Where did the US screw up?

[Yuri Bezmenov]

In 1933, the German population was at 65,362,115. Nazi Party membership was at slightly over 2 million which means that just 3% of the population were actual Nazis.

Fuck, are you this stupid??

Two million = a handful 

3%, many of whom weren't particularly active.

Perspective, it matters motherfucker.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

OK. What I'm trying to say is that it's nowhere near an objective study, it cannot be, because history as sampling material is already rigged. We don't have the objective facts, we have weighted samples. History is already presented through a number of lenses and, depending on what we are looking for in time or place, different ones. For any scientifically valid study, this spells disaster.

This is a purely postmodernist argument. Why don't you have the courage to go all the way and claim that there is no objective truth and everything is socially constructed?? Come on, make Derrida, Foucault and Marcuse proud!!

History is most often written by the victors and often contains personal biases. So what?? That doesn't mean that it doesn't contain objective facts. Simply because the information isn't perfect, doesn't mean it can't be used to provide meaningful insight. I read several books on the analysis of battlefield data. Both sides of given battles often had contradicting accounts of how the battle unfolded. However in many cases, the seemingly contradictory sets of information were BOTH correct. Both sides were objectively reporting on what they saw but since they were on different sides, saw different things. But you're simply dismissing this phenomenon as "weighted samples"

Now who here is "internet smart" without wisdom or insight and who isn't??   

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Still not sure what you're trying to say. Sociology is crap? Probably on some level, sure.

I'm saying that most theories like this one probably are.

And you're saying this without actually understanding the field.

Can you say Dunning–Kruger??

[odeon]

The thing is that sociology is not a hard science and should not be judged in the same way as, for example, physics. BUT data analysis is a hard science and should be judged accordingly.

+

[odeon]

No you didn't. You provided a postmodernist, gobbledygook attempt at critical theory.

Why do you apply one set of standards to me and another to yourself?

I know what I posted, and why. You don't.

Gaslighting. 

Bullshit and utterly hypocritical. -1 x 4

[odeon]

In 1933, the German population was at 65,362,115. Nazi Party membership was at slightly over 2 million which means that just 3% of the population were actual Nazis.

Fuck, are you this stupid??

Two million = a handful 

3%, many of whom weren't particularly active.

Perspective, it matters motherfucker.

With your argumentation, nope. Numbers matter and you just failed, again. Idiot. -1

[odeon]

OK. What I'm trying to say is that it's nowhere near an objective study, it cannot be, because history as sampling material is already rigged. We don't have the objective facts, we have weighted samples. History is already presented through a number of lenses and, depending on what we are looking for in time or place, different ones. For any scientifically valid study, this spells disaster.

This is a purely postmodernist argument. Why don't you have the courage to go all the way and claim that there is no objective truth and everything is socially constructed?? Come on, make Derrida, Foucault and Marcuse proud!!

History is most often written by the victors and often contains personal biases. So what?? That doesn't mean that it doesn't contain objective facts. Simply because the information isn't perfect, doesn't mean it can't be used to provide meaningful insight. I read several books on the analysis of battlefield data. Both sides of given battles often had contradicting accounts of how the battle unfolded. However in many cases, the seemingly contradictory sets of information were BOTH correct. Both sides were objectively reporting on what they saw but since they were on different sides, saw different things. But you're simply dismissing this phenomenon as "weighted samples"

Now who here is "internet smart" without wisdom or insight and who isn't??   

It is painfully obvious that you've never engaged in any actual science. You just don't have the brains. -1

[odeon]

Still not sure what you're trying to say. Sociology is crap? Probably on some level, sure.

I'm saying that most theories like this one probably are.

And you're saying this without actually understanding the field.

Can you say Dunning–Kruger??

You still haven't contributed anything to this thread beyond a Wikipedia link and some name-dropping. It takes more than Google, idiot.

[El]

It takes more than Google, idiot.

That's what she said.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

You still haven't contributed anything to this thread beyond a Wikipedia link and some name-dropping. It takes more than Google, idiot.

This is what you have done. Projecting again.

[odeon]

You still haven't contributed anything to this thread beyond a Wikipedia link and some name-dropping. It takes more than Google, idiot.

This is what you have done. Projecting again.

You keep telling me that but you still haven't said I'm wrong about your contributions.

So tell us about your background. Any relevant merits or experience? You know, science stuff?

[Yuri Bezmenov]

From bondage to spiritual faith;
 from spiritual faith to great courage;
 from courage to liberty;
 from liberty to abundance;
 from abundance to selfishness;
 from selfishness to apathy;
 from apathy to dependence;
 from dependency back again into bondage."

