How exactly was "Life better in the past"?

[acptulsa]

You really do not get it.

Said denseness is intentional. But I don't think his bosses are particularly impressed, or he'd still be here doing battle.

 

[William Tell]

Maybe the R in PRB stands for Sir Robin...

Sir Robin of Bitchalot, yes

 

[TaftFan]

Here's my take. I'm relatively young. I basically only watch TV shows that were before my time. While I like some new music, I prefer older music. I'd take hanging out with my grandparents over friends any day.

The only thing better today is the technology, though not all of it is positive. I believe I would go back in time, if given the choice.

 

[osan]

First of all, I'm just as anti-tax and anti-federal reserve as the rest of you.

Since you know not the first thing about me, you open with either a lie or a telltale of your blithering ignorance. But let me try not to prejudge you too harshly - let us examine what else lies under your hood.

But I don't think I need nostalgia or conspiracy theories to advocate for a sound and responsible monetary policy, and freer economic policy.

Don't think? That does not sound very positive at all. And of course there is the tacit implication that people here do need these, and yet you provide no basis for this lovely little bit of innuendo.

I don't see how "conspiracy theories" or "nostalgia" in any way relate in a necessary way. The fact that one recognizes the abundance of conspiracies in this political world does not render his views invalid, nor does his feelings of so-called "nostalgia" for those things from days past that were, in fact, better in his estimation. That nostalgia does not imply that ALL things were better back when, yet this is a fairly clear implication of what you wrote, painting yourself as either dishonest or in dire need of a clue.

I keep hearing, over and over, mostly from conservatives, that somehow life was better in the past.

That is a subjective assessment and as such it is perfectly valid. Some people prefer vanilla, others like chocolate. More FAIL. Do you get paid to do this?

I still don't understand why, to me, most of the arguments are based on cherry picking the favorite traits of the individual,

What a load of baloney, to tacitly imply that this is invalid... as if your apparent ideal of purity should drive the lives of all men. Weak.

a bit like people saying "poor people have better lives than me" which if true, one should logically give up his wealth to pursue the alleged "better and poorer" lifestyle he claims he admires or is jealous of.

Yes, because I hear people saying this so very often. I ask again: are you getting paid to post this embarrassing nonsense? If so, I hope you're getting paid a lot because I would not make this large a fool of myself for chump change.

Here are the common arguments and explanations I hear a lot

1. Population was lower, population density was lower

It was. What's your point?

2. Less government existed, people had more rights

The former was true, the latter is ignorance or bad wording by anyone saying so.

3. Cost of living was allegedly lower

There is some validity to this. The issue is not quite simple.

4. People supposedly worked less or more people were employed

Assuming you actually hear this, of which I am inclined to doubtfulness, what is your point?

What seems to be conveniently ignored are
1. Blacks and gays had less rights

Ignorant and wholly false assertion. Rights are rights and all are equal regardless whether certain people with fancy titles, perhaps badges and maybe even guns respect them. Denial/violation of rights does not equate with not having them but only with not being able to exercise them. Equating the squelching of rights with not having them is a major league failure of reason based on fallacy.

2. Less diversity and interaction between people of different skin color

As if that were necessarily a bad thing. Free people are free to choose with whom to hang. If they don't want to be "diverse" and you don't like it, tough poo.

3. Cost of living while higher today, so are salaries

So sadly ignoring the centrally important reasons why this is the case. FAIL^FAIL

4. People CAN still be employed today if they were not so picky about what they wanted to work as

Oh, well that makes everything just dandy fine, eh? Seriously, are you an idiot or just this corrupt?

5. Consumption is everything but static
6. Technology has put so many people out of work, and tools obsolete

Not even sure what your points are for these last two.

The only thing, on balance, that I can personally think of, which would have a net "better" for any time in the past vs today, in US, would be higher cost of medical care today. That's close to a deal breaker, everything else, as far as I can tell, are better. But I'm willing to listen to what I'm missing.

You sound like you are young, meaning you were not here when things were different. I was and I know better. Not everything was better. I do like word processing software better than typing on a typewriter using carbon paper if copies were needed. Certain states of medicine are definitely better than before. But there is a vast number of aspects to modern life that suck ass when compared with days past. One example would be police behavior. Sure, there were plenty of corrupt cops since cops have existed, but back when they almost universally kept their corruption under tight wraps, whereas today they flaunt it.

You see, the grand inference to be made from all this nonsense you have spewed forth here is that life today is so much better than it was before. This is a bald-faced lie. Some aspects are better, but on the whole life is a good shade shittier than it was before.

