My generation is f**ked

[Rooney]

Fear not, young man. This is how it has always been. I attended an educational forum last Summer where the lecturer (who was really good at his job) laid out a history of American education going back to the days of Increase Mather. He showed my fellow educators how in every generation someone writes a book or something that is pretty much called, "The next generation is a bunch of idiots and we are all screwed." Well, we are all probably screwed but I do not blame the kids I teach. I simply say that every generation complains about the youth and says that they are "idiots." The kids in you class will eventually go to college, get a job and the whole rotten show will start all over again.

Also do not take journalism classes. The boys in those classes are assholes and the girls are all whores. That is why American journalism is what it is today.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Also do not take journalism classes. The boys in those classes are assholes and the girls are all whores. That is why American journalism is what it is today.

The accuracy of this statement as pertaining to my class is uncanny.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

"The vanity of the past is superior to the vanity of the present!" plus the verbose ramblings of an eighty year old is all I got out of that post. 

I agree that there's an annoying quality to our present, except my idealized past is that of the turbulent and egalitarian late 60s however I recognize the flaws of this (sexism was rampant, individual views were still extremely racist/backwards among the elderly, multiculturalism still wasn't the norm etc). I suggest that you watch Midnight In Paris for some perspective. Most people who have an intense nostalgia for a past time period are simply avoiding the problems of the troubled present but these problems plague every generation. Objectively, this is certainly the best period to be alive as a human being.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

This really isn't news. What do you think the average 17 year old was thinking in 1938 or 1940, for that matter?

[dialectical fetishist]

Simfan, seriously, just stop.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

I've put this off long enough; let's take a stab at this post.

You want me to explain this to you? Fine. Let's take a base year, say 1920. If you were to ask a classroom full of average high schoolers on the Cox-Harding race, you'd probably get a few (admittedly poorly informed) comments, but mainly silence. If they wouldn't know, they wouldn't talk.

Do you have any basis for this assertion? I certainly can't say whether that's true or false, since I know very little about the history of American education. That's something about which I've meant to learn more for quite some time, but I haven't gotten around to it. I'm guessing that you're making the assumption that you make because you see that as a virtue, and thus something that must have been practiced in the virtuous past. Correct me if I'm wrong, because that logic is obviously circular.

Meanwhile, today we have students essentially boasting about their ignorance, that "politics", something that most people older than they would probably and clearly consider important, is "stupid".

I find it very odd that you think that this is something new. What makes you think that people didn't say the same thing in the past?

This comment, and others like it, was meant to be incendiary, provocative, a stab in the heart of the teacher, you, and anyone else who might bother to care about "gay" things like that.

I have a number of observations about what I've read of this post so far. If you're arguing that young people now are less intelligent than in the past, you're going to need more than your anecdotal evidence about why the present is awful. Ideally there would be actual facts and data rather than anecdotal evidence, but there certainly needs to be some sort of evidence that the past was unlike today. I see none.

Another thing that merits mention is your identification of intelligence with political knowledge. Even if we were to assume that the youth of the past were more politically informed than today, why would that make them more intelligent? I have many friends who have skills in math and the sciences that were once the province of upper-level undergraduate students. More than a few of them lack interest in politics, and many of them see it as boring or a waste of time. Does that make them unintelligent? Am I superior to them because politics does interest me?

The fact is that the technology of today has allowed people to essentially filter out what they don't want to hear. This applies to children of today; they have received access to new technologies at a level equal or greater to adults (a trend that started at most 25 years ago), which I personally believe may too great a level of access. Thus, the effect is only amplified in the young, who receive no kind of information on such things we deem important. Our "young" of 1920 would have had to sit through a newsreel before watching his movie. The "young" of 2012 need not do so for his pornographic flick. Not everyone need to gain enough information pick a side in the Senegalese election (Macky Sall FTW), but there should be a certain level of knowledge of the world around you.

From this, I gather that you're defining "smarter" as "better-informed". I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, but I'll allow it. Holding up 1920 as some golden age of well-informed youth is thoroughly laughable, given that only 29 percent of children even attended high school in 1920.* Again, you're passing off unfounded assumptions as fact; based on the evidence, I'm willing to conclude that children in 1920 had far less access to information than children today.

