The good old days

[Erik von Nein]

I keep hearing about how everyone now is not only more immoral, but also more lost, overworked and unhappy. Mostly it's hearsay from people who lived during those times, or from relatives. Mostly it's that, while things were harder (working, racism or health) people were happier. Citing that people work more hours, have longer commutes and are generally more disconnected from other people as well as vulgarities being more common, the divorce rate being higher and that depression is more common that, currently, times are worse.

Now, is there a lot too that or am I just crazy for thinking that certains things may be worse, but other things were also worse during those supposed good old days?

[Perinquus]

It is an historical commonplace for people to compare the all too apparent ills of the present day with an idealized past that never really was (because memory focuses on the good and glosses over the ills, especially when considering one's exuberant and optimistic younger days).

There are indeed things that appear worse today than they used to be (e.g. terrorism, gangs, religious fundamentalism [Islamic, and Christian] Jerry Springer-like vulgarity, etc.). But other problems are not quite as bad as a few generations ago (e.g. racism, communism, the Cold War, colonialism, et al.). The truth is, while some ages are, in some ways, worse than others, things tend to average out.

[Durandal]

People were just as big a bunch of assholes in the 1950's as they are today. How many people of the "greatest generation" turned a blind eye to the torrent of Jews fleeing out of Europe?

[Majin Gojira]

I learned about this idea back in high school. It's called "Return to Normallcy" and it pretty much is a fallacy. No matter what era you're in, there is always a group of people out there who think things were better in the past, even though they were clearly not.

I've gone so far as to call it the "Return to Normalcy Fallacy"

[Andrew J.]

"The good old days" exist because life gets worse on a personal level as time goes on, and people apply that to the world in general. You're never any happier than when you're a little kid and you don't have anything to do, then you have to school, which gets progressively harder until you graduate, and then you have to work at the same stupid job for 40 years and THAT can only seem worse as time goes on, and then you retire but you're too arthritic and senile to enjoy it.

The world wasn't better when old people were young, their lives were. And they don't have any other frame of reference that would convince them otherwise.

[dworkin]

The good old days when:

Having a different sexual preference to the majority was a criminal offence.
Having a different religion (or worse, none) to the majority was a criminal offence.
Being a different colour to the majority made you a second class citizen at best.
Bastardy was a stigma.
Being an unwed mother was grounds for being 'confined' and put to hard labor (no pun).
People didn't talk about abuse.
Divorce was only in clear cases of neglect (but see above).
The 'Rule of Thumb' (look it up) applied.
Being female automatically disqualified you from voting and public office.
Smallpox, influenza and polio were a danger.
A class structure ensured you did pretty much what your parents did.

So, screw the 'good ol days'.

As for more 'lost, overworked and unhappy'?
What The Fuck.
I have enjoyed an absurd amount of leisure time during my working life. I have had many varied ways to spend that leisure time. I have been able to return to university and study to become a teacher.
And just because I consider religion to be a bunch of stories does not make me 'lost' and 'without purpose'.
And unhappy? With more freedoms, oppotunities and fun? Sure, I have to be wiser and more tolerant to enjoy my life but I don't see that making me more unhappy.

[mr friendly guy]

I would get pissed off if Australia reverted to the "good old days", of the White Australia policy, no voting rights for Aborigines, backwards moral value in the guise of religion gaining prominence etc.

The good old days never existed. Its a myth perpetuated by reactionaries.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I found this quote:

"The young people of today love luxury. They have bad manners, they scoff at authority and lack respect for their elders. Children nowadays are really tyrants, they no longer stand up when their elders come into the room where they are sitting, they contradict their parents, chat together in the presence of adults, eat gluttonously and tyrannise their teachers. "

-Socrates, 470 BC

Nothing new under the sun.

[Frank Hipper]

Vulgarity? Medieval minstrels, Marquis de Sade, Civil War era Gay porno photography...

Gangs? The Condottieri, Dark Ages outlaws, bikers of the 50s...

Fundamentalism? The Inquisition, Oliver Cromwell, The Massachusets Bay Colony, Japanese crucifixion of Christian missionaries, the American Revivalist movement...

All these and a whole lot more at any period of history you care to examine; there were no "Good Old Days".

[Drunk Monkey]

The only good old days are the days I get to sleep till 2:00 in the afternoon and I get lucky that evening. Other words no such thing god damn it.

