocaine for the people,
designed to content them by making them think they're more interesting
than is really the case.
DnA Dvorkin
(Nyx) wrote:
> Also, name one change that the hippies actually made. One change that was
> actually attributable to them rather than the Civil Rights movement.
Depends on how narrowly you define "hippies."
Do you like the fact that women are closer to equal pay for equal work
than ever before? Do you like the fact that men can have long hair and
still get jobs? Do you like the fact that both sexes can wear jeans and
t-shirts in respectable establishments? Do you like the fact that there
is no longer a peacetime draft?
Not all of these are "hippie" things exactly, but they came out of the
same social movement. And I damn sure like them -- if I were religious,
I would thank God every day that I was born in the last third of the
twentieth century instead of any previous age.
Daniel Dvorkin
d...@netherworld.BOUNCE.com
http://www.sff.net/people/Daniel.Dvorkin
Please remove "BOUNCE" from address to send e-mail
Nyx
30F923.224...@news.rmii.com>:
>Not all of these are "hippie" things exactly, but they came out of the
>same social movement. And I damn sure like them -- if I were religious,
>I would thank God every day that I was born in the last third of the
>twentieth century instead of any previous age.
I think all of these things would have happened anyway. Except for the
women being closer to equal pay. That came out of the Feminist movement and
your average hippy had nothing to do with it.
I was going to say "not attributable to the civil rights or the feminist
movements" but I thought it sounded too awkward.
Panurge
>"IHCOYC XPICTOC" <ihcoyc...@aye.net> wrote :
>
>>I'm not really talking about the "message of Altamont," so much as the
>>influence of hippies on just about -all- subsequent "alternative"
>>subcultures, and how even those that claim to reject them have their roots
>>there.
Well, some of them. Much that's gone on since the mid-'70s explicitly
refers to even earlier scenes, to the extent that it's hard to tell
sometimes just what the most modern stuff really is.
>But everyone is rooted in all that came before. The hippies had their roots
>in the beliefs of their conservative parents.
If that were completely true, there wouldn't have been such a clash.
Panurge
>Tiny Human Ferret <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>>By the time it was all over, which is to say by the time I was in junior
>>highschool in the mid-1970s, you were mostly correct. But in 1968? Damn
>>are you outta line in probably half of the cases.
>
>And you are just consistently incoherent. Altamont was in 69, for one
>thing, not 68.
Picky, picky! The exact year Altamont happened isn't really that material here.
>Also, name one change that the hippies actually made. One change that was
>actually attributable to them rather than the Civil Rights movement.
What kind of change are you talking about?
>The hippies never did anything. The world would have changed without them.
I wonder if we're not working from two different definitions of "hippie"
here. I also wonder we're not working from two different definitions of
"change" here, also, because the above statement is utterly
incomprehensible to me.
To me, what the hippies changed was our idea of what kind of culture we
want and what kind of people we want to be. They might not have changed
much of the back end, so to speak, but the front end is just as important
in its own way. That movement changed people's heads, and the fashion
(which you rather conveniently declare irrelevant) was a consequence to be
expected. Thing is, lots of people's heads changed right back after a
while (something that didn't have to happen, if you ask me). But even
then, the change back seems to have had a certain reluctance about it for
the most part, as if a whole generation was forsaking what they considered
themselves to have become for the sake of The Man's idea of "growing up".
More to the point:
What changes have you seen in the world since then, and who accomplished them?
If they did so little, why are we still arguing about them thirty years later?
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> Aye; that's something I've never cared for. I'm fairly sure
> that I'd be happier with myself if I relaxed about certain aspects of my
> nature, but I'm also sure that I'd be locked up or on the run before long,
> and that what is natural and pleasant for me would not make the world
> better for those around me in the least bit. The fluffy 'accept yourself'
> message presupposes that everyone is naturally gentle, which is simply not
> supported by biology. I've seen people whom Prozac has made
> unconditionally happy with themselves; quite a few have lost all awareness
> of social ethics; they've discovered they can hit people without feeling
> bad about it, so thereafter they have hit people at the slightest
> provocation, and have exulted in their new sense of liberty.