I find it interesting that your hypothetical youth of 1920 sees a normal movie, while that of 2012 sees a pornographic one. Are young people now depraved sex maniacs, unlike the chaste children of yesteryear?

*Source (page 23)

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Who are our role models today? Think of them. Steven Hawking? Barack Obama? Mark Zuckerberg? We could only wish.

I don't see Mark Zuckerberg as particularly admirable or worthy of our respect, but I'm not sure exactly how you can argue that society doesn't celebrate him, unless you missed the promotion for the movie about him. Stephen Hawking is a household name; unless you're arguing that physicists were venerated by society more in the past than they are today, I don't understand why you would bring him up.

We live in a society where vapidity and shallowness are celebrated.

I don't have any reason to accept that, but I'll allow it for the sake of argument.

"But that's always been the case," you all say.

"Absolutely not," I reply.

In the 16th Century, the original guide to etiquette, The Courtier was read voraciously by those in what we could today call the "aristocracy" and "merchant classes." In the 1920s, Emily Post tried to do the same with her famed guide but found that her largest market was in fact the middle classes, who wanted to mimic the in-bred social graces of the upper classes. Today, what does Middle America have to look up to in the 1%? Paris Hilton. Poor Lauren Lauren doesn't stand a chance. Look at the darned Bratz dolls. I mean, you don't have to go past the dolls' name? What is that teaching children?

Leaving aside your odd comparison of high society of the past to popular entertainment of today, how exactly is any of that any less "shallow" than rote memorization of arbitrary rules of social etiquette? Why is a person who doesn't know that bread is placed to the left of the meal dumber than someone who does?

Now, what does this have to do with intelligence? Everything. The children of today are the products of the society they live in- now that's always been the case. What our society celebrates today is shallowness, and the mere pastiche of ideas.

Presumably, only original ideas were tolerated in the past for which you are filled with so much nostalgia.

They're so many people I've seen who have actually shown support for a candidate, only to have no real reason to support them. Just today I grilled someone who claimed to support Ron Paul, but when questioned on Paul's views on education aid, Civil Rights, and the Civil War, simply replied "Ron Paul!"

Are you suggesting that people in the past always knew about the positions of all the candidates to whom they gave support? I don't think you are, because that would be asinine. If you're not making that argument, this is yet another pointless piece of anecdotal evidence.

Now, I know many all of you here could give me a proficient argument explaining why my view is wrong and Paul's is right. But if you can't give us a reason... it's groupthink. That's why the Democrats do well among young voters. Not their liberalism... but groupthink: Republicans... ew.

Once again, we have unfounded assertions and anecdotal evidence, as well as what appears to be willful ignorance of the massive importance of voting blocs throughout American history. I'll point out again here that this argument seems to focus entirely on politics, as though there is no other measure of intelligence but political knowledge.

Back to your examples. We see a celebration of ignorance, the elevation of the mediocre and inconsequential over the important. But we also see a lack of empathy- here for those fighting for liberation in Syria (is it still "in" to support the opposition, or are we praising Assad's "anti-imperialist" cred now? But that's on a more... advanced... level).

Are you really arguing that people in the past were filled with empathy compared to today? I could point out literally hundreds of examples to the contrary. For instance, I wonder where that empathy was when Americans massacred the Muslim population of Mindanao in the first decade of the twentieth century. Could it be that public opinion back then wasn't based in empathy more than it is today?

Technology today allows for the elevation of the self above all, the idea of personal celebrities. Now we can all be vapid and famous. The focus on promoting ourselves, which becomes more of a necessity with every passing day, reduces our capacity for promoting and caring for others. Again, the product of our society amplified in the children.

I'd like to reply to this, but I can't because it's essentially meaningless. It doesn't actually pertain to the argument that young people are dumber now than before, so I feel safe in ignoring it.