[HemlockGrey]

Jon Stewart said it best on today's Daily Show:

BERNIE GOLDBURG: And today we have things like Chevy Chase saying the f-word on TV...
JON STEWART: Yeah, but back then, Thomas Jefferson fucked slaves.

[bilateralrope]

I found this quote:

"The young people of today love luxury. They have bad manners, they scoff at authority and lack respect for their elders. Children nowadays are really tyrants, they no longer stand up when their elders come into the room where they are sitting, they contradict their parents, chat together in the presence of adults, eat gluttonously and tyrannise their teachers. "

-Socrates, 470 BC

Nothing new under the sun.

It is a fun thing to tell someone that quote, ask them when they think it was made, then see their reaction as you tell them the orrect answer

[Kuroneko]

The divorce rate example is actually rather interesting from a historical perspective, since it can be blamed directly on departure from traditional family values. However, not exactly the traditional family values that a member of the Christian Right would have in mind, but the relatively new idea of a companionate marriage: put simply, the belief that a spouse should make one happy. That seems almost implicit in modern culture, but that idea has only been slowly but very steadily taking hold over the last 150 years or so, starting in the Romantic age. Prior to this, marriages tended to be economic or political arrangements (often arranged). Therefore, increasing divorce rates over the twentieth century can be explained in that couples prior to this simply had much lower expectations of the level of satisfaction in their marriage, and hence had less reason to be disappointed. The further back one inspects history, the more the notion of "the good old days" becomes ludicrous.

"The young people of today love luxury. They have bad manners, they scoff at authority and lack respect for their elders. Children nowadays are really tyrants, they no longer stand up when their elders come into the room where they are sitting, they contradict their parents, chat together in the presence of adults, eat gluttonously and tyrannise their teachers. "
-Socrates, 470 BC

It is a fun thing to tell someone that quote, ask them when they think it was made, then see their reaction as you tell them the orrect answer

Ah, you're one of those people that propagates this nonsense. Socrates had absolutely nothing to do with this quotation. A saying like this on his part would certainly be suprising, particularly that Socrates himself was the chief suspect in making the youth that way, for which he was found guilty and executed (as well as for the charge of atheism). There is nothing like this in Xenophon, and althought Plato's Socrates is mentiones something along these lines (Republic 425a-b), he is much less forceful, calling it "apparently trifling" and ultimately dismissing the matter as not important enough to enact a law in his imaginary city (see also Laws 788b). The only thing St. II 425a-b shares with the above is the prescription of standing up in the presence of adults, but that is the only commonality. If you want to read ancient Greek condemnations of youth combined with a prominent "back in my day...," read Hesiod. The grouchy farmer would not fail to provide, and he wrote several centuries before Socrates was born.

[Darth Wong]

I keep hearing about how everyone now is not only more immoral, but also more lost, overworked and unhappy.

Immoral? In the 1950s, racism was so widespread that it was not actually considered a bad thing. It was considered part of the social fabric of the nation and upheld with laws. Child-beating was considered perfectly normal parenting conduct. How have we become more immoral?

Lost? What does that mean?

Overworked? Does this person have any statistics to show that this is true? People today mostly work extra hours just so they can have more stuff, not because they have no choice.

Unhappy? How is one supposed to establish this? Prescriptions for anti-depressant drugs? They didn't even exist back in the "Good Old Days". What evidence is provided for this assertion?

Mostly it's hearsay from people who lived during those times, or from relatives. Mostly it's that, while things were harder (working, racism or health) people were happier. Citing that people work more hours, have longer commutes and are generally more disconnected from other people as well as vulgarities being more common, the divorce rate being higher and that depression is more common that, currently, times are worse.

People work more hours so they can afford more luxuries, not because they have no choice. People have longer commutes because they want to live in a bigger house than what they would be able to afford in the city, not because they have no choice. And as for being "disconnected" from other people, I'd love to see evidence of this. Sounds like the same sort of romanticism that leads people to yearn from an old-fashioned agrarian lifestyle. I've seen how that small-town "connection" works; people only "connect" in that environment if everyone is the same. Deviate from the norms, and you are swiftly ostracized. It's a social prison.

As for vulgaries, who the fuck gives a shit? Vulgarities hurt no one.