This was essentially what happened in Louisville around ten years ago; a
fellow on Prozac gunned down a number of people in his former workplace, in
the manner that has become a national custom. I knew one of his victims.
Relatives of the victims and their lawyers, looking for someone who actually
had money to sue, sued the makers of Prozac. The verdict ultimately was not
in their favour. It did not help, I don't think, that one of their experts
had links to the Scientologists, who of course have their own reasons to try
to discredit psychotherapeutic drugs.
People, left to their own devices, are quite capable of all sorts of
thorough-going nastiness. We all carry around us internal programmes to
hate strangers, to form exclusive cliques, to hate those who don't look like
us. The cliché about "punching someone's buttons" is actually an excellent
metaphor for the way we seem to work. And the more crowded and stressful
human life becomes, the likelier it is that someone is going to go off in
this manner. Civilisation is really a very fragile thing; once the notion
that you are allowed to break out of its cage arises, our true selves feel
free to come out, and they aren't particularly friendly. My inner child
likes to pull off butterfly's wings.
That's the great thing about living in the US of A, where the walls of
civilisation are already crumbling, and the ubiquitous and holy marketplace
tells us to go for all the gusto we can get. So every day the newspaper
brings you another Nick Cave song.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
Here of the cosmopolitan Nicaeno of the will heresy the root of the switch
Metamorph
> My inner child likes to pull off butterfly's wings.
And my inner child would beat the tar out of you for doing it.
Metamorph, where did you think my net name came from....
--
If you woke up breathing today, congratulations! You have another
chance!
Daniel Dvorkin
(Nyx) wrote:
> I think all of these things would have happened anyway. Except for the
> women being closer to equal pay. That came out of the Feminist movement
> and
> your average hippy had nothing to do with it.
Well, that's the difference; I think none of those things were
automatic, and in fact needed people to do them in an in-your-face kind
of way before they became acceptable to society as a whole -- and the
hippies were the people who did them.
Daniel the Medic
Panurge
>DnA Dvorkin <d...@netherworld.BOUNCE.com> wrote:
>
>>Not all of these are "hippie" things exactly, but they came out of the
>>same social movement.
>
>I think all of these things would have happened anyway. Except for the
>women being closer to equal pay.
Tell you what... Have you seen the film about the Isle of Wight
festival, with the people camped outside insisting on free admission
because "music should belong to the people"? Are those the people you
mean when you talk about hippies?
Nyx
38lcpmc.dialup.mindspring.com>:
>Tell you what... Have you seen the film about the Isle of Wight
>festival, with the people camped outside insisting on free admission
>because "music should belong to the people"? Are those the people you
>mean when you talk about hippies?
No. What film are you talking about?
And if they changed things so much then why is napster getting sued for
pretty much making that slogan a reality?
Nyx
--
"Demented and sad, but social."
ICQ: 9744630 AIM: nyxxxxx (5x's) Yahoo: nyxxxx (4x's)
Nyx
9C7F58.204...@news.rmii.com>:
>Well, that's the difference; I think none of those things were
>automatic, and in fact needed people to do them in an in-your-face kind
>of way before they became acceptable to society as a whole -- and the
>hippies were the people who did them.
No, it wasn't automatic. But people like Jimmy Carter and Mohammed Ali had
more to do with the social change of the times than Tiny Tim or Abby
Hoffman ever did. Really, who contributed more? Carter with his morality
and old-fashioned values or a bunch of guys who's major contribution to the
world was tie-dyes and hemp necklaces?
Nyx
--
"Demented and sad, but social."
Panurge
>jbl...@mindspring.com (Panurge) wrote:
>
>>Tell you what... Have you seen the film about the Isle of Wight
>>festival, with the people camped outside insisting on free admission
>>because "music should belong to the people"? Are those the people you
>>mean when you talk about hippies?
>
>No. What film are you talking about?
