|
mandatory lesbian posted:arent boomers like 70 now, i find it hard to believe 50 year olds would still be having kids Anyone in their early-mid 50s or later is a boomer. Edit- I think 70 might actually be the UPPER cutoff for boomers, in fact.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
oh wait everyone else here is old (30+), i forgot, i guess it is more reasonable then i thought, 40 year olds can have kids, i think
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:When I would register people and they started bitching about Obama I would just say "great, here's your chance to register to vote against him." I found that having people at the table registering made other people more likely to stop and do it themselves. Since I was either on a college campus or in inner city districts, I felt the most important thing was to get as many people signed up as possible no matter the individual's stance. Slightly different crowd here. Public library. Lot of parents with young kids. We definitely got clusters and having someone talking about how awesome Johnson is while registering was fine. The two Ranters however were making noises that caused parents to hustle their kids past while glaring and after the louder one a librarian came out saying there had been complaints. They also had no interest in registering. Both started with complaints that there was no one to vote for because both candidates are awful and the country needs to do better. Then they segued into attacking Hillary without ever uttering trump's name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:Baby Boomers are 1946-1964? edit: nm
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:Baby Boomers are 1946-1964? oh huh i thought the baby boom just referred to like the few years after WW2 ended, not a 20 year time span
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
drat you public school
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:oh huh i thought the baby boom just referred to like the few years after WW2 ended, not a 20 year time span Generational cohorts are pretty big. This is like people who are in their early 30s now not realizing that they're millennials (and subsequently bitching about millennials).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Slightly different crowd here. Public library. Lot of parents with young kids. We definitely got clusters and having someone talking about how awesome Johnson is while registering was fine. The two Ranters however were making noises that caused parents to hustle their kids past while glaring and after the louder one a librarian came out saying there had been complaints. lol at libertarians using a public library
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
a generation that is defined as 18 years seems kind of weird when the mean age of mothers has been north of 20 years for the whole post war period (it's like 26 years now)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
rscott posted:a generation that is defined as 18 years seems kind of weird when the mean age of mothers has been north of 20 years for the whole post war period (it's like 26 years now) It's almost like generations are arbitrarily-declared brand names and not cohesive units of society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:It's really creepy in a manchildy way for goons to openly fantasize about how awesome life is gonna be when their parents are dead I tell my dad the world will be better when him and his peers are dead all the time  And he is not even conservative
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
This article has a conservative tone, but mentioned in it would be the fact that it would expand flood plains meaning you'd be able to buy less expensive flood insurance (which is very expensive). http://www.knoe.com/content/news/Abraham-blocks-Obama-floodplain-expansion-order-386321851.html I think that's what I am reading here. A republican stopped a executive order to expand floodplains and it's literally after 40,000 people lost their homes to flooding becasue most didn't have affordable flood insurance available to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:This is the quandary facing a lot of ethnic and religious minorities - many of them trend strongly socially conservative, and either would be or actively were reliable GOP voting blocs if it weren't for how xenophobic the GOP has gotten. Muslims are a particularly striking example: before 9/11, American Muslims voted for the GOP upwards of 90%. They were well-educated, often affluent, and very socially conservative. Natural Republican voters. Then half the country started baying for their blood and American Muslims are now 90%+ voters for the Democrats. You're not wrong. A lot of the older people in my family are highly conservative, but would never vote for Republicans as they are now because they rely so heavily on racism for their support. While white people can be fooled into ignoring it, minorities have to go to democrats by default for self-preservation, if nothing else. All thanks to the Republicans deliberately diriving them away to keep the racist white vote. It's just that we have faily recently reach the point where going all in on white people to the exclusion of all others simply cannot work anymore by sheer demographics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:lol at libertarians using a public library =D We were semirural back in 03 when I moved here but the Denver's growth has been filling the pastures with apartments and housing developments. In the interest of breaking down voting blocks I'm going to predict that the horse lady demographic goes for Hillary in a big, BIG, way. So big. You wouldn't believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Wasn't there a Republican media guy on Fox who got flood payments for a beach condo he owned that was wiped out in a hurricane, who then went onto say that the governement shouldn't help flood/storm victims? Could be remembering it wrong. Edit: John Stossel https://thinkprogress.org/fox-news-...b224#.ku1sakhjq Absolute gently caress tard happyhippy fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