You don't know what you're talking about, that much is very clear.

 

[acptulsa]

I don't see how "conspiracy theories" or "nostalgia" in any way relate in a necessary way. The fact that one recognizes the abundance of conspiracies in this political world does not render his views invalid, nor does his feelings of so-called "nostalgia" for those things from days past that were, in fact, better in his estimation. That nostalgia does not imply that ALL things were better back when, yet this is a fairly clear implication of what you wrote, painting yourself as either dishonest or in dire need of a clue.

Whaaaaaat...? You don't agree that because polio is bad, believing in sound currency and non-centralized, state-level regulation for a better economy and less corruption nationwide is emotional nostalgia? You don't believe that progress is a package deal, and we have to take the new be it good or bad without choosing the good and discarding the bad? Surely you jest!

But forward is good, right? Even if it's forward to poverty and tyranny? At least it's, like, forward, so...

 

[osan]

this is just semantics.

Here he exposes his deep ignorance, as do so many other poorly-dressed (dare I call it this?) "intellects". Your statement, if seriously forwarded, indicates a profound absence of understanding of "semantics", which were you in possession thereof, you would never qualify as "just", all else equal.

There is nothing mere about semantics. Semantics is the very understanding of everything you know, or think you know, in your life. How is that "just"?

Go get yourself a friggin' dictionary and read it, for pity's sake.

So change the word to privileges and I care not what your assumptions are, the facts tell what people were legally allowed to do.

It is the preponderance of this brand of rank stupidity that dooms the race of men. You're like the progressive liberal who clenches shut his eyes, plugs his ears with his fingers, and runs in place while shouting "I can't hear you" over and over again as his timid and oh-so-narrow little mind clings with desperate ferocity to notions of a "right world" according to the masturbatory fantasies of his arrested pre-pubescent ego.

 

[PRB]

I ask again: are you getting paid to post this embarrassing nonsense? If so, I hope you're getting paid a lot because I would not make this large a fool of myself for chump change.

Nope, not paid at all.

 

[PRB]

Whaaaaaat...? You don't agree that because polio is bad, believing in sound currency and non-centralized, state-level regulation for a better economy and less corruption nationwide is emotional nostalgia? You don't believe that progress is a package deal, and we have to take the new be it good or bad without choosing the good and discarding the bad? Surely you jest!

No, I didn't say you have to take the package deal, but if you're going to tell me life in the past was overall better, rather than only better in some aspects, then you're the one who wants the package deal, not me.

But forward is good, right? Even if it's forward to poverty and tyranny? At least it's, like, forward, so...

I reject your premise that we're moving forward to more poverty and more tyranny.

 

[PRB]

Less manufactured distraction. A more intense concentration on the now and present.

it's still, and the end of the day, or life, "living in fear of death" vs "not living in fear of death" no matter how you make it sound romanticized, isn't it?

A hospital wasn't a taxpayer taxi ride away.

Where was it? A walk away? As abundant as Starbucks today? Too far that not everybody could get to?

Do modern distractions and conveniences leave you free from worry?

Not completely free, but definitely free from many fears I'd have, starting with a shorter lifespan.

 

[PRB]

Let's take a look at these:

Blacks yes, gays no. Gays have and have always had the same amount of actual rights as anyone else. They are just now receiving equal government "priviliges", which are really just a cover for more government control over your life. Yeah, great liberty victory there. Gays can finally have their marriage approved by the government!

Tell that to the people arrested under sodomy laws.

Pffft. Who's keeping track of this stuff besides some "diversity coordinator" at a liberal college or something?

Good to know you don't care. Glad I'm white like you.

But are they increasing at the same rate? No, they're not.

I'd agree they are not, does that mean salaries increased slower?

That's right, you'll take your 20 hours a week at McDonald's and you'll like it! There's nothing wrong with the system! Now get to work, you lazy bum! Yeah, this is why I'm moving out of the country. Fuck American jobs.

Whatever makes you happy.

Yes, because consumption is the answer to everything. It doesn't matter what we're producing as long as people are buying stuff. Are you a Keynesian by any chance?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist or nostalgist. Wait, so consumption is NOT the answer, but complain about everything costing more???!
Complain about poverty, but not advocating consuming?

What's your point?

Uhhh, that technology has made life better rather than worse.

I think life is getting worse for people. Your measurements don't mean shit. My quality of life can't be quantified. It's people like you that are ruining this country by reinforcing the status quo. Again, another reason I'm leaving.