There's a semi-official film of the (I think) 1970 festival--the one that
included Joni Mitchell, Free, and ELP, among others. Not really Altamont,
but it shows just how problematic an unyielding stance could be.
Eventually, the promoters reluctantly let in the people camped outside,
even though it meant operating the festival at a loss. There's a scene
where one of the promoters is at the gate (or maybe an opening in the
wall), arguing with one of the radicals (sorry, I can't think of a better
word) about why it's OK, even necessary, to charge money to get in.
There's this sense that the radicals want the whole world to turn over
immediately; they're not thinking about the fact that Joe Blow needs to
eat. Jaron Lanier has discussed this on www.edge.org in terms of the
concept of the Vingean Singluarity, the point where the rate of change
becomes so great as to reach a critical mass after which everything is
different--that's what some people were expecting in the '60s, and they
were so crestfallen when Utopia didn't materialize that the comedown
became the source of the disilluionment with which we're all so familiar
by now. (I, OTOH, was satisfied that things were moving forward at all--a
perspective not enough people shared, IMSNHO.) Then, when things seemed
to stall in the mid-'70s, there seemed to be a whole new wave (pun not
intended, but appropriate) of disilluisionment, as if people thought
nothing mediocre would ever appear again. From there, it's not so far a
distance to the reassuring "known quantities" of Reaganite
neo-conservatism.
>And if they changed things so much then why is napster getting sued for
>pretty much making that slogan a reality?
If they changed things so little, why is there Napster at all? Would you
really expect that THE MAN wouldn't push back?
Panurge
>Really, who contributed more? Carter with his morality
>and old-fashioned values or a bunch of guys who's major contribution to the
>world was tie-dyes and hemp necklaces?
>
>Nyx
That wasn't their major contribution to the world. Their major
contribution to the world was the concept of the Happy
Revolution--something of which I think we could use more. And style
counts for something, in any event--if it didn't, why would there be such
coercive force arrayed against a revolution in style?
Nyx
37kbabg.dialup.mindspring.com>:
>
>>And if they changed things so much then why is napster getting sued for
>>pretty much making that slogan a reality?
>
>If they changed things so little, why is there Napster at all? Would you
>really expect that THE MAN wouldn't push back?
Of course "the man" pushes back. That's been my point all along. The
hippies never changed anything because the were so busy shouting silly
slogans about "the man" that they never really got up and worked towards
any goal.
In other words, they were all talk. The were far too busy wishing for
utopia to make any concrete changes.
It's the people with rational goals that work hard and are a little
conservative that actually change things. Not the weirdos living in
communes and listening to the Grateful Dead.
Nyx
--
Demented and sad, but social.
Nyx
37kbabg.dialup.mindspring.com>:
>
>That wasn't their major contribution to the world. Their major
>contribution to the world was the concept of the Happy
>Revolution--something of which I think we could use more. And style
>counts for something, in any event--if it didn't, why would there be such
>coercive force arrayed against a revolution in style?
The only people who really fought against the hippies were the idiots.
Imagine Archie Bunker. That was your average hippie hater.
The really smart members of the establishment just co-opted them. They
started releasing movies about hippies. Fashion designers incorporated the
styles. Or they coopted themselves. Ben Stein cut his hair and started
writing speeches for Nixon. Timothy Leary started appearing in Cheech and
Chong movies. Jane Fonda did aerobic videos and married Ted Turner. The
rest cut their hair, became stockbrokers, and bought copies of the Preppy
Handbook.
Why? Because they never accomplished anything and they came to realize it.
Even if they won't admit it.
Nyx
--
Demented and sad, but social.
Panurge
>jbl...@mindspring.com (Panurge)wrote:
>>"Falsely
>>profound questions about, Are we really not just animals at bottom" (Jacob
>>Bronowski) seem to be at the heart of the mythology of our collective
>>psyche these days--"I want to fuck you like an animal", "extreme"
>>this-and-that, XFL, WWF, Jerry Springer et al, "reality TV", Woodstock
>>'99, "let's fuck some shit up", etc.
