College students don't understand the 1st Amendment, at all

[Devout Centrist]

Wasn't Cora banned from here? Isn't that shutting down a speaker?

Stop making vanity threads. This is your third one today.

[Devout Centrist]

You must be a college student.

...

well, see, you don't understand the 1st Amendment (you think Cora getting banned here involves it somehow) and you want to stop people from saying things you don't like.  And with what the thread is about....kind of funny.  Doubly so if you actually are a college student.


(and the only things true in your rant was that I do enjoy triggering liberals and I'm a middle aged male, at least you didn't mention bowling shirts....not all stereotypes are accurate, especially ones made up in your mind)

Please tell me how the first amendment applies to speakers getting disinvited from private universities.

See unless you hold that we must give special protection to people who hold erm 'controversial' viewpoints, disinviting speakers from private universities is not infringing on the first amendment anymore than banning Cora.

Also I don't support criminalizing hate speech.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh man, you are trying way too hard

[Devout Centrist]

Please show me where I've suggested private universities shouldn't be able to dis-invite speakers?  Keep in mind Berkeley is in California and has the Leonard Law.

You said it was disgusting and ran away. Not exactly a foolproof way to layout your position.

I'm still floored at the fact you're a middle aged man using this site. Wow.

[Devout Centrist]

Yeah, it's clear to me that generation theory is largely bunkum, and we should not internalise its pseudoscience.

I don't know why people keep buying into a theory that essentially peddles a "narrative". That's all generation theory is; you have nice neat little boxes that explain why a generation did something and why they were different from another, no critical thinking required.

[Devout Centrist]

Yeah, it's clear to me that generation theory is largely bunkum, and we should not internalise its pseudoscience.

I don't know why people keep buying into a theory that essentially peddles a "narrative". That's all generation theory is; you have nice neat little boxes that explain why a generation did something and why they were different from another, no critical thinking required.

I would wager that the majority of what you believe and hold dear are simply theories that essentially peddle a "narrative"... a "narrative" that appeals to you.  That's what your world view is.. a series of nice, neat little boxes that explain others' behavior to you and justify your behavior towards others... with relatively little critical thinking required  

Maybe I should have phrased it differently: if you look at generation theory, a lot of it is based on observing the actions that a small subset of people in a generation are responsible for, and then extrapolating a minority to represent the entire group. Then this is used to construct a narrative for the generation and fit them into a certain archetype. Strauss and Howe's theory revolves around this framework and argues that each generation fits into an archetype that repeats the same cycle every four generations.

The problem here is that it attempts to explain the actions of a generation through an almost teletelogical lense. Hence why I said "narrative".

[Devout Centrist]

Yeah, it's clear to me that generation theory is largely bunkum, and we should not internalise its pseudoscience.

I don't know why people keep buying into a theory that essentially peddles a "narrative". That's all generation theory is; you have nice neat little boxes that explain why a generation did something and why they were different from another, no critical thinking required.

I would wager that the majority of what you believe and hold dear are simply theories that essentially peddle a "narrative"... a "narrative" that appeals to you.  That's what your world view is.. a series of nice, neat little boxes that explain others' behavior to you and justify your behavior towards others... with relatively little critical thinking required  

Maybe I should have phrased it differently: if you look at generation theory, a lot of it is based on observing the actions that a small subset of people in a generation are responsible for, and then extrapolating a minority to represent the entire group. Then this is used to construct a narrative for the generation and fit them into a certain archetype. Strauss and Howe's theory revolves around this framework and argues that each generation fits into an archetype that repeats the same cycle every four generations.

The problem here is that it attempts to explain the actions of a generation through an almost teletelogical lense. Hence why I said "narrative".

Take a look at history once.  All it is is observing the actions of a small subset of people in a generation and then extrapolating that minority to represent the entire group.  This is then used to construct a narrative for that generation and fit them into a certain archetype.

That history might repeat itself in vaguely similar ways is hardly a new concept and dismissing it out of hand says more about your ability to think critically than mine.

That is bad historical analysis and a trap that we should seek to avoid as much as possible. Different historical voices, whether they be from minorities, the working class, or just the less powerful, should receive more attention. Among historians, this is a growing trend, thankfully.

History may vaguely repeat itself, but how could you use a cycle to determine that millennials will be an archetypical "hero" generation? Or that generation Z will follow the "artist" archetype? Using a modern lense to lay out a set cycle of generational archetypes makes no logical sense.

[Devout Centrist]

Was I responding to you with my first post? Does profile say "Jacobin American"? Did I ever bombard you with anything?

Seriously, why the hell are you angry with me?

[Devout Centrist]

I'm not angry with you.  What on earth gave you that idea? 

But yes, I'm fairly certain you were responding to me given the past several posts in the thread.  And I was "bombarded" with 3 posts from 3 different posters in rapid succession... one asking me not to generalize, two speaking to "generational theory" being a big bag of bullsh**t. 

It's like a game of telephone when everyone has to pee really bad.

No it really isn't. I was just voicing approval of what crabcake wrote and added a little statement about how generational theory builds a narrative around past historical events. You then singled me out for some reason and then, much later, claim that I brought Strauss and Howe into this out of nowhere.

[Devout Centrist]

Yeah, it's clear to me that generation theory is largely bunkum, and we should not internalise its pseudoscience.

I don't know why people keep buying into a theory that essentially peddles a "narrative". That's all generation theory is; you have nice neat little boxes that explain why a generation did something and why they were different from another, no critical thinking required.

unless them oldies post on a political based message boards right?  Then it's the funniest thing since dogs riding surfboards.  It'll floor ya!

You take yourself way too seriously. That's why I find your posts rather funny.

[Devout Centrist]

You must be a college student.

...

This is a pretty low comment.

"When they go low, we go high "