But I'm being grandiloquent here. The crux of the matter is that the conditions of society have led our youth to not regard critical thought and self-education, among many other beneficial ideas, as any particular things to value. When they do "think", it is merely pastiche. The society we live in, and technology to a wide extent, has enabled this. To fix this, we need to change the values of society, what we today hold in high regard. If we can do that, then maybe the "youngs" of 2050 won't be dumber than those today. But I consider that unlikely.[/quote]

As I understand it, your argument rests on three contentions:

1. Modern society is "shallow".
2. This "shallowness" is directly correlated with the intelligence of young people.
3. The past was less "shallow", and thus young people in the past were more intelligent than young people today.

Unfortunately, you haven't managed to prove any of those points.

So, finally, Xahar, I hope this shows you I'm damn well thinking.

Yes, I suppose that fallacious thought is still thought in much the same way that a flat tire is still a tire. I retract my earlier statement; you have given this thought. It's a shame that that thought finds its basis in nostalgia rather than reality.

[opebo]

... the girls are all whores.

I somehow doubt you mean that literally, as there is nothing negative about this honorable profession.  Perhaps you mean something else.. some other related malign of the gender.  In any case your crude statement tells us much more about you than about the ladies in question.  And it is not to your credit, I might add.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

So, finally, Xahar, I hope this shows you I'm damn well thinking.

And you failed to convince us again.

[King]

Simfan, you should read Huckleberry Finn.

[Oakvale]

I'm seeing the failure of the Jon Huntsman for President campaign in a whole new light.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

May God have mercy on your soul, Simfan. You'll really need this.

[Politico]

Objectively, this is certainly the best period to be alive as a human being.

No, that would be roughly the period of post-Cold War/pre-9/11 (i.e., after the early '90s recession but before the dot-com crash, so probably early 1993 to early 2000).

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

Also do not take journalism classes. The boys in those classes are assholes and the girls are all whores. That is why American journalism is what it is today.

You have won this thread

[Senator Snowstalker]

Simfan, you're bordering on Naso territory here.

[Oakvale]

Simfan, you're bordering on Naso territory here.

Is Simfan Naso's ghostwriter?

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Simfan, you're bordering on Naso territory here.

Is Simfan Naso's ghostwriter?

Are you questioning Naso's talents? That's nasty.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Objectively, this is certainly the best period to be alive as a human being.

No, that would be roughly the period of post-Cold War/pre-9/11 (i.e., after the early '90s recession but before the dot-com crash, so probably early 1993 to early 2000).

In Europe and the US? Sure but I'm taking into account the rest of the world.

[Beet]

... the girls are all whores.

I somehow doubt you mean that literally, as there is nothing negative about this honorable profession.  Perhaps you mean something else.. some other related malign of the gender.  In any case your crude statement tells us much more about you than about the ladies in question.  And it is not to your credit, I might add.

^^^ You are right.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Oh, for...you're better than this, Simfan.

[Gustaf]

... the girls are all whores.

I somehow doubt you mean that literally, as there is nothing negative about this honorable profession.  Perhaps you mean something else.. some other related malign of the gender.  In any case your crude statement tells us much more about you than about the ladies in question.  And it is not to your credit, I might add.

^^^ You are right.

I think the Merriam-Webster definition of "whore" is simply "girl who has sex with someone who is not me."

[opebo]

... the girls are all whores.

I somehow doubt you mean that literally, as there is nothing negative about this honorable profession.  Perhaps you mean something else.. some other related malign of the gender.  In any case your crude statement tells us much more about you than about the ladies in question.  And it is not to your credit, I might add.

^^^ You are right.

I think the Merriam-Webster definition of "whore" is simply "girl who has sex with someone who is not me."

Oddly enough, my definition is 'someone who will have sex with me', though I have to say I don't think I've ever used that word in my life.

[clarence]

I agree- and it doesn't help that you folks are getting rogered by people a little younger then me... you have been for a generation now

[opebo]

I agree- and it doesn't help that you folks are getting rogered by people a little younger then me... you have been for a generation now

That's capitalism, clarence.

[Communists For McCain]

Think your generation is f**ked?
Think again.