> I don't think the examples you've chosen show what has been
>learned. Rather, they demonstrate that, in fact, we are animals at
>bottom.
(That part of us is there, yes--but I'll have to line up with Jennie on
this one.)
What I mean is that the popularity of these things demonstrates that many
(most? I'm not so sure) people are willing to believe such things, and
are willing to participate vicariously in the artifacts that put that
message across, because they think it makes them, of all things,
sophisticated, because, hey, they know what's up about human nature and
can't be duped by that namby-pamby shit, yadda yadda yadda. A thing
"learned" in error is still a thing learned.
We watch these shows/listen to these songs/etc. because they're about
people being "animals at bottom". If they're thinking, "At least I'm not
like that" (which seems to be the driving force behind Springer and much
"reality" TV, as opposed to the rest of it), just what is it that makes
them start with "at least"?
I'm getting incoherent here, but my main point is that the vast majority
of people have "learned" that "reality" means "people being shits to each
other", even if most acts in the real world don't fall into that category
(which I don't think they do).
>I don't believe this lesson has been overlearned - that is: I
>don't think that we are individually in touch with the darker side of
>our nature.
Then why does the idea of that dark side pervade so much of our culture?
Is it a way of trying to deal with it collectively instead? It certainly
keeps reinforcing the idea that that "dark side" is in fact the most
essential part of us--IOW, "are we not really just animals at bottom".
Is it a _good_ way of dealing with the "dark side"? I don't think so--it
actually invites wallowing in it AFAI can tell, and I suppose it
encourages somewhat the projection (if that's really the right word) you
mention. Besides, people who've been convinced their fellow humans are
"animals at bottom" tend not to be too interested in working for positive
change.
>We are still routinely told that if we all accepted our
>nature and were happy with ourselves without condition that the world
>would be a better place.
I guess. I'm not hearing it, except in the recent attempt to resegregate
the genders, which strikes me as something undertaken in somewhat bad
faith.
>The 60s message is still coming through loud and clear, especially in places
>like this, where liberal educations are the rule.
Well, to me, the '60s message isn't "accept yourself" as much as
"spread peace, love, and understanding",
"fulfill your unique potential", and
"make gentle the life of this world".
None of these things, of course, come easily, and of course these goals
_sometimes_ have to be balanced against each other, and that's part of
where the movement got derailed. (The other part is that it got mixed up
with the "fuck shit up" impulse, which is where Abbie Hoffman et al.
seemed to be coming from. Both sides had a message of radical change of
_some_ sort, and I guess that's why they ended up allying with each
other.)
>To look at yourself and
>see your own darker side, as it really is, requires a moral effort
>that very few people ever find themselves capable of.
True. Maybe people just think they don't have a dark side at all simply
because they don't manage to find a serial killer there. Or OTOH, they
simply accept it as given--a sort of unholy abstraction informing their
very essence--and don't actually examine it or try to overcome it. Maybe
people just misunderstood what Carl Jung meant by "integrating the
Shadow."
Siobhan
I think I'm seeing a difference in definitions here.
When somebody says "hippies" they may be talking about the people
who experimented with low-impact and non-traditional living
arrangements, organized soup-kitchens and consciousness-rasing groups
and attended anti-war demonstrations and civil-rights sit-ins.
Or they may be talking about people who sat around listening to the
Beetles in bright clothes and smoking a lot of dope.
The former group might be argued to have had a substantial impact
on the current culture.
The latter take a lot of credit for it.
Siobhan
....Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
{http://www.virulent.org} sio...@virulent.org
"Reasoning sufficiently flawed enough is indistinguishable
from abject stupidity." ~Erik's Third Law
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> jbl...@mindspring.com (Panurge) wrote in <jblanks-2502012000530001@user-
> 37kbabg.dialup.mindspring.com>:
>
> >
> >>And if they changed things so much then why is napster getting sued for
> >>pretty much making that slogan a reality?
> >
> >If they changed things so little, why is there Napster at all? Would you
> >really expect that THE MAN wouldn't push back?
