"Hey Dude, where's my Progress?!?!"

[Captain_America]

Again, where is the beauty in being stoned and out of touch with the world? Is this why God made our temples?

C’mon folks. Don’t be deceived here by the “be nice = being moral” moral narcolepsy we’ve been fed. It’s okay to say no to things that are clearly bad for people. In 2015, we really do know that drugs are bad for you.

I think pot smoking is one of those ALLURING evils, some bit of pleasure that is tempting and seems a human good, but which, in the long term of one’s life, really is not.

Think it over for me, would you?

In other news. . . I’ve lately been reading some essays, and ran across one which mentioned the 1950s. Now, I know the standard, Jump UP and Spout Response is to say that the 1950s were horrible, etc., etc., and that it’s all a TV-Land fantasy.

But the facts are that wealth increased, the middle class greatly expanded, people could for the first time live in their own houses, and not in cramped city apartments; people bought cars and televisions and plenty of other new and exciting consumer goods.

People had children. They had hope. They’d seen betterment.

OK. I wasn’t around for the 1950s. But the “Progress” that I would like would be much like this----less income disparity, more economic opportunity for more people, a more sensible and civil social life, less mind-binding from consumer media and more genuine respect for each other.

I see that partisanship and divisions have increased over the past 8 years in America. We’re in a storm of human relations problems. . . to the point that silliness such as economic and moral libertarianism even seem to make sense; extreme individualism at the cost of much of our own personal needs for society and social relations.

At any rate, I’d like to see at this point more work at developing the Benedict Option. Or at least some counterweight to the false moral notions shat from Hollywood.

 

[migueltojose]

Again, where is the beauty in being stoned and out of touch with the world? Is this why God made our temples?

C’mon folks. Don’t be deceived here by the “be nice = being moral” moral narcolepsy we’ve been fed. It’s okay to say no to things that are clearly bad for people. In 2015, we really do know that drugs are bad for you.

I think pot smoking is one of those ALLURING evils, some bit of pleasure that is tempting and seems a human good, but which, in the long term of one’s life, really is not.

Think it over for me, would you?

In other news. . . I’ve lately been reading some essays, and ran across one which mentioned the 1950s. Now, I know the standard, Jump UP and Spout Response is to say that the 1950s were horrible, etc., etc., and that it’s all a TV-Land fantasy.

But the facts are that wealth increased, the middle class greatly expanded, people could for the first time live in their own houses, and not in cramped city apartments; people bought cars and televisions and plenty of other new and exciting consumer goods.

People had children. They had hope. They’d seen betterment.

OK. I wasn’t around for the 1950s. But the “Progress” that I would like would be much like this----less income disparity, more economic opportunity for more people, a more sensible and civil social life, less mind-binding from consumer media and more genuine respect for each other.

I see that partisanship and divisions have increased over the past 8 years in America. We’re in a storm of human relations problems. . . to the point that silliness such as economic and moral libertarianism even seem to make sense; extreme individualism at the cost of much of our own personal needs for society and social relations.

At any rate, I’d like to see at this point more work at developing the Benedict Option. Or at least some counterweight to the false moral notions shat from Hollywood.

I grew up in the 50’s, and loved that era, but historically, big picture, you have to recall that the great economic boom that occurred was the result of the elimination of global competition. Japan and Germany were the two economic superpowers and they were essentially eliminated… except… in our typical good natured way we rebuilt them under the Marshall plan. So the unprecedented economic growth that occurred during 40-60’s was extraordinary. Not necessarily undeserved, but definitely extraordinary… i.e. unsustainable… It’s also responsible for the wage gap. We love our wages but don’t like the result of the gap that was created… competition. Coupled with technology and excess transportation capacity and voila… global competition filled the gap.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

But the facts are that wealth increased, the middle class greatly expanded, people could for the first time live in their own houses, and not in cramped city apartments; people bought cars and televisions and plenty of other new and exciting consumer goods.