Thinking there's a lot of truth in that. Don't particularly like sociology or history, nor believe the US ebbs and flows so precisely. It's still an interesting theory though and also seems to have a level of truth in it; especially liking the archetypes. However don't agree with how the millennial generation is classified. 1990-2008 is considered one of the more prosperous eras in the US. The archetype of the hero better describes them as born during a high, over indulged youth and the self-absorbed crusades of young adults. And how does the social crisis of the Vietnam war fit in? While agreeing genX fits well in the scheme as born during an awakening, it seems the crisis of war was the driver of that awakening for the young adult boomer generation.

Yes, I was noticing the same things, the millennials don't seem to fit the pattern.

There's a few potential explanations for this, perhaps this pattern only holds true until larger societal forces disrupt it. These forces would likely originate from outside the culture, then develop an internal reaction to those forces. The cold war was an era like no other with 2 generations growing up under the threat of nuclear annihilation. With the fall of the Soviet Union, you had a the millennials grow up in a relatively care free environment, with the exception of the paranoia over child abductions leading to helicopter parenting.

It's also possible that we're subject to a longer 250 year cycle that affects world power cultures like the Romans, the medieval Caliphate and the US.

I wonder if there's any historians/sociologists working on this??

[odeon]

There's a few potential explanations for this, perhaps this pattern only holds true until larger societal forces disrupt it. These forces would likely originate from outside the culture, then develop an internal reaction to those forces. The cold war was an era like no other with 2 generations growing up under the threat of nuclear annihilation. With the fall of the Soviet Union, you had a the millennials grow up in a relatively care free environment, with the exception of the paranoia over child abductions leading to helicopter parenting.

It's also possible that we're subject to a longer 250 year cycle that affects world power cultures like the Romans, the medieval Caliphate and the US.

I wonder if there's any historians/sociologists working on this??

[Jack]

From bondage to spiritual faith;
 from spiritual faith to great courage;
 from courage to liberty;
 from liberty to abundance;
 from abundance to selfishness;
 from selfishness to apathy;
 from apathy to dependence;
 from dependency back again into bondage."

Thinking there's a lot of truth in that. Don't particularly like sociology or history, nor believe the US ebbs and flows so precisely. It's still an interesting theory though and also seems to have a level of truth in it; especially liking the archetypes. However don't agree with how the millennial generation is classified. 1990-2008 is considered one of the more prosperous eras in the US. The archetype of the hero better describes them as born during a high, over indulged youth and the self-absorbed crusades of young adults. And how does the social crisis of the Vietnam war fit in? While agreeing genX fits well in the scheme as born during an awakening, it seems the crisis of war was the driver of that awakening for the young adult boomer generation.

Yes, I was noticing the same things, the millennials don't seem to fit the pattern.

There's a few potential explanations for this, perhaps this pattern only holds true until larger societal forces disrupt it. These forces would likely originate from outside the culture, then develop an internal reaction to those forces. The cold war was an era like no other with 2 generations growing up under the threat of nuclear annihilation. With the fall of the Soviet Union, you had a the millennials grow up in a relatively care free environment, with the exception of the paranoia over child abductions leading to helicopter parenting.

It's also possible that we're subject to a longer 250 year cycle that affects world power cultures like the Romans, the medieval Caliphate and the US.

I wonder if there's any historians/sociologists working on this??

Had the impression you and Pyraxis viewed the millenials as not fitting for a different reason; seemingly not viewing the current era as a crisis, and if it is a crisis then the crisis is yet to come. Pyraxis' comment about the war was that it doesn't seem all encompassing. It's interesting fifteen years of war doesn't strike as a generation of crisis, but would have to agree. It makes me think of something read years ago: America isn't at war; America is at the mall. The lack of viewed crisis from the inside may not necessarily mean it isn't a crisis. It may instead simply mean the government has learned its lesson from past wars, to avoid making war an everyday direct involvement in the lives of the general public. A disconnect has been successfully created and maintained, while also fostering a deep reverence for military personnel, in spite of overwhelming public disapproval for government and military action. Would like this theory a lot better if at least the technology boom were acknowledged as a break in the pattern. It seems the theorists didn't mind acknowledging the pattern isn't perfect with the Civil War not fitting the pattern, so not sure why they wouldn't acknowledge that too.

[El]

Welp, at some point- maybe sooner than later- we'll have a last generation.  And boy won't that screw the data for all these theories up.

(Sorry if that part already got said- I did try to read through the thread but it's kinda laborious.)