# Why the rise of uncivility?



## SartoNYC (Feb 22, 2005)

Why so rapid a decline in civility?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

What the #@&*$ did you say?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Flouride in the water supply...'A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works.'


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

I dont know what you mean....uncivility in terms of dressing???

Peter

"Give me the luxuries in life and I'll gladly go without the necessities"


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by SartoNYC_
> 
> Why so rapid a decline in civility?


Democracy and egalitarianism are to blame. Democracy inflames the ego of SELF in every man and woman. Others can say better than I do. In particular I recommend:

1. Democracy, the God that Failed.
2. Writings by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
3. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods, Jr.
4. Writings by Aristotle.
5. Writings by H.L. Mencken.

I hate to see that a great civilization fails because of the rise of the mob.But, Rome did fall, not because of the barbarians. Rome fell because of her internal decay.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by SartoNYC_
> 
> Why so rapid a decline in civility?


Do you really want to start a political fight?

A large part of the answer is that being civil takes three things:
1) An acknowlegement that other people have significant value. 
2) A level of education such that one doesn't think in "four letter words". 
3) A belief that tradition and culture are of value.

All three of these things started decaying badly in the 50s. During the post-war (meaning of course WWII) the nuclear family was blown apart by a rapid increase in both social and geographical mobility. As part of this people started having smaller families (in part because it was cheaper and they could spend that money on cool toys) and lavishing more attention (at first both economic and emotional) on a smaller brood. These original "baby boomers" then hit the scene in the 60s thinking they were the brightest, bestest thing ever. Aided by silly pop-psychologists and pop-philosopers they rejected classical values and traditional culture.

At the same time mass communcation technologies (Radio, phonographs, Television, telephone, 8-track tapes, cassette tapes, CDs, the internet MP3s etc.) made coarse culture spread even faster, and made it harder and harder for parents (who were already under the influence of idiots who were more concerned about "Stunting creativity" of children than raising them not to be psychotic little monsters) to control what their children absorbed, and of course the parents being surrounded by the same influences and the same coarsening began to see it as normal as well. Where at one time people like Buddy Hackett and Lenny Bruce performed on stage to an audience of adults (and we know what happenedto Bruce), Richard Pryor made records that sold by the millions, winding up (many times) in homes where children would listen.

Oh, and this same burgeoning media culture had a tremendous need for new talent, and often times this new talent came from the ranks of the lower and lower-middle classes, and often this talent had, well, let's say emotional issues with control. Which this same media culture broadcast, which was percieved as being proper. Children learn (especially initially) by imitating adults.

Little Children learn what is acceptable from their parents, AND from other adults in their lives.

It does not take a village to /raise/ a child, but that village had best be on good behavior when children are around if they want well behaved young adults.

Look in the mirror. The problem is YOU.

And yeah, the problem is me. I used to have a mouth like a Marine (Gee. Wonder why?). I'm learning. Hopefully if I have any more children they'll not grow up with the potty mouth I suspect my daughter has when I'm not around.

Ultimately it is cheaper (in many ways) to call someone a [email protected]#%^& a(()_+} and to blame them for not getting out of your way when you rear-end them than it is to control your emotions and accept responsibility.

Which is basically what civility is, restraining your emotions and being responsible.

This does (to stay on topic) express itself in clothing as well--cheap tawdry fabrics in bright hey look at me colors and designs.

And I don't absolve myself of responsibility. I had a mowhawk when I was younger (for a short time) and I spit in the face of conformity and traditional culture for a good part of my life.

I'm growing up now.

In some ways.

Or at least trying to.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## JRY (Mar 22, 2005)

petro,

You hit the nail squarely on the head. I agree with and commend your post.

Regards,

JRY-John

"There are many ways in which to break a plate, but only one way to put it back together." - Howard Roberts


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

*Well said, Petro. Hear, hear!*

Of course, now Dr. Spock & Co. will be joining with the A.C.L.U. to remove your children from your care and have you declared incompetant ... not to say what certain lite riding members of AAAC are gonna do when they read your wonderful tome. Not that I have any opinion one way or the other. 

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by SartoNYC_
> 
> Why so rapid a decline in civility?


Darted jackets and pleated pants.


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

That is why China cannot be a democracy. I am not advocating Communism, mind, but certain nations with a specific cultural context cannot have a democratic system and still sustain a level of civility or order. Even Russia, a fairly Westernized nation, has had huge problems with their current system of governance and social system.

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

Family values, family values, family values ...


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

Petro, that was great. Good show.

Picking up where you left off, I have noticed lately that the whole idea of "growing up" is out of style and is seen as fogeyish. This is not encouraging.


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> Family values, family values, family values ...


It's less that, rather more the democraticization of taste.

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> *Well said, Petro. Hear, hear!*


Thank you.

Wisdom is the pain you feel getting out of bed in the morning.



> quote:
> Of course, now Dr. Spock & Co. will be joining with the A.C.L.U. to remove your children from your care and have you declared incompetant ... not to say what certain lite riding members of AAAC are gonna do when they read your wonderful tome. Not that I have any opinion one way or the other.


Unfortunately my daughter does not live with me (but I will get to spend a week with her this christmas) and as to the ACLU, well, as a recent instructor said to the class I was participating in "Game On". (Note that this class had a 15% dropout rate for physical issues and was considered pretty tough. For the Air Force (and no, it wasn't SERE)).

Oh, and this isn't about Democrats v.s. Republicans, "dirtbag" crosses party lines at the drop of ones trousers. This is about people who understand "duty" and "honor", and those who do not. Some of them do not because they've not been raised that way. Those I pity. Some of them because it is easier to be a dirtbag than to stand up. Those I don't respect.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

Did I mention family values? It all begins at home.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> 
> Another problem is that people with IQs over 130 care alot less about and are less conscious about status, manners or place. My IQ is over 130 and I don't care about them Hoewever, I don't shirk manners to the point that I'm indecent or out of order in public.


Mine is, if barely, and I could care less about status, but I've *always*, even in my uber-punk-rawker days cared about manners.

Mostly because it really is cheap to say "pardon me" and "thank you" to strangers, and partly because starting off polite makes getting uncivil SO much more a shock. If you start off a prick being a *worse* prick doesn't get you anything. If you start off Mr. Polite it may work. If not, Mr. Insistent sometimes can. If those two aren't getting anywhere Mr. Grumpy isn't going to help, and Mr. Axe Murderer is just too exhausting.

Yelling and screaming at is a sign of poor incident management skills. Well, usually. Sometimes a little yelling gets people attention (usually when there's blood around or about to be).

I'd have to say ultimately it does come down to poor "anger management" or poor "conflict resolution skills" coupled with not nearly enough disappointment and being told no. Parents should not be friends with their children until the kids are at least 25.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

> quotearents should not be friends with their children until the kids are at least 25.


For this one line, my friend, I award you a great gold medal.


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

Of course we've rejected all of the values upon which we built this civilization.

We are like a ship unmoored. We drift, our floating currency in tow.


Edit: I adjust.


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

For the most part of the past three centuries, the British Isles were ruled under a Constitutional Monarchy. Democracy, which really means the rule by people, was not championed, probably never mentioned, by the British during their heydays. And, one won't find the word "Democracy" in US Declaration of Independence, nor in the Constitution.

A true democracy is probably as abhorable and dehumanizing as Eastern depotism, Communism, and Facism.

The communists really championed egalitarianism. And the Nazis, too. By leveling the differences between the elites and the society at large, they robbed the society of a moral, intellectual, and organizational backbone that could be (and would be) turned against them.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> 
> Only Anglo Saxon countries can do democracy.... Other cultures can fake it for a few decades, as France, Germany, and Japan are currently doing, but their hearts aren't really in it and they will swoon gratefully into the arms of a fascist dictator when one comes along.


Denmark has been "faking it" since 1849. Sweden since 1907. Also "faking it" for decades are India, Italy, Israel, Portugal, Spain, and Argentina. Would please explain, with concrete examples, how the peoples and governments in two or three of these countries are fake democracies and not real ones?