Because nothing is better than all those cookie cutter houses all lined up in a row painted the same color with the same patch of lawn. the 1950s saw the explosion of suburban sprawl which I would argue enriched our material benefits while at the same time eroded our social capital. The suburbs were designed to offer comfort and privacy but in so doing also alienated us from out neighbors. In my suburb, everyone keeps to himself/herself and I am shocked when someone actually says “hello”. At least that cramped city life offers more culture and opportunity to meet people. Also, high density is a good thing for a city, not a bad thing.

 

[Captain_America]

Because nothing is better than all those cookie cutter houses all lined up in a row painted the same color with the same patch of lawn. the 1950s saw the explosion of suburban sprawl which I would argue enriched our material benefits while at the same time eroded our social capital. The suburbs were designed to offer comfort and privacy but in so doing also alienated us from out neighbors. In my suburb, everyone keeps to himself/herself and I am shocked when someone actually says “hello”. At least that cramped city life offers more culture and opportunity to meet people. Also, high density is a good thing for a city, not a bad thing.

This is a 1960s critique, of course. My point is that THE PEOPLE were Enormously Happy to have a house, even IF it was architecturally quid nunc.

OF course, the notion of suburban alienation could not have arisen until there was suburban life. The rejoinder to this is that the city has its anomie and greater suicide rates, etc., associated with this disconnect.

 

[Captain_America]

I grew up in the 50’s, and loved that era, but historically, big picture, you have to recall that the great economic boom that occurred was the result of the elimination of global competition. Japan and Germany were the two economic superpowers and they were essentially eliminated… except… in our typical good natured way we rebuilt them under the Marshall plan. So the unprecedented economic growth that occurred during 40-60’s was extraordinary. Not necessarily undeserved, but definitely extraordinary… i.e. unsustainable… It’s also responsible for the wage gap. We love our wages but don’t like the result of the gap that was created… competition. Coupled with technology and excess transportation capacity and voila… global competition filled the gap.

Excellent points. Also, energy was incredibly cheap.

I have to wonder, though, if with some critical revision of the US tax code, it would be possible to lessen the enormous income disparities. A man can eat only so many steaks. While some would complain that we’re in an international marketplace, others might point out that the US is often a leader in making structural change in the global economy.

 

[Midwest88]

Because nothing is better than all those cookie cutter houses all lined up in a row painted the same color with the same patch of lawn.

It always amuses me when people resort to the “cookie cutter” card when low blowing the suburbs.

As someone who has lived in an urban environment most of his life, I can’t help chuckle a bit. The architecture of the city isn’t as grand as one may think if you’re a resident, especially in Manhattan; the greystones tend to blend into each other once your eyes gets use to seeing them. You can’t necessarily appreciate the height of the buildings in lower Manhattan because they’re so dang tall and too close to one another – your sky in concrete, which isn’t exactly ‘natural.’ Chicago has its bungalow houses - there are rows of them, actually - but instead of large patches of lawn there are thin strips. It’s Loop is probably the most varied in architecture, so unless you live there you’re going to be seeing many greystones, bungalows, and two-flats. Los Angeles is basically a bunch of suburbs connected to another by highways called a “city.”

The way I see it, the suburbs can be a decent place to live and to raise kids; raising kids in an urban environment unless both spouses make low six figures? Good luck. In all honesty I have a few suburbs picked out if I ever get married, have kids, and see that the city isn’t a viable place to raise them - granted most of the suburbs I’ve picked have direct access to the city and would be deemed “inner ring suburbs.”

the 1950s saw the explosion of suburban sprawl which I would argue enriched our material benefits while at the same time eroded our social capital. The suburbs were designed to offer comfort and privacy but in so doing also alienated us from out neighbors. In my suburb, everyone keeps to himself/herself and I am shocked when someone actually says “hello”.

Then hold a pot luck get-to-together. Reach out. Put flyers in mail boxes; go to your next door neighbor on each side, the ones living across from you as well, and bake them a pie. Don’t outright blame the sociological and psychological pitfalls of the suburbs to the lack of human interaction that is possible.