rscott posted:a generation that is defined as 18 years seems kind of weird when the mean age of mothers has been north of 20 years for the whole post war period (it's like 26 years now) 18 years aka how long it takes for the first people in your group to become considered adults. Nothing to do with age of mothers. There's also things like how the draft spent many years with 18 as the minimum and 35 as the absolute maximum age - roughly 18 years. Other countries had other age ranges, but of course generational divisions are quite country/culture specific.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:It's almost like generations are arbitrarily-declared brand names and not cohesive units of society. I don't think they're necessarily arbitrarily set end points though, they're based on cultural inflection points that nearly everyone can agree are significant. Like in baseball, it's not an arbitrarily set end point to compare stats to when they stopped recycling balls until they fell apart, or when the MLB was integrated, or when the mound was lowered, or when the DH was introduced to the AL, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:lol at libertarians using a public library Lol that reminds me, did anyone see The Cato Institute™'s "50 State Freedom Index" or whatever that came out last week? They said New York was the most unfree state in the union and that it should spend less on public libraries and hospitals to be more free. Also, legal cousin-loving and raw milk gave freedom points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Lol that reminds me, did anyone see The Cato Institute™'s "50 State Freedom Index" or whatever that came out last week? They said New York was the most unfree state in the union and that it should spend less on public libraries and hospitals to be more free. If you ever get a chance, check out the libertarian thread deconstruction of the Cato Freedom Index Cato considers Qatar and UAE some of the "most free" countries
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:Baby Boomers are 1946-1964? Yeah, my mom is from the youngest generation of boomers, and I'm an old rear end millennial, so in the three generations (Boomer, X, and Meillenial) between her and I, it spans back to the end of WWII up to people who are still in middle school/freshmen in high school. Demographics are weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:If you ever get a chance, check out the libertarian thread deconstruction of the Cato Freedom Index This is delicious to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:This is delicious to me. Yeah, Cato literally considers the freedom to own slaves more important than the freedom to not be a slave
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah, Cato literally considers States' Rights more important than the freedom to not be a slave Gotta stay on-message.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
When self-focused people are on the wage/salary/bonus treadmill and are fighting for 2% raises each year, and aren't receiving significant government benefits, they have a hard time arguing against "that other party is gonna tax-take your hard-earned raise and waste it". They rarely come in contact with the foster kids and poor schoolkids and hospitalized veterans etc whose lives are being improved by government spending, so they see negative crime/corruption/lovely education stories on the news and assume government spending is waste that drops into a black hole never to be seen again. The only two ways to overcome that way of thinking are to be less self-interested (voting not only for yourself but also in the best interests of vulnerable people in your community) or to believe that government is capable of spending tax money in a way that will actually trickle up and make your own life better. Unlike trickle-down, which was an easy visual to sell, trickle-up is harder to "get" because it's money spent on poorer folks that improves their lives and instead of dropping hundred dollar bills on the middle class, makes the world a more enjoyable place, a much less obvious visual. I dunno if any generation is less selfish than any other (though improved visibility into disadvantaged communities is slowly changing minds), but I do think that thanks to the Internet, the younger generations have been exposed to more positive examples of government working. The more indoctrination about government waste and inefficiency a generation has received, the more likely they'll succumb to the (R) siren song. Also, realistically, government waste and fraud is probably going down over time due to transparency, so the pro-gov view becomes an easier sell to younguns. MrBuddyLee fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
MrBuddyLee posted:When self-focused people are on the wage/salary/bonus treadmill and are fighting for 2% raises each year, and aren't receiving significant government benefits, they have a hard time arguing against "that other party is gonna tax-take your hard-earned raise and waste it". They rarely come in contact with the foster kids and poor schoolkids and hospitalized veterans etc whose lives are being improved by government spending, so they see negative crime/corruption/lovely education stories on the news and assume government spending is waste that drops into a black hole never to be seen again. I think it is considerably less complicated than that. Taxes are tangible, the benefits of taxation are not tangible. It is very easy to begrudge something when you are made immediately aware of its consequences but not of its benefits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Other than my terrible CEO (in his late fifties/early sixties) I don't know anyone voting for Trump, including my elderly parents. My father (78) is so incensed by Trump and his bigoted ilk that he can barely get out his words of derision. Don't hesitate to look for like-minded people in other age groups. You might be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
rscott posted:I don't think they're necessarily arbitrarily set end points though, they're based on cultural inflection points that nearly everyone can agree are significant. Like in baseball, it's not an arbitrarily set end point to compare stats to when they stopped recycling balls until they fell apart, or when the MLB was integrated, or when the mound was lowered, or when the DH was introduced to the AL, etc. That analogy makes no sense at all, it's nowhere even close to being similar. Regardless, the point is that generations are not really a thing which exits, focusing on them (even just as a observable category) is stupid as gently caress and completely misses the disease in favor of fetishizing the self-diagnosed symptom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:That analogy makes no sense at all, it's nowhere even close to being similar. Regardless, the point is that generations are not really a thing which exits, focusing on them (even just as a observable category) is stupid as gently caress and completely misses the disease in favor of fetishizing the self-diagnosed symptom. Choosing to bury your head in the sand and refuse to deal with large-scale trends doesn't make them not exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Choosing to bury your head in the sand and refuse to deal with large-scale trends doesn't make them not exist. Misidentifying and misrepresenting actual societal issues/problems/causes as 'generational', is worse than burying your head in the sand, since you're not just ignoring the problem, you're actively making people around you stupider as to what the problem actually entails.