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

I don't know, Petro. Every generation, as part of the maturation process, rebels against its elders and establishes its own standards before finally becoming as boring and grown-up as their parents. And you're contradicting yourself here:

"During the post-war (meaning of course WWII) the nuclear family was blown apart by a rapid increase in both social and geographical mobility. As part of this people started having smaller families (in part because it was cheaper and they could spend that money on cool toys) and lavishing more attention (at first both economic and emotional) on a smaller brood."

If two parents are lavishing attention on a small brood, isn't that the very definition of a tight nuclear family? How does this qualify as being blown apart? Divorces, latch-key kids, remarriages -- all of that would be a nuclear family blown apart.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Off the top of my head:
Italy had a nice run in with fascism
Spain had fascism untill 1975
Portugal was a dictatorship prior to 1975ish
Argentina had bouts of military rule and coups until 25 years ago
India learned democracy from Anglos, its argueable if they had it untill the late 70s though they do now, time will tell if they keep it

A few decades is not enough time to tell if democratic ideals have taken deep root in the people.

---------------------

Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

> quote:I don't know, Petro. Every generation, as part of the maturation process, rebels against its elders and establishes its own standards before finally becoming as boring and grown-up as their parents.


True, youth rebellion is nothing new. However, when one regularly see 40-something dads dressed up like street thugs, one tends to question the amount of "growing up" that is actually going on. A bore does not a adult make.



> quote:Only Anglo Saxon countries can do democracy


FrancisP, I think that's a bit narrow. Maybe it's best to hash out one thing first instead of throwing out so much at once. There are probably a lot of high IQs on this forum, but using numbers is generally not well received.


----------



## Orb (Jul 16, 2004)

I've enjoyed the utmost courtesy at gun shows and from old men in the county jail. At gun shows people assume I'm strapped and might shoot them for any perceived slight. In jail old guys know they're easy marks for inmates who want to be feared.

In the suburbs on the other hand everyone assumes if I lay a finger on them they can sue me for all I've got so they feel free to act like swine. If I looked like I had nothing to lose by doing them violence they would be much more polite.

The Samurai had a right to kill any peasant for any or no reason, translated as "cut down and walk away". Japanese peasants were as courteous as they could possibly be. Etiquette is a survival strategy people no longer feel the need for.


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Orb_
> 
> I've enjoyed the utmost courtesy at gun shows and from old men in the county jail. At gun shows people assume I'm strapped and might shoot them for any perceived slight. In jail old guys know they're easy marks for inmates who want to be feared.
> 
> ...


I have a similar huntch, though not from the real experiences that you had. The decline in civility can be partly attributed to a breakdown of a powerful, respectable, father-like social hierarchy. The 60's "liberation" -- I meant return to the animal kingdom -- ensured that breakdown. The other reason is that consumerism/materialism fans the "Little King" in every consumer in order to induce him/her to live out -- woops, spend away -- a grand life. A "king" or "queen" doesn't need to be civil towards anyone. Besides, every one is aping the tough guys and wild women on the silver screen. But not every one has gone through tough real life situations where a gun might be drawn.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## RichardS (Nov 20, 2004)

GentleCheetah, you know Kuehnelt-Leddihn? I`ve met him once several years ago.


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

> quote:In the suburbs on the other hand everyone assumes if I lay a finger on them they can sue me for all I've got so they feel free to act like swine. If I looked like I had nothing to lose by doing them violence they would be much more polite.


Orb: There's probably some truth in this, but I am pretty sure we had some positive reasons for decency as well. It's really similar ground to the God-fearing theological issue.


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by RichardS_
> 
> GentleCheetah, you know Kuehnelt-Leddihn? I`ve met him once several years ago.


Richard,

I've just learned about this remarkable man recently and am reading his essays and soon books (on order). I know he passed away in 1999. What was your impression when you met the real person?

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## josepidal (Jul 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by SartoNYC_
> 
> Why so rapid a decline in civility?


It's just a reaction to the Style Forum v. AAAC thread on Style Forum.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

AARRGGGHHH!!!

I HATE HATE HATE this software.

I lost most of an hours work by hitting the wrong key.



> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> I don't know, Petro. Every generation, as part of the maturation process, rebels against its elders and establishes its own standards before finally becoming as boring and grown-up as their parents.


Don't buy it. At least not before the turn of the 19th century.

Yeah, we've got records going back to prato...I mean Plato about the insolence of youth and the degradation of morals and such, but that is not the kind of rebellion we're talking about here. That's a rebellion of a child against a parent, a pushing of limits and attempting to establish individual autonomy. And historically children got punished for it. Sometimes very painfully. As one of my favorite bands puts it (and could learn from their own lyrics in a way):

We didn't want a victory
We just wanted to fight
But you wouldn't fight
You just gave in
You went and spoiled every game
You broke an everlasting chain
And nobody respects you for your weakness

The rebellion we're talking about is a more permanent rejection of traditions and institutions.



> quote:
> And you're contradicting yourself here:
> 
> "During the post-war (meaning of course WWII) the nuclear family was blown apart by a rapid increase in both social and geographical mobility. As part of this people started having smaller families (in part because it was cheaper and they could spend that money on cool toys) and lavishing more attention (at first both economic and emotional) on a smaller brood."
> ...


Actually, no I'm not. I just used the wrong word. Instead of "nuclear" I should have used "extended".

Divorce rates latch-key kids etc. were the *result* of this, it was boomers, the original recievers of this attention who started the "bored of marriage, I'm gone" trend--there seems to be a distinct "knee" in the divorce rates between 1965 and 1970, and today the nuclear family IS blown apart.

Conventional Wisdom (which may be changing) is that having unhappy--or rather "unfulfilled" parents in the house is WORSE than divorce. (and what I'm going to say here is going to get me clobbered by BOTH sides in this). That's just a load of excrement. The ONLY person who comes out of a marriage better than staying together[*] is the non-custodial parent, and then only if they don't want custody. The custodial parent is poorer, the children are poorer and (statistically) do worse in school, have more behavioral problems (as in police and school) etc.

We were told that we *SHOULDN'T* stay together for the sake of the children. Some of us took that to mean that we might as well not even get married.

Yeah, that's me. The Guilty Party. (https://guiltyone1.tripod.com/guilty.html)

[*] The exception, of course is if one parent really is abusive, on drugs, obviously engaging in extramarital affairs etc.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

> quote:The decline in civility can be partly attributed to a breakdown of a powerful, respectable, father-like social hierarchy.


Respect for one's culture is certainly a positive motivator.



> quote:The 60's "liberation" -- I meant return to the animal kingdom -- ensured that breakdown.


Nice analogy!



> quote:The other reason is that consumerism/materialism fans the "Little King" in every consumer in order to induce him/her to live out -- woops, spend away -- a grand life. A "king" or "queen" doesn't need to be civil towards anyone.


If we could create a class of eternal adolescents, we could sure sell them a lot of stuff...It was in the interest of those who controlled reality, not unlike Kane, to create this "coarse culture." The Brooks Brothers type of business model could not generate as much revenue as it didn't cater to children.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by prato_
> 
> If we could create a class of eternal adolescents, we could sure sell them a lot of stuff...It was in the interest of those who controlled reality, not unlike Kane, to create this "coarse culture."


This is another problem we have. This almost universal assumption that SOMEONE is in control, that SOMEONE ELSE planned this.

It sure is nice to be able to blame other people. Especially some shadowy "them" types who pull our strings through commericials etc.

Horsefeathers.

We're this way because WE LET IT. We didn't do the HARD THING when the easy thing was there.

IT's OUR fault, and only WE, individually, one at a time, can fix it. And we'll lose because MOST people are one or more of ignorant, stupid and lazy.

If a teller/cashier gave you incorrect change how far would YOU walk to give it back?

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> [br
> The Italians wrote the handbook on despotism -- see Machiavelli's "The Prince". It's basically a handbook (a howto guide) for any aspiring despot. I also never said Rome was ever a democracy. Rome had emperors just like (comparable to) Napoleon. I said ancient Athens (Greece not Italy) was once a democracy but not by modern standards...
> 
> Also, Franco (Spain) was a fascist like Hitler : enough said.


