331–340 of 440 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things I've done to successfully restart my social life after Covid in the last year: * Restarted Crossfit. Social events have included BBQ's, meals out, trips away (normally CF related, but still great fun). Every box I've been to have been full of fun and interesting people. * Joined my local Wargaming/Boardgame club. Sit around drinking and playing games with a very varied bunch of people. Lots of nerds and the oc…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And just to add to this, I actually think the political polarization of today is just not substantial compared to many other eras. Every generation since the early modern period thinks it’s politics are the most controversial. But the 1880-1950ish era sticks out to me as special. That was the era of real progressivism, communism, socialism, fascism, teetotalers, religious revival, super-powered unions, monopolistic c…
People had a rule back then that you didn't talk about sex, politics, or religion. Now sex and politics in terms of gender identity, sexual orientation and all the other flavors of identity politics are front and center in a lot of people's minds on a day to day basis.
Today its “what is gender”, yesteryear it was “should women vote”. Today its the LGBTQ agenda, yesteryear it was prostitution, porn, infidelity, marriage debates. Today it is political religions, yesteryear it was “Does God allow re-marriage?” “Do Catholics go to hell?”. Today we align along ideologies on twitter, yesteryear we aligned by joining the Elks or the Masons or the unions.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend recently introduced me to this quote, and even though it generalises a little[1], I think it ring true: > Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. I think we're entering that last cycle again, where people are inventing trivial hardships for themselves, because media teaches them that only a life with some type of adversity is wor…
For anyone who doesn't know the context: This quote is literal fascist rhetoric to promote machismo and contempt for the weak. It might resonate the first time you hear it (most good propaganda does), but if you contemplate it for more than 10 seconds and you'll realize it's obviously untrue.
Also, you don't have to be macho or physically strong to be strong. That just seems like your own bias leaking into the discussion.
That it might promote contempt for weakness might be true, though, and it didn't cross my mind. I don't like that it does that. At the same time I don't think weakness should be glorified either. Ideally, weak people should be helped to develop their own strong self.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And just to add to this, I actually think the political polarization of today is just not substantial compared to many other eras. Every generation since the early modern period thinks it’s politics are the most controversial. But the 1880-1950ish era sticks out to me as special. That was the era of real progressivism, communism, socialism, fascism, teetotalers, religious revival, super-powered unions, monopolistic c…
People had a rule back then that you didn't talk about sex, politics, or religion. Now sex and politics in terms of gender identity, sexual orientation and all the other flavors of identity politics are front and center in a lot of people's minds on a day to day basis.
The only really new, big stakes discussion I see on the table today is climate change. Everything else has been more or less hashed out by generations now dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to post the same complaint as the parent comment; for example: "Hard times create strong men" - maybe, but starvation doesn't make you strong. Being dead from disease doesn't make you strong. Rising to adversity might make some people stronger, but it will harm others who survive but are damaged. It could be that the already-strong people rise to adversity and the weak get crushed by it, Darwinianly? Or t…
In this context, I think strong means competent.
I would certainly include competence as contributing to a strong character
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to post the same complaint as the parent comment; for example: "Hard times create strong men" - maybe, but starvation doesn't make you strong. Being dead from disease doesn't make you strong. Rising to adversity might make some people stronger, but it will harm others who survive but are damaged. It could be that the already-strong people rise to adversity and the weak get crushed by it, Darwinianly? Or t…
In this context, I think strong means competent.
Or worse, because bad times create broken people. And while broken people can stand adversity, they are much less able to create something non-broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things I've done to successfully restart my social life after Covid in the last year: * Restarted Crossfit. Social events have included BBQ's, meals out, trips away (normally CF related, but still great fun). Every box I've been to have been full of fun and interesting people. * Joined my local Wargaming/Boardgame club. Sit around drinking and playing games with a very varied bunch of people. Lots of nerds and the oc…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, I get your point that it's about what's changed through time Though I'd add to that that the common awareness--an acceptance of speaking publicly about and solidarity in not standing for--sexual assault, is something that has grown dramatically in the past decade for women. In the past many of these things would be covered in shame and swept under the rug but now the issues are more visible and many younger women…
[flagged]
Note that I was speaking of fear of being falsely accused, not rightly accused. Men who expose themselves or commit other sexual crimes have no such concerns. They also live among your circles, believe it or not.
The world is bigger than your strictly enforced American bipartisan ideology. My experience is from places where there exist no republicans or democrats - long before people such as Trump or Andrew Tate were widely talked about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this context, I think strong means competent.
And then you look again at the GP, and see that the only reasonable interpretation of "strong" that phrase can have has no relation at all with competence. Or worse, because bad times create broken people. And while broken people can stand adversity, they are much less able to create something non-broken.
Also, whether hardships makes or breaks you depends largely on your outlook and coping skills (this comes from someone who's had CPTSD and had to stop suicidal idealisation and learn coping skills in my late 20s).
All skills diminish, if unused. Having too easy times means there's less need to "cope"
It's very likely most millennials have poor coping skills due to the predominantly emotionally neglectful parenting styles the previous generation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The schools you're talking about are not anymore schools for children, where the worst influence is being imposed. I was unclear earlier, but I exclusively mean the schooling during childhood years. After puberty things change, but learned behaviors stick for life.
Lots of parties then too (birthdays), more and bigger than homeschoolers.