At least that cramped city life offers more culture and opportunity to meet people. Also, high density is a good thing for a city, not a bad thing.

The city life and suburbs are two distinct different things calling for two different lifestyles. It is what it is. Live in the suburbs and have a car? Drive to the city for a night out and a DD. Contrary to popular belief city life isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Everything that is available to me, either by walking, by bus or by train, can be accessed to those who A) now the event is happening and B) has ways to get there. (B) needs for planning for those who aren’t city bound, but it’s doable.

The main thing high density is good for a city is that it makes it walkable. High density has its cons as well: It’s rather unnatural, it attracts hordes of people and forces them to live on top of one another, it makes garbage disposal an issue (see: Manhattan), it can get rather dirty, the homeless that beg, the taxes, the cost of living, the false badge of “tolerance” and “open mindedness” when met with someone who espouses traditional views of the world, the lack of a backyard where you can grow your own food & make a mini-camp fire, the idea of a “beach” being a 20 minute bus ride away but never actually getting to the “beach” due numerous reasons etc. Raising kids in the city? It’ll be a pain to find a decent enough public school. Got them into a private school? The tuition will call for a mini-loan. Catholic and want your kids to attend a Catholic school? You’re in better shape than those who don’t see such an option.

Sure, as a self-proclaimed urbanite city life can be great but it has its downsides (see: above). If there’s one thing the suburban life has over the city it’s privacy. Pursuing things like fixing your own car, motorcycle or doing some carpentry is rather hard in an urban environment if you don’t have a personal garage to them in and to store your tools, and whatnot.

Also, on the social thing – my brother lives in Manhattan and he isn’t even friends with the people in his apartment. Most people his age have their own circle of friends that they just hangout with; any new faces will most likely be friends of a friend. Yes, you can meet people at the bars and clubs, but bars and clubs aren’t necessarily the spot to seek out “marriage material” or “BFFs” types. It’s a meat market in Manhattan. Same goes for all cities - be it major, medium or small size. The cultural events have a leg up in the city, obviously, but like I said it’s not inaccessible to those living in the suburbs. Depending on how the “downtown” nightlife of your suburb is the nightlife can be decent. It’s not like living in Alaska or some state with a really low population where finding “cosmopolitan” things to do are in short supply.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Then hold a pot luck get-to-together. Reach out. Put flyers in mail boxes; go to your next door neighbor on each side, the ones living across from you as well, and bake them a pie. Don’t outright blame the sociological and psychological pitfalls of the suburbs to the lack of human interaction that is possible.

Possible but not conducive to social interaction. As you said, the suburbs are meant for privacy so each person can do his/her own thing. Also, as a twenty three year old, I need to be selective of who I interact with. Baking a pie and showing up to some random house with a middle aged couple would be very awkward because we would be at very different stages in life. And yes, I do have a job before you ask that pays well so I’m not just some dude who lives in his mother’s basement. Point is, there aren’t places like local coffee shops where people my age get together.

 

[Captain_America]

. . . it’s worth, too, noting that part of the appeal of the Big City was to get some freedom. . . the “free air” of the city (there’s a German term for this idea). The notion being that in the City you could be yourself and not be “just my father’s son.”

With respect to the current zeitgeist notion (hey, there’s a German word for you!) of “progress”, I think a lot of these notions are candied social poisons.

We know abortion REALLY IS a worse deal than originally thought.

We know pot does damage lives. Short term pleasure, long term pain.

We know genetic baby concoctions are possible; we don’t yet know any long-term idea of the subtle physiological consequences.

We know homosexuality is a disorder; part a matter of developmental psychology and part a matter of sexual addiction. Again, another example of “short term pleasure/long-term pain.”

At the root of much “progessive” (although, let’s be honest and call it liberal) notions is the Outrageously Crazy idea that the One Very Best Human Good is sexual pleasure----and the rest of society needs adjustment so that many, many, many, many kinds of sexual pleasure-----some very detrimental and damaging—can be achieved.