>
> Of course "the man" pushes back. That's been my point all along. The
> hippies never changed anything because the were so busy shouting silly
> slogans about "the man" that they never really got up and worked towards
> any goal.
>
> In other words, they were all talk. The were far too busy wishing for
> utopia to make any concrete changes.
Actually, they were too damned busy stoned out of their mind on the best
anti-activity drug ever discovered, marijuana. The shit promotes nothing but
vaporware and apathy in most consistent users.
>
> It's the people with rational goals that work hard and are a little
> conservative that actually change things. Not the weirdos living in
> communes and listening to the Grateful Dead.
Actually, they did change something, and that was something very important.
They got people accustomed to the idea that weirdos can live in communes and
listen to the Grateful Dead. Teaching people to accept alternative
lifestyles is a very important step in social evolution.
But I'd say they definitely didn't teach _you_ even that much.
Oh, the irony.
>
> Nyx
>
> --
> Demented and sad, but social.
> aim: nyxxxxx yahoo: nyxxxx icq: 9744630
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
Jennie Kermode
>There's a semi-official film of the (I think) 1970 festival--the one that
>included Joni Mitchell, Free, and ELP, among others. Not really Altamont,
>but it shows just how problematic an unyielding stance could be.
Aye; I've seen that one. There's some pretty good music hidden
away in it. The disorganisation of the whole thing, and the bad sound
quality, somehow gives it more character.
>Eventually, the promoters reluctantly let in the people camped outside,
>even though it meant operating the festival at a loss. There's a scene
>where one of the promoters is at the gate (or maybe an opening in the
>wall), arguing with one of the radicals (sorry, I can't think of a better
>word) about why it's OK, even necessary, to charge money to get in.
I've had these arguments with people; at one point I was trying
to start up a property company and was harangued for hours by a couple of
guys who felt that I should just let people live in rooms for free. Well,
excuse me, I don't actually own anything, I don't _have_ anything to give
away, and the fact that I'm more capable of getting bank loans than other
people doesn't mean there isn't always going to be somebody breathing down
my neck, or that I don't have to keep a roof over my own head too. When I
was homeless those guys would've approved of me, but the minute I tried to
become something other than a victim - the minute I tried to be
self-sufficient and make things easier and safer for a few other people -
I was seen as having become part of the system, a traitor, someone to be
destroyed if possible.
The whole thing was ridiculous. It _does_ make it harder for
people who actually care to get involved in such activities, housing or
music or whatever. There will always be bastards who don't give a shit,
and be directing their efforts against whoever happens to be nearest these
radicals effectively give the bastards a free ride. It's a colossal waste
of energy on everyone's part.
I've seen it on the goth newsgroups, too; how dare anyone make
money from festivals, and so forth. What people don't seem to understand
is that human time and energy has an innate value, because when somebody
gives away those resources for the benefit of others sie has less
remaining with which to ensure that hir own basic needs, and those of hir
dependents, are met.
>eat. Jaron Lanier has discussed this on www.edge.org in terms of the
>concept of the Vingean Singluarity, the point where the rate of change
>becomes so great as to reach a critical mass after which everything is
>different--that's what some people were expecting in the '60s, and they
A lot of people seemed to expect it as if it was already
inevitable, or as if it was something which they could demand on the basis
of being owed it; they failed to understand that thought and effort were
required.
>were so crestfallen when Utopia didn't materialize that the comedown
>became the source of the disilluionment with which we're all so familiar
As easy an excuse as the original one, I think. People either
say "the world is changing anyway, so why bother?", or they say "the world
will never change, so why bother?" Most people don't actually give enough
of a shit, for all their fancy words, to contribute to making things
better. I'm not sure if it's possible to genuinely inspire them, or if
they'll always be like that. Not that this will stop me from making an
effort. ;) Nor should it be an excuse for anyone else.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
Webpages at: http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"Telling tales of drunkenness and cruelty."
Panurge
>Teaching people to accept alternative
>lifestyles is a very important step in social evolution.