On divorce rates, women are not considered "property" any more, and are much more encouraged to leave if things are going wrong. You can say that there are good and bad things about this, but ask people if they think women should be considered "property" again, and see what they say. The divorce rate in Saudi Arabia is pretty low; perhaps they would like to move there.

And finally, as for depression, that is a sign of more accurate clinical diagnosis (not to mention the sales efforts of drug companies selling anti-depressants). In the "good old days", people simply didn't take depression seriously, and did not consider it a medical condition. This doesn't mean it didn't exist back then. A better measure of depression is suicide rates, and while they have gone up in some regions, they have gone down in others. In Ontario where I live, suicide rates have gone down in recent decades.

Now, is there a lot too that or am I just crazy for thinking that certains things may be worse, but other things were also worse during those supposed good old days?

In my experience, people pining for the good old days generally do so because they want to restore certain specific values of that era, and they're generally willing to ignore the facts in order to promote that misconception.

[Erik von Nein]

Immoral? In the 1950s, racism was so widespread that it was not actually considered a bad thing. It was considered part of the social fabric of the nation and upheld with laws. Child-beating was considered perfectly normal parenting conduct. How have we become more immoral?

Lost? What does that mean?

Lost as in not knowing what to do with their lives. Some such like that.

Overworked? Does this person have any statistics to show that this is true? People today mostly work extra hours just so they can have more stuff, not because they have no choice.

Well, he does have stats gathered from various articles (mostly from Wall Street Journal ones) about how work hours are higher now than in previous years. It's his contention that people are more overworked now because they have more in government stuff they have to pay and that they were tricked by the news media in the '90s into thinking that it was a great economy and that debt was a good thing, thus why the rate at which people were going in debt rose.

Unhappy? How is one supposed to establish this? Prescriptions for anti-depressant drugs? They didn't even exist back in the "Good Old Days". What evidence is provided for this assertion?

Mostly andecdotal, some from personal memories of growing up in the '50s and '60s. Though, there may be some articles here and there he's picked up.

People work more hours so they can afford more luxuries, not because they have no choice. People have longer commutes because they want to live in a bigger house than what they would be able to afford in the city, not because they have no choice. And as for being "disconnected" from other people, I'd love to see evidence of this. Sounds like the same sort of romanticism that leads people to yearn from an old-fashioned agrarian lifestyle. I've seen how that small-town "connection" works; people only "connect" in that environment if everyone is the same. Deviate from the norms, and you are swiftly ostracized. It's a social prison.

Yeah, that's mostly what I thought.

As for vulgaries, who the fuck gives a shit? Vulgarities hurt no one.

The claim is that it's not really a cause rather than a symptom of a degrading society.

On divorce rates, women are not considered "property" any more, and are much more encouraged to leave if things are going wrong. You can say that there are good and bad things about this, but ask people if they think women should be considered "property" again, and see what they say. The divorce rate in Saudi Arabia is pretty low; perhaps they would like to move there.

Yeah, also what I thought.

And finally, as for depression, that is a sign of more accurate clinical diagnosis (not to mention the sales efforts of drug companies selling anti-depressants). In the "good old days", people simply didn't take depression seriously, and did not consider it a medical condition. This doesn't mean it didn't exist back then. A better measure of depression is suicide rates, and while they have gone up in some regions, they have gone down in others. In Ontario where I live, suicide rates have gone down in recent decades.

Hmm. That makes a lot more sense.

In my experience, people pining for the good old days generally do so because they want to restore certain specific values of that era, and they're generally willing to ignore the facts in order to promote that misconception.

Eh, it's not really the case with him, though. It's more about a super idealistic view of the past as an explaination for why things seem so hard for people now.

Yeah.

[Darth Wong]

Lost? What does that mean?

Lost as in not knowing what to do with their lives. Some such like that.

And everyone in the "good old days" knew exactly what they were going to do with themselves when they grew up? All of those greasers in street gangs in the 1950s had that luxury?

Well, he does have stats gathered from various articles (mostly from Wall Street Journal ones) about how work hours are higher now than in previous years. It's his contention that people are more overworked now because they have more in government stuff they have to pay and that they were tricked by the news media in the '90s into thinking that it was a great economy and that debt was a good thing, thus why the rate at which people were going in debt rose.

I recall what it was like when I was a kid. Most families had one car, not two or three. Most families very rarely ate out because it was too expensive, rather than eating out at least three times a week the way they do now. Most families used hand-me-down clothes heavily for siblings because they didn't want to buy new clothes, rather than buying designer clothing for their children (the very idea of designer clothing for kids would have been laughed at back then). In short, people worked fewer hours back then because they were content with less. Anyone today can make that same choice if he wants to.