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Misidentifying and misrepresenting actual societal issues/problems/causes as 'generational', is worse than burying your head in the sand, since you're not just ignoring the problem, you're actively making people around you stupider as to what the problem actually entails. No one cares about the strawman idea of generations you have in your head, so you should really stop fighting against them. Again: stop burying your head in the sand because you don't like what's in reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No one cares about the strawman idea of generations you have in your head, so you should really stop fighting against them. Again: stop burying your head in the sand because you don't like what's in reality. Please provide an example of actual generational studies research that you feel constitutes valid science, and by that I mean something that actually works with things identified as generations and not just birth year cohort studies and trends. I'm genuinely interested in the topic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Please provide an example of actual generational studies research that you feel constitutes valid science, and by that I mean something that actually works with things identified as generations and not just birth year cohort studies and trends. I'm genuinely interested in the topic. Pew does a ton of those, but I imagine you'll just claim that their studies don't meet your criteria and move the goalposts again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Please provide an example of actual generational studies research that you feel constitutes valid science, and by that I mean something that actually works with things identified as generations and not just birth year cohort studies and trends. I'm genuinely interested in the topic. Sure is weird of you to immediately define most generational research as "not generational research". You just stated what the most important part is! All those birth year cohorts, they create generations!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:
can someone overlay his numbers dropping onto this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Sure is weird of you to immediately define most generational research as "not generational research". You just stated what the most important part is! All those birth year cohorts, they create generations! They would have to correlate in some way that gives basis to "generation" as a valid category. To argue that generations are a valid subject of scientific inquiry, they have to have an empirical basis. What makes birth years 1946-1964 a meaningful grouping and not 1953-1970? I don't think this is an unreasonable position to take. Trabisnikof posted:Pew does a ton of those, but I imagine you'll just claim that their studies don't meet your criteria and move the goalposts again. That was my first post on this topic in the thread so I haven't yet had a chance to move my goalposts the first time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:They would have to correlate in some way that gives basis to "generation" as a valid category. To argue that generations are a valid subject of scientific inquiry, they have to have an empirical basis. What makes birth years 1946-1964 a meaningful grouping and not 1953-1970? I don't think this is an unreasonable position to take. 1953 to 1970 is a useful grouping for following different trends than 1946 - 1964 is. I don't know why you demand they be mutually exclusive. There are many different sorts of generations that get used, when you're investigating different things, the '46-early 60s one however has proved rather predictive for political leanings - that's why it's persisted in political discourse. That you get the most specific results when you narrow to a single year or even a single month in a single year, doesn't mean there's nothing to be learned from zooming out to wider ranges. Especially for older generations than the boomers, where there were certain birth ranges that millions of dudes and women would be pulled from in drafts and have their lives changed by military service or straight up dying. Not to mention that generational markers are much different in other countries. 46-64 would not be valid for the UK or Germany really (Germany having two different generations at any one time for births between shortly after WWII and a few years before reunification). Let alone China or Brazil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
fishmech posted:1953 to 1970 is a useful grouping for following different trends than 1946 - 1964 is. I don't know why you demand they be mutually exclusive. There are many different sorts of generations that get used, when you're investigating different things, the '46-early 60s one however has proved rather predictive for political leanings - that's why it's persisted in political discourse. That you get the most specific results when you narrow to a single year or even a single month in a single year, doesn't mean there's nothing to be learned from zooming out to wider ranges. Especially for older generations than the boomers, where there were certain birth ranges that millions of dudes and women would be pulled from in drafts and have their lives changed by military service or straight up dying. That seems all very good and reasonable and I don't have a problem with it at all. My existing example of questionable generational studies work has been the Strauss-Howe generational theory, which does imply that sort of mutual exclusivity, at least within a given country. I feel like they go way too far in reifying their cohort groupings, and a lot of popular understandings of what generations are seem to follow in that vein.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:That seems all very good and reasonable and I don't have a problem with it at all. My existing example of questionable generational studies work has been the Strauss-Howe generational theory, which does imply that sort of mutual exclusivity, at least within a given country. I feel like they go way too far in reifying their cohort groupings, and a lot of popular understandings of what generations are seem to follow in that vein.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
The USC/LA Times Daybreak poll has Trump back in the lead again. Before you start Arzying: Yes, this is the one where the initial sample is polled every day so an initial Republican-leaning sample has resulted in Trump leading more often than not since it started in mid-July.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The USC/LA Times Daybreak poll has Trump back in the lead again. And before people poo poo on this as "bad methodology" you're wrong. The methodology is perfectly fine, the kinds of conclusion from this method is different than others. It is a stronger measure of change but a poorer measure of true* result. *Assuming the pollster has a perfect voter turnout model. This in a world where it is anyone's guess what the final turnout rate will be, so it is still valuable to understand the changes in the electorate to plug into your personal turnout model.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:16
|
|