The Good Society is built to maximize individual orgasm counts.

 

[Captain_America]

Because nothing is better than all those cookie cutter houses all lined up in a row painted the same color with the same patch of lawn. the 1950s saw the explosion of suburban sprawl which I would argue enriched our material benefits while at the same time eroded our social capital. The suburbs were designed to offer comfort and privacy but in so doing also alienated us from out neighbors. In my suburb, everyone keeps to himself/herself and I am shocked when someone actually says “hello”. At least that cramped city life offers more culture and opportunity to meet people. Also, high density is a good thing for a city, not a bad thing.

I’m tempted to agree; having read much of the New Urbanism materials over the years and serving on my city’s plan commission.

Life in 2015 is different from 1815, and I think increased communication and transportation possiblities have really radically changed how we form our communities. They are less bounded by geography.

People do have an essential need for community. In 2015, some of this is met by sports affiliations, by consumer product brand affliation (pretty soon, yes, soon, I predict a Ralph Lauren Tour of Ye Olde England).

We also socialize via our interests. Golfers get together on golf courses. You have a golf friend and a bicycling friend (and ne’er the two may meet).

 

[Midwest88]

Possible but not conducive to social interaction. As you said, the suburbs are meant for privacy so each person can do his/her own thing. Also, as a twenty three year old, I need to be selective of who I interact with. Baking a pie and showing up to some random house with a middle aged couple would be very awkward because we would be at very different stages in life.

What’s your overall goal when it comes to social meetings? Meet people your own age and making friends, and possibly find a girlfriend, or maybe a future spouse?

And yes, I do have a job before you ask that pays well so I’m not just some dude who lives in his mother’s basement. Point is, there aren’t places like local coffee shops where people my age get together.

What type of suburb do you live in and how far is it to the nearest city? If your job is located in the suburbs is it obligated for you to live there? If the suburbs is big & busy enough then there should be hangouts that cater to those single & young. My cousin lives in the city and he commutes to the suburbs for work - he’s about 24 and even contemplated moving nearer to the suburbs to just cut down his commute, but I don’t think he has taken into the reality that the suburbs isn’t exactly a social hotspot for his age bracket.

 

[Forkfoot]

If you’re going to harken back fondly to the good old days you need to address the horrors in the same breath or you’ve got your head up your ***.

https://www.guernicamag.com/Lynching575.jpg

^ This does not happen in America anymore. White people can’t just kill black people with impunity and pose for photos anymore. This ALONE means that our country is just plain better than it used to be. I refuse to accept any argument to the contrary which does not directly address this.

 

[Midwest88]

If you’re going to harken back fondly to the good old days you need to address the horrors in the same breath or you’ve got your head up your ***.

^ This does not happen in America anymore. White people can’t just kill black people with impunity and pose for photos anymore. This ALONE means that our country is just plain better than it used to be. I refuse to accept any argument to the contrary which does not directly address this.

Obviously you miss the point of the OP.

 

[Midwest88]

Supposition: some religious people see that the world is becoming increasingly secular and would be greatly upset if that coincided with things getting better overall. Thus, the need to look at a world which is doing an okay job and hone in on the bad. Clearly this isn’t everybody, but IMO the “the world is going downhill” crowd is disproportionately religious.

The world is getting better in terms of medicine and technology. Things are becoming more efficient in that regard. Communication and access to knowledge has become easier.

Morally? It’s a wasteland. As a couple of aspect head to the sky (medicine, technology) other aspects (morally) head to the ground.

 

[Midwest88]

I don’t worry myself with moral panics anymore. People were no less sinful 50, 500, or 5000 years ago than they are today. And there won’t be a golden future either; the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Honestly, anyone who gets worried about women in combat doesn’t have both oars in the water. Chivalry only has one clause about respecting women; the rest is about killing people. And knights were not noble protectors; they were a pack of greedy, drunken lechers (just ask St. Joan of Arc or George R.R. Martin).