I'm not talking about ancient or renaissance Italy. I'm talking about modern Italy, which has been a democracy since 1948. And I'm don't mean Franco's Spain. I mean today's Spain, which has been a democracy since 1975. Do you think these are real democracies, or are they "faking it" like you said France, Japan, and Germany are?

If the current democratic governments of Italy and Spain are fake democracies, please explain why you think that. Or maybe your answer is that because they _used to_ have Franco and Mussolini, they don't qualify as real democracies for that reason alone?

What about India, Israel, Denmark, and Sweden? I'd like to see you defend your statement that "only Anglo-Saxon countries can do democracy" in light of a long list of non-Anglo-Saxon countries that seem to be doing democracy just fine.


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_This is another problem we have. This almost universal assumption that SOMEONE is in control, that SOMEONE ELSE planned this.


You have a point. We are all to blame. But if we agree that it is possible to gain and wield power, doesn't greater power entail greater responsibility? The us/them seems a necessary tool to understand events, as the we is often unenlightening.
However, if you can unite us and lead us to victory, we'd all appreciate it. Although I don't recommend your people hear you say we are ignorant, stupid and lazy. Or that we'll lose. By the way, I'm being facetious here. I know you're not trying to start a movement, but I don't know how you expect this change to come about on it's own. Most people have to be led. At the moment there aren't a lot of inspiring leaders around.

I always count my change (the paper part) if they don't count it to me, and face the bills since they're often upside down and backwards lately. So, no walking needed. I tried keeping a small amount one time, maybe $5. It must have cost me at least $100 worth of guilt.

Back to clothing, I wonder what sort of garment one might make out of horsefeathers?


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Are we saying democracy is good or bad for civility? We sharp dressers owe a lot to the English aristocracy and landed gentry - hardly proponents of democracy. On the other hand international slobwear,which we deplore,is American and thoroughly democratic (cheap, accessible, levelling).
A number of thinkers (e.g., Montesquieu) long ago predicted the dumbing down effect advanced democracy would have by exalting popular individualism (just do it). What is it to be? Snob or slob?

Rather surprised to see France accused of not being a democracy at heart. I would have said France is at heart rather more democratic than Britain. Remember Britain, unlike France, has a hereditary chamber, a royal family, high-status exclusive clubs, a landed gentry, prestigious unashamedly elitist private schools, etc. none of which are seriously challenged by the majority of its citizens.

Also France has a reasonably good democratic record among European countries over the last two hundred years. The turn-out rate at French presidential elections is very much higher than at American ones, which suggests to me that many American voters are not very democratic at heart.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Read Spengler.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> 
> I dunno what kind of gibberish you are spewing here. I lambasted the Germans and barely mentioned the French. Actually, I'm a little bit French myself.


You said, "Other cultures can fake it for a few decades, as France, Germany, and Japan are currently doing, but their hearts aren't really in it and they will swoon gratefully into the arms of a fascist dictator when one comes along".

Gibberish? spewing? - not very civil of you, my dear fellow!


----------



## manicturncoat (Oct 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Over 130? Congratulations, I would have never guessed.


----------



## Gus (Oct 8, 2005)

What do you actually mean by democracy? Is it letting a populace duped by billions of dollars' worth of corporate and political propaganda, go to the urns every once in a while to elect their despots for the coming three or four years? Even if there are only two or three choices (labour/tories, democrats/republicans) and they are largely indistinguishable, this form of absolute despotism (the democratically elected governments of today have of course immeasurably greater powers than the despots of yesteryear) is a great system. It keeps the populace in check, since they believe that they are in power. I suppose the only drawback is the incredible number of dictatorships it has produced.


----------



## manicturncoat (Oct 4, 2004)

FrancisPlantagenet,

You need to get your head out of your.....


----------



## RichardS (Nov 20, 2004)

Gentle Cheetah, I met him around 97/98. What I remember most was his massive build. He must have been around 90 at that time but he had really big hands; mine practically vanished in his when we shoke hands. (I am sorry but I really can`t remember what he talked about that evening.)


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Every established generation believes the rising generation has appalling beliefs, habits and (especially) music. 

And every generation is correct.


----------



## malinda (Aug 25, 2002)

As this thread has veered into the decidedly non-clothing realm, I'm moving it to the Interchange forum.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

You know, the more I read of Petro, the more I like him. 

Personally, being 32, I blame everyone born between about WWII and 1960. 

Seriously, I think that most of the answer is parenting. Discipline your kids and don't be afraid to set standards for behavior. I think that this went out of style at some point and now, as Petro alluded to, parents want to be friends with their kids instead of parents. It's a mistake and it's killing the kids. Ah well, I should get back to work now. Much grading to be done. 

CT


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

Hmm, something here reminds me of:

"Wood drastically underestimates the
impact of social distinctions predicated
upon wealth, especially inheriated
wealth..." You got that from "Work in
Essex County," Page 421, right? Do
you have any thoughts of your own on
the subject or were you just gonna
plagerize the whole book for me?

~~

Petro, you're right. As someone who was born in the 70's (but raised in the 50's) it's hard to consider myself as part of the problem, but it's not productive to do the alternative. I think DougNZ and CT have the solution.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quoteersonally, being 32, I blame everyone born between about WWII and 1960.
> 
> CT


Phew! Born in 1962, glad I made the cut.

Besides, those who live in glass houses and wear velvet pants...

In my job as a general assignment reporter I meet all sorts of people and I find the majority of them to be polite.

It's our pop culture that's rude and vulgar, and, unhappily, any attempt to comment on the phenomenon (beyond "awesome!") is immediately derided as "judgmental."

Pfui.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you may have stumbled on the rural-urban dichtomy.

You do most of your reporting in the country or small towns, right? These areas seem to be more traditional, and by extension, polite. This even holds true from one country to another it seems.

Our pop culture seems to come from urban areas*, and tends to be more rude and vulgar.

* - exception to country music


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> 
> Well, for one I'm intellectually gifted :
> 
> ...


Save if for Mensa. This strategy will get you nowhere in the real world.



> quote:
> 
> People with IQs above 130 process information differently from the rest of society. We care a lot less about status. We are self-taught. We will act upon ideas, regardless of what others think. We have far less patience with propaganda than people with IQs below 130. People with IQs between 110 and 120 are far more conscious of status, *manners* and place. They tend to be a powerful force for social stability.


Intelligence is not a license. Also, you forgot to change the last "They" to a "We."


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by prato_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

Oops, I guess I was wasting my time.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> Francis Plantagenet:
> 
> Are we to assume that you are the person who wrote the review of Fischer's work on amazon.com that you have cut and pasted into your post? https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195037944?v=glance&st=*
> ...


Thanks, bosthist, for posting these links. The shock (for this Yankee, at least) was not so much the distress of learning we've a careless (at best) poster in our midst as, upon perusing it, realizing that I agree with more than one point made in John Derbyshire's article.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

It may be that part of the lack of civility may be attributed to those of dubious intellectual claims who plagiarise on internet fora and insult all of non-anglosaxon descent. Just a hypothesis, mind you. 

CT


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quoteenmark has been "faking it" since 1849. Sweden since 1907. Also "faking it" for decades are India, Italy, Israel, Portugal, Spain, and Argentina.


What sort of macronational polygraph test have you contrived to ferret out these remarkable revelations? If you can patent the design in one of the real countries, that is if there are any, you could potentially make a fortune.



> quote:The Italians wrote the handbook on despotism -- see Machiavelli's "The Prince".


I never before realised there were so many co-authors..._all_ of Italy! There really should be a Guinness World Record category for this achievement. [8)]



> quote:It's basically a handbook (a howto guide) for any aspiring despot.