In what ways are they getting worse?

 

[acptulsa]

No, I didn't say you have to take the package deal, but if you're going to tell me life in the past was overall better, rather than only better in some aspects, then you're the one who wants the package deal, not me.

'Life is getting harder, even as technological progress should be making it easier, because in some key areas we're no longer doing things that worked and instead doing things that don't.'

'Oh, if you say life is getting harder, that means you want to turn back the clock and throw away the good with the bad.'

What sort of a so-called logic class did you learn that goofy crap in? I surely hope you didn't pay for it.

I reject your premise that we're moving forward to more poverty and more tyranny.

You haven't so far demonstrated a sufficient grasp of history to understand that even desegregation was something of a tradeoff, and you expect us to look at you saying 'I reject your premise...' without a shred of an attempt at argument (much less documentation to back you up) and say, oh, gee, that's convincing, I think I'll just forget everything I know and place all my faith in the person who can't even seem to prove to us he's not an ignoramus?

Holding your breath?

it's still, and the end of the day, or life, "living in fear of death" vs "not living in fear of death" no matter how you make it sound romanticized, isn't it?

So when are you going to learn to speak English?

Where was it? A walk away? As abundant as Starbucks today? Too far that not everybody could get to?

Where are the hospitals today? As common as coffee shops? Within walking distance of everyone? Do you have a point? Are you capable of making it?

Not completely free, but definitely free from many fears I'd have, starting with a shorter lifespan.

If you had lived in the past, you'd be just as grateful that the life expectancy of the age was the longest in recorded history.

Tell that to the people arrested under sodomy laws.

You mean the same people who weren't arrested for smoking some seven-leaf plant they found growing by the stream?

Good to know you don't care. Glad I'm white like you.

But, of course, you're assuming you know what color his friends are. Which makes an ASS out of U, not ME.

I'd agree they are not, does that mean salaries increased slower?

Whose salaries? Warren Buffet's? Yes. Everyone else's? No.

Whatever makes you happy.

Really? So you'll help us restore sanity to this nation so he doesn't have to go? Mighty kind of you.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist or nostalgist.

Is that seriously what you think 'Keynesian' means? Well, now, we are well informed.

Wait, so consumption is NOT the answer, but complain about everything costing more???!
Complain about poverty, but not advocating consuming?

Does a person really need to advocate eating?

Uhhh, that technology has made life better rather than worse.

Why do you keep pretending that we're saying the opposite? Why do you keep pretending that only technology has any effect on the quality of life? Do you think technology's relentless march made life rosy and peachy in Uganda, so even Idi Amin Dada couldn't cause it to go downhill?

In what ways are they getting worse?

If we put it on a tape loop, do you promise to leave it playing by your bedside all night? Because you've steadfastly refused to read and acknowledge everything we've asked and everything we've said on that subject so far. Do you really expect us to cut and paste all night long? Do you figure this is some variation on a dance marathon, where if you keep your blindfold on until we all go to bed, you win?

 

[PRB]

'Life is getting harder, even as technological progress should be making it easier, because in some key areas we're no longer doing things that worked and instead doing things that don't.'

Who said that?

'Oh, if you say life is getting harder, that means you want to turn back the clock and throw away the good with the bad.'

Ok, I make a distinction between life getting harder from today to the future vs life is already harder than the past.

If life is harder or worse than the past, then going back IS ONLY a package deal. If you want to keep the good in the past while keeping the good of today, you can't say you want to go back, or that life is better in the past.

You ONLY say life is better in the past IF you think the package is overrall better. so do you or do you not?

What sort of a so-called logic class did you learn that goofy crap in? I surely hope you didn't pay for it.

Didn't pay to learn logic.

You haven't so far demonstrated a sufficient grasp of history to understand that even desegregation was something of a tradeoff, and you expect us to look at you saying 'I reject your premise...'

I understand desegregation is a tradeoff, is it worth it or not?

without a shred of an attempt at argument (much less documentation to back you up) and say, oh, gee, that's convincing, I think I'll just forget everything I know and place all my faith in the person who can't even seem to prove to us he's not an ignoramus?

No, tell me what you know, don't forget it. I asked for it, and I'm still listening.

Holding your breath?

Nope.

 

[acptulsa]

Who said that?

Maybe if you stuffed some cotton in your ears there would be something there to keep what is said in one ear from passing directly out the other ear.