I have become almost completely desensitized to outrages. I don’t like it when scandals and sins happen, but I don’t get my nuts in a knot over them either. There is nothing new under the sun.

And don’t get me started on “traditional family values”. Talk about a hollow, meaningless shibboleth!

In other words: Who gives a flying monkey’s butt!

bold: Well that not a surprising admittance by someone who doesn’t care anymore. You cease to think anymore. Go figure.

 

[Midwest88]

I see nothing wrong with either of these.

—women being put into front-line combat

Are you aware how physically grinding front-line combat aka infantry is? Are you aware that a woman’s body and what it’s capable of is not equal to a man’s body and what it’s capable of? Citing Crossfit competitions doesn’t count.

mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/why-women-do-not-belong-us-infantry

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/16/26-female-marines-drop-out-of-infantry-officer-cou/

You are aware that if women are allowed to be front-line soldiers that getting a period amongst guys would be highly uncomfortable for both sexes in close, dirty and foul-stench quarters? You are aware that missions for infantry are high-tempo and that it’s life and death situations?

If you think “nothing wrong” with it then you obviously haven’t thought about it enough and just, by default, choose the “well of course why not?/see prob Bob!” vacuous modernist go-to response.

Wait, you’re the one who posted a graphic lynching picture. For what purpose? To shock us? To say “NO! IT WAS SO HORRID BACK THEN YOU CRAZY CATHOLICS!” You honestly think we’re stupid and blind? In my view, you posting that picture speaks about you. It doesn’t speak about the point of the OP; it speaks about your selective outrage which you and Lost Wanderer’s (who also did a similar thing) modernistic “progressive” mind.

 

[Midwest88]

You need to fix your understanding of individualism. What you’re essentially bantering on about is no different than Jack Chick using examples from Dave Hunt to define Catholicism.

What did Chick and Hunt say to define Catholicism?

Individualism at worst just promotes anarchy (which is neither Left or Right).

It’s actually more Left than Right.

The only way it ever tears down people would be when said people are the entities existing outside the individualist. You cannot call one sheeple while simultaneously an individualist any more than you can pump and deflate the same balloon at the same time. They are two inherently opposed ideologies!

Actually, one can. There’s a thing call duality. Heck, you can bring in the Nazis if you want. Sheeple? Yes. All alone by themselves? Technically an individualist if you ask them about their favorite music, favorite meal etc. You can even bring in the people who thought Obama was the “The Promise One.”

If rhetoric like yours is the result, I’m not sure I’d call the critique serious. From my own personal experience, thinking along your lines has practically brought me to war with everyone the faith commands I make peace with (friends and family first and foremost).

It only brings you to conflict with “everyone the faith commands” because it seems you’re still stuck in Juvenile Mode where your Feelings and “Individualism” causes you to explode into confetti when met with a little thing called wisdom.

Don’t even get me started on that contradictory rubbish that is “I came not to bring peace but the sword.” party line that some Christians use to justify their self-ascribed status as moralist sheriffs.

Huh?

To heck with how you apply it on an administrative level, I’ll stick to a bit of live-and-let-live ‘libertarianism’ for my personal life.

“You guys suck. I’m outa here! MOM! DAD!”

 

[Midwest88]

The demon weed will make the youths commit quit school, commit murder, and convert to Marxism! My 1930’s science tells me so!

Marxism isn’t a religion (at all) as it is a way of thinking about thought and economics. Nice try.

 

[Midwest88]

They are saying the same exact things about people who use heroin and other opiates now…strange that they didnt seem to learn their lesson about this with pot!! LOL

Do do you do any of those drugs? Then again this is coming from a guy who’s pissed that there are supposed leaflets on various Statue of Davids in the US.

Hopefully most people are smart enough to see what all these anti-drug propaganda tactics are, and to NOT believe a word they say.

And what are these tactics? Seems to me you’re all for token up and cokin’ up.