The new Amazon title for _Il Principe_: Despotism for Dummies! (Dictatorship for the Rest of Us) 



> quote:Well, for one I'm intellectually gifted


What test(s), and what age(s)? The bell-curve you posted does not seem to state its standard deviation. An IQ of 130, averaging an SD of 15 and 16, would put you in the 97.5th per centile if your results were calibrated on the Wechsler or Stanford-Binet scales. That puts your rarity about one in thirty-seven people, if statistical psychometric distributions are to be believed. MENSA, the least selective of high-IQ societies, requires its members to be at least in the 98th per centile.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:What test(s), and what age(s)? The bell-curve you posted does not seem to state its standard deviation. An IQ of 130, averaging an SD of 15 and 16, would put you in the 97.5th per centile if your results were calibrated on the Wechsler or Stanford-Binet scales. That puts your rarity about one in thirty-seven people, if statistical psychometric distributions are to be believed. MENSA, the least selective of high-IQ societies, requires its members to be at least in the 98th per centile.


*snicker*



> quote:Your claim that I plagiarized is based on a subjective unwritten social contract that doesn't exist within a state of affairs or a state of affairs a a fact. Therefore you statement is highly illogical
> and incorrect. That sibjective unwritten social contract is merely a thung not a fact and therefore does not exist -- so you are very clearly a fool.


a) poor grammer
b) poor spelling
c) Your if-then statement does not follow.

If: subjective social contract; Then: his statement is illogical etc.
This simply does not make any sense. You might have tried: Then: he is holding you to an unwriten standard to which you do not subscribe. Or then: said standard is a tool of the bourgeoisie, hence does not apply to the intellectual giant which you obviously are. Or then: he is a poopy-head.

Any of those would logically follow. Also, there is quite a significant school of thought which believes that there are no independently discernable facts and that, therefore, everything falls into your catagory of 'thung' (_sic_).

CT

QED

Edit: Ah, I originally had the term s+(bad word for a black person) instead of snicker. Same meaning. Couldn't figure out why the site changed it to s+black. Oops. Should have said polyester.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes and no on the rural aspect. Yes, NW Connecticut is rural. But we are 90 miles from New York and about three hours from Boston by car. We also have cities nearby - Waterbury, Torrington, Hartford, Danbury, plus Pittsfield, Mass. and Poughkeepsie and Kingston, N.Y. - with all the usual problems. Mountains and farms form insufficient buffers.

Ultimately I think more people are ruder because nobody ever told them to knock it off...

...because to do so would be...

...(gasp)...

_Judgmental!_


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I am sorry, I seem to be lost, could somebody clarify something for me - is FrancisPlantagenet suggesting that people with IQ's above 130 don't need to be civil and that is his explaination for the rise of uncivility? is that it?


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> I am sorry, I seem to be lost, could somebody clarify something for me - is FrancisPlantagenet suggesting that people with IQ's above 130 don't need to be civil and that is his explaination for the rise of uncivility? is that it?


As far as I can tell, it's something like:

Smart people have a hard time being polite
I am smart
I don't have to be polite

I really don't know if this demonstration is intentional or unintentional.
Seems like post-whatever philosophy leads to solipsism and insanity.
This also reminds me of TRUE BESPOKE Kiton, Brioni, Borrelli clothing and accessories, or however that goes.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:"Though Kung-Fu Masters are powerful Warriors, they generally choose not to fight. Many lesser Warriors delude themselves into thinking that they are masters of war, but few are the genuine article. The true Kung-Fu master fully appreciates his own superiority and is therefore unruffled by petty provocations. When forced to fight, however, he quickly crushes his opponent with devastating blows."


You are correct, grasshopper. And while I would not ever bring it up myself, I appreciate it that you recongnize my superiority. I am humbled by your obeisance.

CT


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> 
> "Though Kung-Fu Masters are powerful Warriors, they generally choose not to fight. Many lesser Warriors delude themselves into thinking that they are masters of war, but few are the genuine article. The true Kung-Fu master fully appreciates his own superiority and is _therefore unruffled by petty provocations_. When forced to fight, however, he quickly crushes his opponent with devastating blows."


Francis Plantagenet:

Given the way your own words have been consistently turned against you, this has become the intellectual equivalent of "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!"


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

My grandmother always said, "Never show your bell curves in public!"


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

> quote:"*Truth* has no manners. It is no respecter of persons. It wounds kings as deeply as commoners. It cuts down the high, and confirms the lowness of the low. It may dress up for formal occasions, but it does so only in order that it may more shockingly expose itself in front of the assembled company. And just as it respects no one, likewise there are few who respect it. But those who do are granted many favors -- power, understanding, dominion, and of course the honor of the unswerving hatred of the ignorant millions. " --- John Bryant


Hmm... I was begining to wonder if you _were_ John Bryant.

Ah, well. Enjoy reassembling the internet onto this forum.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

First off, I think Petro has contributed the most valuable and realevant (sp?) information to this thread...but, digress a bit, I think the problem goes far beyond the music, or the fact that the parents are never home, or the no discipline (although that all factors into it) I think society's values have been eroded to the point that the status quo is almost non existent...if I had to place the blame solely on one era, it would be the 60's...not to say that many great things werent accomplished, but impressionable youths of the day learned that in order to change the world, one didnt have to play by any set of rules...but rather by yelling louder than the other guy, in those days, the protests were for real causes (civil rights etc...) but the fact of the matter is, that people have taken this concept of the protest, and decided that they should whine and scream whenever they didnt get there way...this of course was picked up by the children, who have sence passed it along to their children...only, with every generation, it gets worse, and the feeling of self importance gets even more ridiculously over-inflated...people on a whole have become so selfish, and that is what I blame on society's values becomming ever more comprimised...ours is a society of fast food, one size fits all, "I'll do what I want, and the hell with what you think of me"...people hate to put out even the slightest effort in any facet of their life, and when they do, the feel they should be richly rewarded for it...to paraphrase Kevin Spacey's carachter in the movie _Swimming With Sharks_ they feel they deserve it just because they want it...nobody wants to look at themselves as the problem, they all feel like they are the most enlightened, hardest working, selfless person walking the face of the Earth...when more often than not they couldnt be farther from the truth...

...and for the record...according to that bell curve thing, if you judged me strictly by personality, I'd have an average IQ at best, but, and this is in no way bragging, I usually dont even mention it, but sence the subject came up, my IQ has been tested several times throughout the course of my childhood and teen years, the lowest I've ever scored was 144 and the highest was 167...so it would appear that (at least in my case) the bell curve is flawed...

...and another thing...WTF was with the anti German rant??? not that I really care, but, to me it's funny how some stereotypes are still accepted as truth in society today...and I can certainly laugh when somebody pokes fun at my culture...but why can a person still go on believing that all Italians are Mafiosi, all Latins are drug dealers and car thieves, and all Germans are Nazis??? But then again, I happen to be a Cuban who was raised by Germans and Italians...so maybe I'm just being more sensitive than I like to think I am...

...but whatever...

*****
"When you wear lapels like the swellest of swells, you can pass any mirror and...
*smile*
...You've either got or you haven't got style!!!"​


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> 
> Your praxeological analysis whether inherently Lockeian or Schopenhauer-esque or both -- has to make it through the single model (Leibnitz) and then the multiple models (Kantian) -- then . Your statement doesn't make it through the second as "truth". Ultimate reality lies within Kant's postulated Noumenal realm. The reason for the contingincies should be apparent to any intelligent person due to Wittgenstein's proposition 4.11 of "Tractatus Logico Philosophicus"
> 
> ...


Of course space-time is less real than facts. But if you don't understand why, in the context of this forum, people will expect what you post to be your words, then you are out of touch with humanity. No, in the strict sense you did not plagiarize.


> quote:
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert Einstein


Does (your awareness of) this mean that you will learn to hide your sources?



> quote:No I didn't plagiarize. All I see are various memes configured in text within states of affairs within propositions here. Interweaving memes and not giving the sources for it is not necessarily plagiarizing. If I had a contract with a publishing house and was writing a book, for instance then protocols would have existed in states of affairs that dictated the configuration was indeed plagiarization as a fact (not a thing). If I was writing an academic paper then protocols would have existed in states of affairs for plagiarization to have occurred within states of affairs etc..
> 
> When I signed up for this forum I did not agree to any such protocols (rules). Also, no such protocols existed on the website I took the meme or memes from (legal disclaimers) so on and so forth.
> 
> ...


