3 ms·

There is this odd schizophrenia where the 50s were viewed as this golden age of middle class workers while at the same time a period of vicious sexism/racism/et

by rsj_hn 5y ago

There is this odd schizophrenia where the 50s were viewed as this golden age of middle class workers while at the same time a period of vicious sexism/racism/etc, which causes people to complain at how much worse they have things while simultaneously insisting about how much moral progress has been made. What would be nice is some kind of self-aware synthesis of these views, one that isn't based on therapeutic expressions but actual analysis. For example, recognizing that opening the labor force to women and more immigration increased labor supply and drove down wages. Opening up international capital flows opened the doors to outsourcing and deindustrialization. Pitting the various ethnic groups in the U.S. against each other and promoting multi-culturalism has likewise resulted in an erosion of solidarity and thus an increase defecting on the social compact. I can respect people saying that on balance they think things are better today or worse today as long as there is some argument to back that up that takes the relevant tradeoffs into account. But there is unfortunately very little of that type of analysis on offer in these types of articles.

rualca 5y ago
> There is this odd schizophrenia where the 50s were viewed as this golden age of middle class workers while at the same time a period of vicious sexism/racism/etc, which causes people to complain at how much worse they have things while simultaneously insisting about how much moral progress has been made. It seems it's quite possible for members of the dominant group to reap benefits from a system that benefits them, while members of the oppressed group experience abuse. No schizophrenia needed to explain this.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Entire generations are members of oppressed groups now? You can't paint Millennials as being some kind of victim group that is, on balance, worse off as a result of policies while still insisting that these policies merely redistribute benefits within the population. For Millennials as a whole to be worse off, you must be talking about policies that, as a whole, provide a net benefit or cost to society. Hence the contraditictions. And in particular if you believe generation X+1 is more diverse than generation X, it requires deep schizophrenia so simultaneously claim that life is better for more diverse groups and yet generation X+1 is worse off. =
  - rualca 5y ago
    > Entire generations are members of oppressed groups now? Yes? I mean, the US civil rights movement originated how many generations ago? Do you actually believe these issues and all those factors vanished in thin air once the leaders of those civic movements were assassinated? It's simply not possible to come up with any remotely rational argument about these deep social problems plaguing the US that involves any type of denialism.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > Yes? I mean, the US civil rights movement originated how many generations ago? This statement is a non-sequitur to the current discussion. > It's simply not possible to come up with any remotely rational argument about these deep social problems plaguing the US that involves any type of denialism. This statement is a non-sequitur both to the current discussion and to your previous sentence.

by rsj_hn 5y ago

rualca 5y ago

> There is this odd schizophrenia where the 50s were viewed as this golden age of middle class workers while at the same time a period of vicious sexism/racism/etc, which causes people to complain at how much worse they have things while simultaneously insisting about how much moral progress has been made. It seems it's quite possible for members of the dominant group to reap benefits from a system that benefits them, while members of the oppressed group experience abuse. No schizophrenia needed to explain this.

rsj_hn 5y ago
Entire generations are members of oppressed groups now? You can't paint Millennials as being some kind of victim group that is, on balance, worse off as a result of policies while still insisting that these policies merely redistribute benefits within the population. For Millennials as a whole to be worse off, you must be talking about policies that, as a whole, provide a net benefit or cost to society. Hence the contraditictions. And in particular if you believe generation X+1 is more diverse than generation X, it requires deep schizophrenia so simultaneously claim that life is better for more diverse groups and yet generation X+1 is worse off. =
- rualca 5y ago
  > Entire generations are members of oppressed groups now? Yes? I mean, the US civil rights movement originated how many generations ago? Do you actually believe these issues and all those factors vanished in thin air once the leaders of those civic movements were assassinated? It's simply not possible to come up with any remotely rational argument about these deep social problems plaguing the US that involves any type of denialism.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > Yes? I mean, the US civil rights movement originated how many generations ago? This statement is a non-sequitur to the current discussion. > It's simply not possible to come up with any remotely rational argument about these deep social problems plaguing the US that involves any type of denialism. This statement is a non-sequitur both to the current discussion and to your previous sentence.