As for vulgaries, who the fuck gives a shit? Vulgarities hurt no one.

The claim is that it's not really a cause rather than a symptom of a degrading society.

You still have to show that it's a bad thing, and I have yet to hear anyone explain why swear-words are bad. The best they can ever do is to produce synonyms of "bad", or use stupidly circular arguments such as "if you use swear words too much then people get used to them and will start using them more" or even worse, "vulgarities are a sign of a vulgar society", which is so circular it's almost comical. I have yet to see someone explain why "vulgar = bad".

In my experience, people pining for the good old days generally do so because they want to restore certain specific values of that era, and they're generally willing to ignore the facts in order to promote that misconception.

Eh, it's not really the case with him, though. It's more about a super idealistic view of the past as an explaination for why things seem so hard for people now.

Yeah.

If you grilled him, you'd probably find that he does think certain values of the past should be restored. He just hasn't named them for you yet, that's all.

[Erik von Nein]

And everyone in the "good old days" knew exactly what they were going to do with themselves when they grew up? All of those greasers in street gangs in the 1950s had that luxury?

Heh. No. I'm always reminded of those gang movies from the '50s showing life not too much differently (although, with more relaxed standards on swearing and violence) than modern ones.

I recall what it was like when I was a kid. Most families had one car, not two or three. Most families very rarely ate out because it was too expensive, rather than eating out at least three times a week the way they do now. Most families used hand-me-down clothes heavily for siblings because they didn't want to buy new clothes, rather than buying designer clothing for their children (the very idea of designer clothing for kids would have been laughed at back then). In short, people worked fewer hours back then because they were content with less. Anyone today can make that same choice if he wants to.

Yeah. So I thought. It's also (ironically enough) how we live. By that I mean within our means rather than going into debt, though we were heavily in debt at one point.

You still have to show that it's a bad thing, and I have yet to hear anyone explain why swear-words are bad. The best they can ever do is to produce synonyms of "bad", or use stupidly circular arguments such as "if you use swear words too much then people get used to them and will start using them more" or even worse, "vulgarities are a sign of a vulgar society", which is so circular it's almost comical. I have yet to see someone explain why "vulgar = bad".

Ah, damn! You already knew his arguments? Shoot.

If you grilled him, you'd probably find that he does think certain values of the past should be restored. He just hasn't named them for you yet, that's all.

Probably. I should find out. What I do know is his constant push for the "traditional family" to be restored. Which is weird, since his family was very messed up, what with an alcoholic, abusive mother, a weak father, a asshat of a brother and a freaked out shell of a sister, though, that was more recent.

I suppose pointing out that he's a Scientologist would not be besides the point? Yeah, part of his arguments revolve around how bad pyschiatry is and how the "brain theory of life" (his words) absolves people of personal responsiblity by allowing people to say "It's not my fault! I have a brain chemical imbalance!"

[Darth Wong]

"brain theory of life?" That's hilarious.

As for absolving people of guilt for brain chemical imbalances, that's no better or worse than absolving people of guilt because they were abused as children. There are countless things that affect your psychological makeup, but an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse. People must still be held responsible for their own actions because that is the purpose of a justice system.

[Erik von Nein]

"brain theory of life?" That's hilarious.

It becomes less halarious when you've heard it for the 500th time.

As for absolving people of guilt for brain chemical imbalances, that's no better or worse than absolving people of guilt because they were abused as children. There are countless things that affect your psychological makeup, but an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse. People must still be held responsible for their own actions because that is the purpose of a justice system.

Hmm. Something I'll have to remember.

The problem with getting into any kind of debate or argument is that he demands absolute proof of something, usually being an article or statistic. So, when it comes to something that doesn't involve those things it's nearly impossible to get anywhere with him. Were you to even start arguing his beliefs and pointing out the holes he'd either shout you down (yes, he has anger issues. SURPRISE!) or completely ignore you and make the same damned points again.

[Kuroneko]

As for absolving people of guilt for brain chemical imbalances, that's no better or worse than absolving people of guilt because they were abused as children. There are countless things that affect your psychological makeup, but an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse. People must still be held responsible for their own actions because that is the purpose of a justice system.