I couldn't have made all of that more complicated if I had tried. But Einstein could make things simple.



> quote:If we use Wittgenstein's Scheffer-Leibnitzian detached analysis : the truth function of a proposition or preposition+statement is :
> 
> "The general form of truth-function is:
> 
> ...


Fine, all of that makes sense. But it also makes you look like this guy:



> quote:"First and last, what is demanded of genius is love of *truth*."--
> Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


Great quote. But if you think that you are displaying a love of *truth* by using Wittgenstein's Tractatus on AskAndy to justify your meme weaving, well, you're suspect. I actually kind of like these though. Might I bespeak a nice oxford meme in Kant and Schoepenhauer university stripes?



> quote:"*Truth* has no *manners*. It is no respecter of persons. It wounds kings as deeply as commoners. It cuts down the high, and confirms the lowness of the low. It may dress up for formal occasions, but it does so only in order that it may more shockingly expose itself in front of the assembled company. And just as it respects no one, likewise there are few who respect it. But those who do are granted many favors -- power, understanding, dominion, and of course the honor of the unswerving hatred of the ignorant millions. " --- John Bryant


Are you sure you want to quote guy with a bird on his head?



> quote:"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
> -Bertrand Russell


You don't exactly seem to be the one full of doubt.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

I agree with Gabba Ghoul that Petro's post has been the most on topic and useful in this increasingly off topic thread. I _know_ that I am part of the problem. It is difficult to become part of the solution, isn't it? At least I recognize it, I suppose. As the great philosopher GI Joe said, "Knowing is half the battle."

Oh the other hand, with all of the fun we're having with Franky, I simply cannot resist including some lyrics which I'm sure you will all find enlightening.

----------------------------------------------

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [some versions have 'Schopenhauer and Hegel']

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And RenÃ© Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

_Composer: Eric Idle
Author: Eric Idle

First heard on Monty Python's Flying Circus
The Second Series (aired from Sep. 15, 1970 to Dec. 22, 1970)
Episode 22: How To Recognize Different Parts Of The Body._

Bruce (aka CT)

PS Should have included the link to the song.


----------



## Gus (Oct 8, 2005)

He is obviously insane, but this is incredibly funny:

"Therefore your proposition is highly illogical and incorrect. That subjective unwritten social contract is merely a thing not a fact and therefore does not exist; so you are very clearly a fool."


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quoterove it logically as objective fact or be ridiculed for the mental retard you are.


Does anyone else find it extremely humorous that this is in the thread on civility?



> quote:Some Famous INTPs include: Albert Einstein, Rene Descartes, Ludwig Wittgenstein , Blaise Pascal, and Isaac Newton


And me, incidentally. Coincidence? I think not.

But, and here is my probing insight for today, what does any of that have to do with:
a) the thread (that would be civility)
b) plagarism (which is sort of related to civility)
c) the price of eggs in Lower Slobovia?

And for my final trick, I will prove that Franky (and everything else, too) is a Goat (this is much easier to follow that the earlier drivel):

1. The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true.
2. If it is false, then it's opposite must be true.
3. The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which give us the proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
4. Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true.
5. Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.

*Sophists may argue that we should negate the object rather than the subject of this sentence; but this simply gives us the statement "Everything is not a Goat" which is logically identical to "Nothing is a Goat".

CT


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> And for my final trick, I will prove that Franky (and everything else, too) is a Goat (this is much easier to follow that the earlier drivel):
> 
> ...


It's been a while, but I don't think you can safely assume that an empty set (nothing) is the opposite of a infinite set (everything).

It's easier to work out from the other direction. The opposite of an empty set is just a non-empty set (something), not necessarily an infinite set (everything).

That's why we have set theory and logical notation, because languages are a little imprecise at describing this sort of stuff.

baaahhh for now....


----------



## smr (Apr 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perfect.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Android - the goat thing was a philosopher's joke from

At least, I think it was a philosopher's joke. Not being one, I'm not sure exactly what they find funny. 

Honestly, I'm having a blast spewing forth random bits of crap. Monty Python song lyrics, Dave Barry references, that Goat thing, etc. This is just funny all around. Made even more so by the fact that anyone (hmmm, who could that be?) seems to be taking me seriously.

Also, as a physical scientist, I would like to dispute that "Kant demonstrated that the world we experience is not the real world." Kant didn't demonstrate anything. He expounded, theorized, hypothesized, and philosophized (hey, I sound like Al Sharpton!). To demonstrate such a thing would involve actually showing a person the 'real world' that said person cannot experience in order to prove that the world which he experienced wasn't real. Of course, having experienced the real world, Kant would also have proved that the real world is experiencable (?) and thus proven himself wrong by proving that he was right. Hence, it's an unprovable statement. Pretty, but effectively worthless. Don't you just love it?

Patrick, while I may wear (or at least own temporarily) velvet pants, I live in a prewar building, not a glass house. I may be a bit of a voyeur, but I am definately not an exhibitionist. Though, I'll bet if you wore velvet pants and rubbed up against the walls of a glass house you'd generate one hell of a static charge. Anyone want to try? [}]

CT


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> Patrick, while I may wear (or at least own temporarily) velvet pants, I live in a prewar building, not a glass house. I may be a bit of a voyeur, but I am definately not an exhibitionist. Though, I'll bet if you wore velvet pants and rubbed up against the walls of a glass house you'd generate one hell of a static charge. Anyone want to try? [}]
> 
> CT


Aha! You kept them!

Now you know why they fear the approach of the fearless investigative reporter up here in NW Conn.

_"Excuse me, where's the men's room in this thread? I feel a Scheffer-Leibnitzian detached analysis coming on."_


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I'd like to propose a rule for the forum, and hopefully Andy or Malinda will read this, that members are not to reference, either directly or indirectly, the quantitative measure of their intelligence. It's kind of obnoxious.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> I'd like to propose a rule for the forum, and hopefully Andy or Malinda will read this, that members are not to reference, either directly or indirectly, the quantitative measure of their intelligence. It's kind of obnoxious.


True, but it's funnier than hell. In all my many years, every single person I've encountered who boasted of his lofty intelligence quotient soon revealed himself to be a demonstrable fool. However, cutting and pasting large excerpts from _The Tractatus_ to demonstrate one's superior intellect is taking the matter to an entirely new level, at least in my experience. Such conduct should not be discouraged.

"Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds." Henry Adams


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Ah there you are, Yckmwia! I've been missing your enigmatic pseudonym (to me, anyway - maybe it's blatantly transparent to American eyes) and your tight prose.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> I'd like to propose a rule for the forum, and hopefully Andy or Malinda will read this, that members are not to reference, either directly or indirectly, the quantitative measure of their intelligence. It's kind of obnoxious.


what suprises me is that he seems to think that 130 IQ is going to impress everybody in some way.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm with Yckmwia. I've been highly amused as well. The random out of context quotes are beautiful because more often then not they undercut Francis.

One tip Francis: Don't bring your intellectual kung fu to a jujitsu match.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:One tip Francis: Don't bring your intellectual kung fu to a jujitsu match.


(Imagine my lips moving but not matching any of the following....)

Partick, I said I owned them _temporarily_. Yeah, that's it. It's not like I enjoy putting them on with a ski mask and running shirtless down the street screaming 'Evil synthetic fabric' or anything.  (Ha! The Daily News has yet to get a picture, either.)

I can only hope that I brought someone a little chuckle in this Christmas (Hanukkah, Festivus, Yule, etc) season. I know that I've had fun thinking of random things to say. Now if you'll all excuse me for a bit, I have only four more final reports to grade. Let me tell you, there is nothing quite like reading about homogenized porcine heart over your morning coffee. Yum.

CT


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Wow, this thread has really got off-topic. Taken over, you might say, by the craniology v.s. phrenology people...