To turn Edward Everett's phrase to Abe Lincoln about the Gettysburg
Address: I'd be flattering myself to say I came as near to what I meant
to say in five paragraphs as you did in one sentence. Good on you! :-)
Panurge
>jbl...@mindspring.com (Panurge) wrote:
>
>> >so full of idealism and pot, they (as a whole, excluding a precious few)
>> >grew up to rape and pillage far worse than the WWI & WWII generations
>> >combined.
>
>> Much more of the damage done by that generation was done by the Dan Quayles
>> (and Bill Clintons?) than the Jerry Garcias, IYAM.
>
>okay, i'll admit, it's an unfair comparison to make. the boomers have
>caused far more damage largely because, in their everyday lives, they
>have had access to the technology to cause far more damage at a far more
>alarming rate than any prior generation. by the time their children hit
>middle age, they may well surpass them.
In that case, how much blame do they really bear? And how about the
parents of the Depression kids, who (worldwide, anyway) got us into World
War II?? Talk about damage!
>political damage, a la quayle, clinton, and bush ][ is something that
>really can only be perpetrated by a small number of people in any
>generation.
>> just a matter of recognizing what still needs doing. The baby-boomers'
>> accomplishment was to get rid of reflexive moral and cultural rigidity.
>> OK, so what do we replace it with?
>
>abject stupidity, and the blind devotion to corporatism that ignores all
>the lessons learned 70-100 years ago.
Uh, that was an OUGHT question, not an IS question. Sorry. But we were
supposed to replace it with peace, love, and understanding. What's so
funny about that? ;-)
>> Complaining about how ThemDamnHippies messed everything up or wallowing in
>> the situation as if nothing can be done is beside the point.
>
>themdamnhippies didn't mess anything up, really.
Well, you see, when speak of baby boomers, what I hear is
"ThemDamnHippies". It was when they stopped being ThemDamnHippies that
things started to go wrong, at least from my perspective. But I guess
I've just got an odd perspective--I judge that generation on what they
meant to be at their best, and at their best, the basic message is more
appealing to me than anyone else's.
>they were simply playing the duped role of the masses.
This I don't understand. They were trying as hard as they could to attain
an un-duped state; whether they succeeded or not is open to question, but
I think many were more successful at it than society gives them credit
for. Remember, back then the "squares" still constituted most of "the
masses".
>> >...technical solutions to complex problems can be hammered out in an
>> >afternoon between two ot three like-minded people with a keen
>> >understanding of how things work.
>
>> This is, of course, an argument for (and from) elitism, y'know.
>
>i know. i've yet to see an argument from history or a theory that
>successfully models human society that does not account for elitism.
Maybe on an engineering level. Elitism on a moral level is another thing
for sure--something to submit to the public, not impose on it.
Panurge
>The only people who really fought against the hippies were the idiots.
>Imagine Archie Bunker. That was your average hippie hater.
Yes, and very average they were, too, if you get my drift. I'd more
appropriately imagine Rush Limbaugh. In the late '60s, even some of the
liberals were Limbaughs (say, Walter Cronkite, who hated ThemDamnHippies
as much as any right-winger).
>The really smart members of the establishment just co-opted them. They
>started releasing movies about hippies. Fashion designers incorporated the
>styles.
That's to be expected, and not necessarily to be feared, even. It just
has to be dealt with wisely and with equanimity, not with righteously
indignant high dudgeon. I might even think an incrementalist would
welcome it.
There's actually a book about this, _The_Conquest_Of_Cool_ by Tom Frank,
editor of _The_Baffler_; that book begins from the premises that:
1) co-optation works both ways,
2) both sides can have sincere motivations,
3) we shouldn't be confusing politics with culture.
And when does co-optation occur, anyway? Look at Jennie's experience with
her roomies, for example--at just what point have you "bought into the
System"?
Anyway, quote time:
"At the end of the day, "authenticity" is hardly a useful measure of quality....