Ok, I make a distinction between life getting harder from today to the future vs life is already harder than the past.

If life is harder or worse than the past, then going back IS ONLY a package deal. If you want to keep the good in the past while keeping the good of today, you can't say you want to go back, or that life is better in the past.

You ONLY say life is better in the past IF you think the package is overrall better. so do you or do you not?

I bought socks and shoes at Sears today. I like the shoes but the socks are scratchy and thin. So, I'm not allowed to return the socks or throw them away unless I return or trash the shoes too?

Didn't pay to learn logic.

You definitely got what you paid for--and not a scrap more.

I understand desegregation is a tradeoff, is it worth it or not?

Depends if your business was sunk by it, I guess. Since I'm not old enough to remember it, and since history is slanted, I don't believe I'm the right person to ask. I'm just glad the crowd at the restaurant is more interesting than homogeneous. That much I can say for sure--works for me.

No, tell me what you know, don't forget it. I asked for it, and I'm still listening.

Then why have you not acknowledged more than half of what we have said here, and in other threads? That's your idea of being attentive?

You haven't shown the slightest sign of noticing anything you haven't thought (usually incorrectly) you could attack. Not once.

 

[PRB]

I bought socks and shoes at Sears today. I like the shoes but the socks are scratchy and thin. So, I'm not allowed to return the socks or throw them away unless I return or trash the shoes too?

You are allowed to, but you'd be lying if you said "I was better off in every way possible before I went to Sears today"

 

[PRB]

Depends if your business was sunk by it, I guess.

I guess we don't need to ask the blacks, who were highly unlikely able to open a business to begin with prior to CRM.

 

[PRB]

Then why have you not acknowledged more than half of what we have said here, and in other threads? That's your idea of being attentive?

You haven't shown the slightest sign of noticing anything you haven't thought (usually incorrectly) you could attack. Not once.

I acknowledge people say things, I just don't accept them as fact or have to agree that cherry picking facts make the package better or worse.

if you admit the package deal is overall better today, we have no disagreement, I am more than happy to agree with you that there are some better while some worse aspects in both times. But if you want to claim the package deal is worse today, I want to hear it all, and you too have to acknowledge what I say, or correct whatever mistakes I made.

 

[acptulsa]

I guess we don't need to ask the blacks, who were highly unlikely able to open a business to begin with prior to CRM.

Where?

And what the hell is CRM? Customer Resource Management? As I pointed out, a much, much larger percentage of the black population in the Deep South owned businesses in the Coolidge administration than today. Maybe that also went in one ear and out the other with nothing to slow it down, I don't know. But the only way that was more unlikely before CRM is if CRM stands for 'the Close of the Renaissance Movement.'

I acknowledge people say things, I just don't accept them as fact or have to agree that cherry picking facts make the package better or worse.

if you admit the package deal is overall better today, we have no disagreement, I am more than happy to agree with you that there are some better while some worse aspects in both times. But if you want to claim the package deal is worse today, I want to hear it all, and you too have to acknowledge what I say, or correct whatever mistakes I made.

No. I don't have to sit here repeating myself until Kingdom Come. You refuse to acknowledge what we say, and you keep asking for the same things we've already told you. Yet we have to extend a courtesy to you that you refuse to extend to us? No.

If you agree that there are some worse aspects of the present as compared to the past, then we are in disagreement in one area only--you say we cannot reclaim those good things without giving up the good things that have come since. And I say that attitude is full to the brim with shit.

 

[PRB]

Where?

And what the hell is CRM? Customer Resource Management? As I pointed out, a much, much larger percentage of the black population in the Deep South owned businesses in the Coolidge administration than today.

I meant civil rights movement.

I admit I missed this if it was mentioned in any previous posts.

Much larger percentage of blacks owned businesses in a select area under the Coolidge administration. So that means it was not overall true throughout the country, to say the least.

If you agree that there are some worse aspects of the present as compared to the past, then we are in disagreement in one area only--you say we cannot reclaim those good things without giving up the good things that have come since. And I say that attitude is full to the brim with shit.

No, I did not say "you say we cannot reclaim those good things without giving up the good things that have come since. " (which would only be true IF you wanted to go back to the past, which wouldn't allow you to cherry pick) I completely agree that such an attitude is full of shit and ridiculous, which is why I phrased the question as, to only people who claim "life was better in the past" in the overall sense.

 

[oyarde]

How is it better now , in anything I would value ?

 

[PRB]

How is it better now , in anything I would value ?

how was it better then, in anything you value?