DD


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Ah there you are, Yckmwia! I've been missing your enigmatic pseudonym (to me, anyway - maybe it's blatantly transparent to American eyes) and your tight prose.


Bonjour, mon ami Rich, et merci, merci beaucoup. My intermittent participation may be easily explained: I have been otherwise occupied with matters of not inconsiderable import, which have left me little time for frivolous amusements such as this forum (as Widmerpool might say over a lunch of cold tongue and mustard at his club). Wait, that's not it. Actually, I've been pub crawling with X and Pam, and she threw my laptop in the Thames. Something like that. Cheers.

"Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds." Henry Adams


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but think of whom Fran Plan would be cutting and pasting if his IQ were a mere 110 or so: Rod McKuen? Bill Moyers? Kahlil Gibran? The mind reels.

"Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds." Henry Adams


----------



## Gus (Oct 8, 2005)

I really didn't mean to offend you Francis, your posts are some of the funniest ever here, don't stop the music. I do wish you would have called me plebeian simian though, so much better than being a mere mental retard.

By the way, I have seen "Festivus" mentioned a few times here lately, what is it?

And Khalil Gibran! The first time somebody gave me The Prophet, I was just a bit offended, but the third time it really got to me.


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

Sorry for my part in veering way off topic. It was really fun, though!

-Pleb Sim

Gus: Festivus is a Seinfeld reference, a Christmas/Hanukkah substitute invented by George's father.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gus_
> 
> I really didn't mean to offend you Francis, your posts are some of the funniest ever here, don't stop the music. I do wish you would have called me plebeian simian though, so much better than being a mere mental retard.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I didn't get the simian, either. *pout* Well, maybe next time.

Festivus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus
It's a Seinfeld thing. I personally couldn't deal with the show, but my wife loved it, so I've heard about it quite a bit. I have to admit that the Festivus thing is pretty funny

CT

Fabricati diem, pvnc. (loose translation, To Serve and Protect) -- Sign above the door of the City Watch House, Ankh-Morpork.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That Wiki entry is fascinating. Festivus is derived from Beckett? Now _that_ is the true Festivus miracle.

"Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds." Henry Adams


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancisPlantagenet_
> 
> If, for example, someone were to call him a pinhead, he would get out a tape measure and after finding that his cranium falls within normal size specifications Android would dismiss the comment as erroneous.


Dear Francis (Don't touch my stuff, or I'll Kill You) Plantagenet,

This is ridiculous balderdash. The size and shape of my cranium are well outside the normal size specifications. That's why I have to have all my hats custom blocked.


----------



## AzChilicat (Dec 18, 2005)

In no specific order:

Petro, good posting. I'd like to add that the culture of "self-esteem" has exacerbated this also. Guess what, sometimes little Johnny can't grow up to be a brain surgeon. You're a good person, the thing is, well, you're an idiot Johnny. Additionally, many segments of the population, notably those foisted on us as "cool" i.e. gangsta, see civility and politeness as a sign of weakness. This is tragic.

To FrancisPlantagenet: if I read your graph correctly, you're bragging at having an IQ only 2 SD's from the mean? I would refrain if I were you. Given that approximately 32% of all data points will be within the mean and 2 SD, I'm not overly impressed.

IMO, the largest casualty of our deminishing civility is the young female population. Have you noticed how aggressive they tend to drive for instance? Their total disregard for others?


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> I agree with Gabba Ghoul that Petro's post has been the most on topic and useful in this increasingly off topic thread. I _know_ that I am part of the problem. It is difficult to become part of the solution, isn't it? At least I recognize it, I suppose. As the great philosopher GI Joe said, "Knowing is half the battle."


I was part of the problem as well.

It's easy to become part of the solution. Well, it is *simple* to become part of the solution, doing the easy thing is why we're in this trouble to begin with.

From easiest to hardest: 
Dress to your body and your environment, not to politics or humor. 
Mind your manners. 
Pay your debts. 
Help those less fortunate.
Make *personal* decisions based on your family first, yourself second and your community last. Make *public* decisions the other way around.
Duty, Honor Integrity. Stop lying to yourself. Stop lying to those around you. 
Raise your own children. If this means living with someone you no longer love, well, you're an adult now, and your genitals will just have to deal with it for a few years.

Simple. Difficult.

I can't honestly say I've lived my whole life by this, but I'm trying. Trying--honestly trying, not giving up at the first sign of difficulty--gets you further than not.



> quote:
> And Wittgenstein was a beery swine


Wittgenstein was more interested in wordgames than ideas, and is in large part the author of ideas that are CAUSING many of today's problems. (Yeah, overstatement. Maybe. I belive that one can trace a line from Wittgenstein through deconstruction to such disgusting individuals as Edward Said and NomChomsky.)

I'm more on the Popper side of things, as much as my poor little brain can understand and cope with these issues.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> It's been a while, but I don't think you can safely assume that an empty set (nothing) is the opposite of a infinite set (everything).
> It's easier to work out from the other direction. The opposite of an empty set is just a non-empty set (something), not necessarily an infinite set (everything).


Or just accept that it's really, really hard to wedge the real world into a neat set of symbols that can be manipulated by a pencil.

The world is a messy place. Trying to ignore this doesn't help things.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> I'd like to propose a rule for the forum, and hopefully Andy or Malinda will read this, that members are not to reference, either directly or indirectly, the quantitative measure of their intelligence. It's kind of obnoxious.


Nah, it helps point out who the real morons are.

I haven't made an issue of mine yet, have I?

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by AzChilicat_
> 
> IMO, the largest casualty of our deminishing civility is the young female population. Have you noticed how aggressive they tend to drive for instance? Their total disregard for others?


That's not aggression.

That's distraction.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

Since this thread is nearly incomprehensible at this point, I'll explain what was going on from my point of view, after the nice begining.

The issue here wasn't IQ (who cares), but motive.

We had a poster here who had insisted on more than one occasion to paste obscure quotes from *********** and eugenics sites onto the forum, among them yggdrasil and The Birdman (John Bryant) . I googled the stuff last time he posted it, but didn't say anything.

When he started in on this again, I pushed his buttons to make him flip. He did. I assume since I got the highest insult that I am the most to blame for this. I'm sorry I escalated this and helped cause such a mess.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

prato - Oh, please don't feel bad about it. I personally had a blast with it and I'm only dissapointed that Franky didn't stick around to play some more.  Sometime escalation is totally appropriate. And now, after having played a bit, we can get back to the original topic.

Petro - I understand what you're saying about it being simple. In the same way, it is 'simple' to be a good Christian. How few people actually manage it all of the time, though? For me, the difficulty is that once you develop a certain way of thinking/acting, it is not a trivial exercise to change it. You have to constantly be on top of it until your new thought process starts to become second nature, which can take a while. That, and the temptation to back slide into selfishness is omnipresent. 

Too may people never get past thinking that the correct way to make decision is:

Make *personal* decisions based on your yourself first, family second and your community never. Make *public* decisions the same way.

Hence, it is obvious that any event which negatively impacts you is evil. If it doesn't damage you but hurts your family, it is also evil. Self-sacrifice is impossible using this type of decision making process, as is protection of the community, whether that be the neighborhood or the country. 

Case-in-point: Cindy Sheehan. (Agree with the war or not, it doesn't matter.) She only cares that she was inconvenienced. She didn't protest before her son's death. She doesn't care that he enlisted of his own free will (twice) or that he volunteered for the mission on which he was killed. The possibility that her actions may hurt the communitiy is irrelevant to her. The only important person to her is her. Bah.

CT

"Damn hippies." - Cartman


----------



## prato (Jan 5, 2005)

Thanks, CT.

Could it simply be just another symptom of a general decline in western civilization?
I remember reading something by Francis Schaeffer in which he attributed a decline to certain philosophies which filtered through art and music into pop culture, thus changing the dominant world view. I remember agreeing with it at the time, but don't remember it well enough to really discuss much.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Jeepers!

I have to check out the Interchange more often, this is funnier than anything on the clothing forum in a good long while.

I'm moved to respond to a few points:

1) Oh, those bad old sixties, and those terrible liberals who ruined everything. 