"Either you genuinely like your Backstreet Boys -- in which case, the
System is bringing you exactly what you want -- or you like listening to
the same stuff your friends are listening to -- in which case, the System
is still working, albeit on a more disturbing level....
"The only really insidious part of this whole cycle of cool is the
constant cultural emphasis on not giving into the Marketing Machine, so
that the Machine starts peddling its wares with anti-Machine rhetoric, and
that way madness lies."
--from a thread about "cool"
<http://www.plastic.com/media/01/02/25/023230.shtml>
on www.plastic.com, from the folks who bring you Suck and Feed
>Or they coopted themselves. Ben Stein cut his hair and started
>writing speeches for Nixon. Timothy Leary started appearing in Cheech and
>Chong movies. Jane Fonda did aerobic videos and married Ted Turner. The
>rest cut their hair, became stockbrokers, and bought copies of the Preppy
>Handbook.
Well, by now, you've gone way, way beyond describing co-optation to
describing total abandonment. OTOH, maybe you're just seeing the people
the (Establishment?) media reported on. How often do they notice the ones
who kept the faith? What would it mean to keep the faith?
>Why? Because they never accomplished anything and they came to realize it.
>Even if they won't admit it.
What I've always held was that it was because they started thinking they
_couldn't_ accomplish anything--and from there, it's just a hop-skip-jump
to "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." (And besides, it was their younger
siblings who bought copies of the Preppy Handbook--the same ones listening
to power-pop music, actually, AFAI can tell.)
Metamorph
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:30:33 GMT, Siobhan <sio...@virulent.org> wrote:
> > The former group might be argued to have had a substantial impact
> >on the current culture.
> > The latter take a lot of credit for it.
> threads like this so neatly and so well; you'll leave us with nothing to
> talk about. ;)
*grins* Ditto! But I thank you!
Metamorph
--
Worrying works! 90% of the things I worry about never happen.
Panurge
>umm? because [boomers] have the means to cause more damage with less
>forethought, they are less deservant of blame?
I should've been more clear here. What I meant was, "How much blame do
they really bear *relative to other generations*?"
>jbl...@mindspring.com (Panurge) wrote:
>> And how about the
>> parents of the Depression kids, who (worldwide, anyway) got us into World
>> War II?? Talk about damage!
>
>'got us into' WW][ is an intriguing statement.
Don't forget all those leaders over in Germany, Italy, and Japan--and
their relatively willing populations. The way we argue over generations
here is to an extent just one more way we tend to think in terms of
Anglo-American society as somehow the only one that counts.
>there's a lot of people in the boomer agegroup. not all of them, by any
>stretch of the imagination, were ThemDamnHippies.
True. Far be it from me to make anyone adopt an outlook wholesale from
somewhere else.
>here i find myself, on the road, and i keep stepping in all these damned
>good intentions. is it getting warmer in here?
That doesn't contradict the basic message, IMNSHO. Good intentions may
not be enough, and they may not guarantee anything, but they're certainly
necessary.
>> >they were simply playing the duped role of the masses.
>
>> This I don't understand. They were trying as hard as they could to
>> attain an un-duped state;...many were more successful at it than
>> society gives them credit for.
>
>well, that would again require one to ask just who 'they' were. 'they'
>the people who took it seriously, and tried to better their society, or
>'they' who found counterculture culture to be far too cool to pass up?
Certainly the first group. But ISTM there must've been people who were
attracted to the exteriors at first and eventually got hip to the
underlying principles. (Not that I've lived up to my own ideals,
though...) :-/
>> >i've yet to see an argument from history or a theory that
>> >successfully models human society that does not account for elitism.
>
>> Maybe on an engineering level. Elitism on a moral level is another thing
>> for sure--something to submit to the public, not impose on it.
>
>equality is a legal notion....
>equality of any other sort is a fiction, made up by the elite, and
>embraced by the insecure, in the hopes that all the rest will be too
>stupid to question it.
But what is the elite? (Don't get me wrong, I've got an elitist streak,
too, but I like to think I understand why people are scared of it.)