Arguably, they hold those actions as "not their own," but in the end that kind of view is incoherent. After all, even if the human mind is a complete slave to forces beyond its control that remove "choice" from the equation, then we can hardly be blamed for holding the guilty responsible regardless--as it would follow that we have no choice in that matter either. Lack of genuine choice, even if it was true, is a complete red herring as far as any possible defense goes. That is why I never could see determinism or lack of "free will" as some sort of problem for ethics that some claim it to be; it is utterly irrelevant.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with getting into any kind of debate or argument is that he demands absolute proof of something, usually being an article or statistic.

And yet he ignores that type of proof when it comes from neurologists, psychologists, or psychiatrists, all of whom have far more expertise on the matter than he does.

So, when it comes to something that doesn't involve those things it's nearly impossible to get anywhere with him. Were you to even start arguing his beliefs and pointing out the holes he'd either shout you down (yes, he has anger issues. SURPRISE!) or completely ignore you and make the same damned points again.

Standard fundie behaviour. No surprise. A fundie Scientologist is not going to be any more rational about his beliefs than a fundie Christian or a fundie Muslim.

[Erik von Nein]

And yet he ignores that type of proof when it comes from neurologists, psychologists, or psychiatrists, all of whom have far more expertise on the matter than he does.

Yeah, it's kind of sad. He'll accept the word of L. Ron Hubbard over them. Well, he des say that they're mostly good people who just want to help, but then say they're all misguided. That's got to count for something.

Standard fundie behaviour. No surprise. A fundie Scientologist is not going to be any more rational about his beliefs than a fundie Christian or a fundie Muslim.

Mmhmm. So I thought. The sad thing is he rails on the born again Christian fundie neighbor of ours saying how misguided and crazy he is because he follows the Bible so literally. He openly mocks it quite often, yet still says that religion/spirituality is something needed in the U.S.

[Keevan_Colton]

Allow me to answer in the medium of song:

The simple men live the simple life in big log cabins
They're best of friends with a simpleton and his horse named Dobbins
Their yards resound with the simple sound of blackbirds and robins
And their wives make simple samplers with thimbles and bobbins

We envy them, the simple men
The simple men, we envy them
We envy them, the simple men
We envy the simple men

We envy them, the simple men
The simple men, we envy them

They're terribly superstitious, fear the ghost and the gollum
They sit in a chair in the mountain air and breathe in the pollen
Their tweeds and plaids are homespun adorned with a sporran
They're always at war with the valley folk because they are foreign

We envy them, the simple men
The simple men, we envy them
We envy them, the simple men
We envy the simple men

We envy them, the simple men
The simple men, we envy them

Funny how it seems the more that we evolve
The more the basic problems of our lives get solved
The more we yearn for harder, simpler times back when
We envy them, the simple men

Their pigs have lice and their rats have mice and their dogs have rabies
They dig in the muck to make graves they mark with the names of their babies
They beat their wives, it serves them right, it's in Deuteronomy
And for their simple daughters they reserve clitorectomy

We envy them, the simple men
The simple men, we envy them
We envy them, the simple men
We envy the simple men

We envy them, the simple men
The simple men, we envy them

Funny how the symbols of humanity
Turn out to be the images of brutality
Projecting soul on the soulless again
We envy them, the simple men

[Imperial Overlord]

As for absolving people of guilt for brain chemical imbalances, that's no better or worse than absolving people of guilt because they were abused as children. There are countless things that affect your psychological makeup, but an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse. People must still be held responsible for their own actions because that is the purpose of a justice system.

What's your opinion on treatable chemical imbalances? If say an undiagnosed schizophrenic commits a violent crime and then recieves medical treatment and is not likely to commit any crimes at all.

[Darth Wong]

As for absolving people of guilt for brain chemical imbalances, that's no better or worse than absolving people of guilt because they were abused as children. There are countless things that affect your psychological makeup, but an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse. People must still be held responsible for their own actions because that is the purpose of a justice system.

What's your opinion on treatable chemical imbalances? If say an undiagnosed schizophrenic commits a violent crime and then recieves medical treatment and is not likely to commit any crimes at all.

That's wonderful but a justice system has to serve the twin purposes of deterrent and rehabilitation, not just rehabilitation. If you let somebody off scot free because he has a psychological problem, that sets a very unfortunate precedent. The insanity defense is far too common IMO.