Maybe. Of course, the preceding decades weren't all that terrific for people who weren't white, middle-class, heterosexual, conservative, etc. 

Just sayin'.

2) Don't be friends with your kids

Do you guys have kids? My 3-year-old boy is the light of my life, a bright little guy of infinite charm, humor, and sweetness. The best days of my life are the days I've spent with him building train sets, drawing pictures of dinosaurs and rocket ships, making up silly songs, and reading stories. We are certainly friends. Why would you even have kids otherwise?

But his parents are in charge. When he acts innapropriately, he is shut down post-haste. Rudeness, unwarranted aggression, whining are not permitted. Bed time is bed time. Threats of punishment are carried out, firmly. 

The result is a self-confident, polite, thoughtful boy who feels comfortable around adults and expresses himself articulately. He is, by all accounts, a great kid.

My own dad was a strict disciplinarian. He was in no way cruel or abusive, but he was stern, demanding, and distant--definitely not a "fun dad," and my principal emotional memories of him (He died when I was 10) are feelings of fear, incompetence, and longing for his attention. Maybe he was trying to "make a man" of me, but the result was furtiveness, crippling insecurity, and a profound feeling of alienation.

3) 130 IQ

Being smart doesn't make you rude.

It makes you very, very depressed.

4) My theory (stop the presses!) on the rise of incivilty:

It's tied to the isolating effect of modern technology. The ability to completely manage your environment and enjoy constant instant gratifaction has contributed to the decline of community-consciousness. Young people are growing up with a "Me and mine, screw everybody else" attitude. Why speak with strangers if you can, anywhere and at any time, listen to your Ipod, text friends, make calls on your cell-phone? Why go to the movies or the theater or concerts when you can stay in with your immense flat-screen TV with google-phonic sound? Why shop at the mall when you can order online? Why make real friends when you can join an Internet for...

never mind.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Brownshoe_
> 
> 2) Don't be friends with your kids
> 
> ...


All this strikes a powerful chord with me. My father was like that, and so I sought a different, closer relationship with my own children. However, parent-child relations can never really be the same as friendships in the usual sense of the term. There can be a degree of complicity, pleasure at being together, mutual esteem, but parental authority is important for children's development. The relationship is asymmetric. Lack of authority,lack of firm guidelines for behaviour produces unhappy children. I think my father was well-meaning but clumsy, impatient and unable to express his feelings. This was common at the time. It caused a moderate amount of damage. Even so, he made me self-reliant, stoical, independent, and a striver. Conservative and individualistic too, probably. As my children have grown up I have found myself increasingly adopting my own father's approach, to the extent of becoming a sort of patriarchal figure. I am pleased with how my children have turned out - kind and considerate, independent and free-thinking.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Rich - I think you hit the nail on the head with your description of the parent/friend dichotomy. It should be, by definition, an asymmetric relationship. Brownshoe, you didn't really describe a true friendship by my definition. As you said, you're in charge. Period. When you're out with your buddies from college and you act innapropriately, none of them can really "shut [you] down post-haste" because you're all equals. You and your son are not equals. Which is as it should be.

Incidently, I've seen more mother-daughter problems than father-son with respect to being friends instead of parent/child. I wonder why that's so.

CT

PS Brownshoe, this has been a particularly funny thread for about 2 pages. Alas, the topic has reasserted itself.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Rich - I think you hit the nail on the head with your description of the parent/friend dichotomy. It should be, by definition, an asymmetric relationship. Brownshoe, you didn't really describe a true friendship by my definition. As you said, you're in charge. Period. When you're out with your buddies from college and you act innapropriately, none of them can really "shut [you] down post-haste" because you're all equals. You and your son are not equals. Which is as it should be.
> 
> ...


Right on. It's not a peer-to-peer relationship. It is a very close and affectionate one, though.

And, next time I get to gether with the guys, if Chris gets on his hobbyhorse about the Who being better than the Kinks, I WILL shut him down, post haste!!


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:And, next time I get to gether with the guys, if Chris gets on his hobbyhorse about the Who being better than the Kinks, I WILL shut him down, post haste!!


Ooooo, that's a tough one. Definately better than the Stones, but the Kinks were pretty fine, too. I'll have to think about it. 

CT


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

My father and I are friends *now.*

When I was a child, he was not my friend. He was the person who issued commands which I either obeyed or constructed ingenious methods to disobey - and I suspect either one was fine with him. I respected him, and respect him now, which is a great deal more than I can say for most modern parents and children.

Later on in my life, when people were trying to kill me and whatnot, I was suitably bolstered by the idea that no matter how bad this particular situation was, at least my father was not angry with me 

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

my father was a typical father of his generation. when he was twelve, his parents had tossed him out to work, and that was pretty much the way he looked at life. he put food on the table, and a roof over our head, but he never tossed a ball or took us to the circus. that was what he was tought he should be, and he did it well. 

now, he is a great grandfather. somewhere along the way he had a little time to think about it, and became a very wise old man, and his gradchildren love him, and he treats them like a grandfather should. 

I have a totally different relationship with my 3 year old son. I spend my best hours with him, building stiff, or sledding. or picking apples. I know all of his friends, and they know me and trust me. but, like has been said, I expect him to treat me and other adults with respct, I expect him to to treat others with respect and to be gentle, and I am pretty strict with him about charactor issues. I see my job not to be his friend but to give him a healthy and fun pathway to life - to prepare him t be a good man, without sacrificing the fun of childhood.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Brownshoe_
> It's tied to the isolating effect of modern technology. The ability to completely manage your environment and enjoy constant instant gratifaction has contributed to the decline of community-consciousness. Young people are growing up with a "Me and mine, screw everybody else" attitude. Why speak with strangers if you can, anywhere and at any time, listen to your Ipod, text friends, make calls on your cell-phone? Why go to the movies or the theater or concerts when you can stay in with your immense flat-screen TV with google-phonic sound? Why shop at the mall when you can order online? Why make real friends when you can join an Internet for...


Well, civility is based on the assumption that people should treat others as they would like to be treated.

But people also lack empathy for others in many ways today. We don't really know much about where strangers are coming from, necessarily, but we should make an effort to understand other points of view and acknowledge others' basic humanity.

But when people are rude to strangers, they are acting under the assumption that the person doesn't share any of the same feelings that they do, which is erroneous. Move out of my way, shopper with cart/car in front of me...I'M in a hurry. MY needs! ME ME ME! It's primitive. It's the very opposite of civil behaviour.

Technology does play a role. Remember when we had a limited number of radio and tv stations? Today, you don't have to be exposed to any thought you don't agree with or anything outside your preferences if you don't want to. Is that progress? Yes, if you hate popular culture, it's a boon. But do you ever learn anything if all you ever read are blogs by people with whom you agree?

*"Buy the best, and you will only cry once." - Chinese proverb*


----------



## Gus (Oct 8, 2005)

I don't think that people are rude or egoistic because they don't believe that others have feelings. We do lots of things all the time that we know are wrong. It's rather that we are not made to live in enormous megapoli with millions of people we don't know. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't have a meaningful relation with one percent of the people we come across each day. Naturally, this causes bluntness and insensitivity.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Brownshoe_
> 
> 1) Oh, those bad old sixties, and those terrible liberals who ruined everything.
> 
> ...


So we make things *worse* for the white middle class by trying to rid them of the values that made their lives better?

Values like family, religion, community etc.?

The 70s through the 90s showed what effects this had on both the middle AND lower classes? The Free Love/Extreme Feminist movement caused lots of out-of-wedlock children, children who had to suffer through divorce. Men who felt they had no responsibility for the results of random sexual encounters leaving children and their mothers in poverty.

The burgeoning drug use brought untold misery and destruction.

The rapid spread of AIDS, anti-biotic resistent Syphilis Gonorea (sp?), and Hepatitis etc.

The continuing advocasy of absolutely IDIOTIC economic policies?

Life had been getting continually better for minorities from the 20s through the mid-60s (when the "liberals" started their public agitation), the "liberals" in the 60s didn't advance the cause all that much, and in some places caused (or almost caused) a backlash.

And in exchange we got what?

Stupid economic policies and anti-american politicians?



> quote:
> 2) Don't be friends with your kids
> Do you guys have kids? My 3-year-old boy is the light of my life, a bright little guy of infinite charm, humor, and sweetness. The best days of my life are the days I've spent with him building train sets, drawing pictures of dinosaurs and rocket ships, making up silly songs, and reading stories. We are certainly friends. Why would you even have kids otherwise?
> But his parents are in charge. When he acts innapropriately, he is shut down post-haste. Rudeness, unwarranted aggression, whining are not permitted. Bed time is bed time. Threats of punishment are carried out, firmly.


That's not being a friend, that's being a *parent*. A friend worries about whether punishing the child would cause a rift in the relationship.



> quote:
> My own dad was a strict disciplinarian. He was in no way cruel or abusive, but he was stern, demanding, and distant--definitely not a "fun dad," and my principal emotional memories of him (He died when I was 10) are feelings of fear, incompetence, and longing for his attention. Maybe he was trying to "make a man" of me, but the result was furtiveness, crippling insecurity, and a profound feeling of alienation.


More likely he felt unable to relate to you at that age, and would have become more involved as you aged.

Maybe not.

My father was a strict disciplinarian, but was warm and caring person. We definately became closer as we got older, and there are years where we were not all that close.

But given the choice between hurting my feelings (and other parts of me) and making sure I learned how to behave in public (or any other lesson) he *always* chose the education. Friends aren't like that.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FrancesPlantagenet_
> 
> No I didn't plagiarize. All I see are various memes configured in text within states of affairs within propositions here. Interweaving memes and not giving the sources for it is not necessarily plagiarizing. If I had a contract with a publishing house and was writing a book, for instance then protocols would have existed in states of affairs that dictated the configuration was indeed plagiarization as a fact (not a thing). If I was writing an academic paper then protocols would have existed in states of affairs for plagiarization to have occurred within states of affairs etc..
> 
> ...


I'll keep this in mind for my next law school exam. Perhaps I can convince someone that proximate cause is a mere superstition due to the nature of the Noumenon.

Sorry philosophy guys but these are the moments that make me glad to be a history major. I mean Good GOD....where do you come up with this stuff, even in a non argumentative sense.

Anyway, on topic, I agree with Patrick. The real problem with civility is that no one is ever told to stop because those who might tell them are afraid of being termed judgemental.

I think it emanates from something like the (I think...but I can't read them without laughing) ideas described above, that correct behavior is merely a thing and not a fact....if that can be loosely translated into moral relativism.

I remember two years ago in college I suggested that a female friend not do something, I think it involved lying to someone in regard to an embarassing thing. I dont even remember what it was. "Friends don't judge!" she shouted at me, slammed the door and didn't speak to me for a week. We've not been as good friends since, because I can't stand people like this. If anyone, it's your friends and family who should be "judging" (translation=any suggestion that you do anything other than exactly what you want to do because there might be some kind of standard you should live up to) you, to prevent you from doing something stupid or regrettable before you foist yourself on the general public in that condition.

I think I know the biggest root of the problem too. It's all this sensitivity training we are forced to go through. The folks who run such sessions have indocrinated (starting in college or school) the young with the idea that holding anyone to moral or social standards is oppressive behavior and may offend someone else's "worldview". It then spreads to more such training at the workplace.

We've reached the point where some people seem to believe there is no such thing as the right answer, the right way to dress, the right behavior in any situation, it's all worldviews.

Frankly I think it's shocking, which is why I am perfectly willing to "judge" anyone.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Coolidge24_
> 
> Anyway, on topic, I agree with Patrick. The real problem with civility is that no one is ever told to stop because those who might tell them are afraid of being termed judgemental.


And you'll get your faced punched in by that 200 lb nouveau-riche thug who knows that no-one can tell him what to do.



> quote:I think I know the biggest root of the problem too. It's all this sensitivity training we are forced to go through. The folks who run such sessions have indocrinated (starting in college or school) the young with the idea that holding anyone to moral or social standards is oppressive behavior and may offend someone else's "worldview". It then spreads to more such training at the workplace.


On the other hand, there is that company in the US which is planning to fire all its smokers if they don't quit within 2006, because the CEO "cares about their health". You'd think he'd have better things to do with his time instead of enforcing 'morality', such as looking for new customers, or making better products, or researching to business opportunities, etc.

DD


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> And you'll get your faced punched in by that 200 lb nouveau-riche thug who knows that no-one can tell him what to do.
> 
> DD


Haha, that is a possiblity, though I like to imagine either a)I could take him or b)that would be assault and I would also sue him for any damages incurred.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Dr. Damage, what makes you think that firing smokers has anything to do with enforcing morality? Smoking is one of the worst things you can do for your health, and whether I am a smoker is something I've had to indicate on every health insurance application I've ever completed. Smokers pay higher premiums. Smokers are more expensive to carry on company health insurance programs. I'm sure the primary motive is economic. The secondary motive is caring about the well being of employees. If morality comes into play at all, it is at least a distant third. I'll wager a guess that you are a Democrat because you immediately jumped on the "enforcing morality" angle?


----------



## AzChilicat (Dec 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> I'll wager a guess that you are a Democrat because you immediately jumped on the "enforcing morality" angle?


If you notice, he's from Canada so "Democrat" as you know it doesn't exist. The NDP or New Democratic Party makes the US Democrats look like Rush Limbaugh (not that I'm saying Dr. is a member of the NDP).

Edit: Forgot to mention healthcare up there is also a single payer system (not socialist as many in the US think) so the costs related to smoking probably didn't enter into DD's thinking. Here in my new home of the US however, it enters into every executive's decision making process so no doubt might be part of the CEO's in question decision making process. COPD is a very costly disease, I'm sure one exacerbation that causes a hospital stay for a steroid taper costs tens of thousands of dollars.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> On the other hand, there is that company in the US which is planning to fire all its smokers if they don't quit within 2006, because the CEO "cares about their health". You'd think he'd have better things to do with his time instead of enforcing 'morality',....


This has nothing to do with morality. It is about keeping health care expenses down for the company and the 90% of the employees that don't smoke. Yes, we're tired of picking up the tab for your lung cancer chemo therapy.


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

First they come for the smokers... then the people who aren't within one-half pound of their ideal weight.. then the motorcyclists... then the people who don't take public transport... before long it will be work, tofu, work, sleep, do it again tomorrow.

----------------------


"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> First they come for the smokers... then the people who aren't within one-half pound of their ideal weight.. then the motorcyclists... then the people who don't take public transport... before long it will be work, tofu, work, sleep, do it again tomorrow.


...I aggree 110%...

...it's too bad that by the time people realise that it will probably be too late...

...oh what a world!!!

*****
"When you wear lapels like the swellest of swells, you can pass any mirror and...
*smile*
...You've either got or you haven't got style!!!"​


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Okay, okay, "enforcing morality" was probably the wrong thing to say. And I sure don't want to get into discussions about how to finance health care, etc.

But...

I think employees should be fired for things such as incompetance, hostility to fellow workers, stealing, failure to complete tasks, spying for other companies, etc., i.e. things related to their ability to complete their jobs or assigned tasks for their employers. Frankly, I don't think that whether someone smokes or not has much to do with their ability to get their job done. Maybe they take too many smoke breaks, but that can be regulated using normal company disciplinary procedures. Firing people retroactively after they were originally hired in good faith is crazy, like hiring a bunch of people then changing policy afterwards to say we don't hire this or that identifiable minority, so sorry you're out.

No doubt the man who runs that company is a saint and in perfect health, but he should not be cramming it down people's throats just because He Knows He Is Correct. That is the decline in civility.

DD

PS: Rojo, isn't enforcing (non-religeous) morality a Democrat stock-in-trade? Or have I been reading to much PJ O'Rourke?

PSS: By the way, FlatSix, my E28 has passed 465,000 kms!


----------

