I don't invite people over anymore because their fussiness scales negatively - where if you want to mix 5 people who each have a rule about what they cannot abide, the common denominator is rarely special enough to leave the house for. Between the discretionary lifestyle demands of vegetarians, vegans, non-glutens, non-porks, non-drinkers, anti-smokers, non-problematics, non-outdoorsies, hover-parents, maskers, and the increasingly insane milenial need to make all their experiences on-brand and instagrammable, the closed path through those obstacles is a Hard problem.
It recently occurred to me how important my fraternal org is in my life after taking some time away from it. Showing up to see 30 or so guys who aren't family, and who were happy enough to see me, say hello, have a pint, dinner and small talk is maybe a once a year experience for most guys over 40, but for me it's about 10x/year, just with that group. There's a natural filter, where you don't have to re-negotiate all these anxieties every time you try to get people together.
One reason parties disappeared is because we have encouraged widespread neuroticism and anxiety about maintaining purity in different and various forms, and that intolerance has effectively eroded the social fabric. Surely we can hav e new kinds parties, ones that are lame, and that nobody enjoys, but we can have the satisfaction that at least those other people aren't here...
As someone who has health problems that forcibly put me in at least a few of those "discretionary lifestyle demands," it's a little condescending for you to just dismiss it later as "neuroticism and anxiety about maintaining purity." The worst is probably COVID-related -- immunocompromised people have been complaining for these past couple of years about how the world just stopped taking COVID seriously and they still have a point. Society is still effectively shut down for them and very few people seem to care.
A generation of immunocompromised guys with AIDS built the entire electronic music and rave scene in the 80s and 90s, the fashion business, and most of the culture you consume today. It's not condescending if your issues are in fact discretionary.
I travel with someone who will die within an hour of exposure to peanuts, regularly spend time with people in their 80's and 90s who have been on deaths door for years, ride motorcycles with guys in their 70s and if they have a random spill, they're guaranteed dead. I see women in their 70's thrown from the backs of horses, often twice in the same ride. I drink with guys between chemo appointments, smoke cigars with guys who have colostomy bags, and saw a friend perform a spectacular monologue when he knew it was the last time in his life that he would give it.
These vulnerabilities are not lifestyle choices, and yet they manage. The difference between "I will actually die," and "I could die" is a matter of perception, and the world doesn't stop for any of us. Actual lifestyle choices which are a selective constraint as a substitute for achievement are uniquely prevalent today, and I think, socially suffocating.
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. Every example you gave is someone "managing" at their own expense. When an immunocompromised person gets sick from a rave, no one else suffers directly from that. Of course you can "manage" that way up until the moment you die. You can't get upset when society changes and some of those people decide the expense of "managing" isn't worth it any more.
I mean, come on. Just think about this. We've heard so much of this over the last few years like "some people died from the flu before, so you should accept you likely may die from COVID." Would you really say that to the face of an immunocompromised person?
Cheers for challenging it and making me think about it. The example I would use is a vegetarian bailing in an invite to a barbecue because the main meal wasn't to their choice. The point is the gathering and someone doing something special, and instead of being an ingrate about the invitation, one should go and eat before, or have the salad. As a lifestyle choice, it's anti-social purity.
My general point is that preferences aren't identities, and when they are accepted as such, they erode the social fabric and prevent the growth and social opportunity that benefits everyone. It adds a punitive downside to giving parties when suddenly we have to worry about a guest having a crisis because their idea of self gets offended.
To the immunocompromised people I know, if you can't make it out because you are sick, fine, happens to the best of us, catch up another time. If you can't make it because your condition has become an identity that is irreconcilable with other identities, that must be very hard, but it's your responsibility to be interesting and enjoyable to be around, even if there are unique barriers to that, and especially if you want accomodation.
If your diet were vegan because you are immunocompromised, or even religious, own it and take responsibility for your needs instead of making them a condition on your company, and then be worthwhile. Of course we manage things at our own expense, it's what ownership means. You can't blame your disease for your being lame or use your identity as social leverage and expect anyone to find that appealing and interesting for very long.
My point is, the world owes us nothing and thinking it does is part of what has made giving parties less appealing. The (mostly) men who ran massive party scenes during the AIDS epidemic did so in spite of a more terminal and persistent illness than anything we are dealing with today, and so there have been better parties in worse conditions than the medical one your comment refers to, and it was because their general attitude was better than the one I think has been promoted over the last decade.
I think you and the poster above are talking past each other. He doesn't seem upset, and as someone who agrees with him I can say I'm not either.
Having said that, of course I can get upset when society changes! It would be very silly to think otherwise. I bet we would be very hard pressed to find a single human being who doesn't get upset when society changes (in ways they don't like). My being upset doesn't obligate anyone to do anything about it of course, but I'm free to observe changes I see happening and offer my opinion on them. The reason I'm not upset is that I have plenty of people in my life who are not difficult to get together and spend time with, and it sounds like the poster above you does too.
The question in the OP was about what happened to parties, and are there any trends causing them to be happening less. "Motohagiography" identified a trend that he believes is responsible. As best I can tell, you aren't even arguing that he's wrong. You're arguing that the trend he identified is a net good. That's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but I think his point is both clear and correct.
>A generation of immunocompromised guys with AIDS built the entire electronic music and rave scene in the 80s and 90s, the fashion business, and most of the culture you consume today.
Before good treatment was widely available something like pneumonia could kill you if you had AIDS which was tearing through the gay communities in major cities at the time. These men basically built rave culture, ran most of the fashion houses, ran magazines(think GQ), and built a lot of popular culture in the 80s/90s. There was a culture of celebrating life in the face of gruesome and painful death. Magazines an zines from the community of the period often listed dead editors in memoriam while sardonically listing current editors as the future deceased.
These guys were smart, delightful company, and a lot of fun. Some were my friends. Some remain in my pantheon of artists. I still sorely miss Keith Haring. They also flagrantly violated guidelines that would have kept them alive, like keeping it in your pants or at least not fucking every guy in the bathhouse bareback. This was the rule, not the exception. I watched this happen in terror when it was called GRIDS, then when it was called AIDS. These guys, I am sorry to say, almost always brought on their own gruesome and painful deaths.
That's really interesting. My only connection is hearing second hand about the city in the 80s from my in-laws and listening to Andrew Sullivan talk about the magazine scene.
I don't invite people over anymore because their fussiness scales negatively - where if you want to mix 5 people who each have a rule about what they cannot abide, the common denominator is rarely special enough to leave the house for. Between the discretionary lifestyle demands of vegetarians, vegans, non-glutens, non-porks, non-drinkers, anti-smokers, non-problematics, non-outdoorsies, hover-parents, maskers, and the increasingly insane milenial need to make all their experiences on-brand and instagrammable, the closed path through those obstacles is a Hard problem.
(Your former comment)
I travel with someone who will die within an hour of exposure to peanuts...
A person who is vegetarian or vegan or pork-free or gluten-free or alcohol-free is as easy - or easier - to accommodate as someone with a peanut allergy. Don't you think?
Didn't read like he said it was disgusting. Sounded like it was just too difficult to deal with in a party. I just feel like they're in the way, not disgusting.
> One reason parties disappeared is because we have encouraged widespread neuroticism and anxiety about maintaining purity in different and various forms, and that intolerance has effectively eroded the social fabric.
Sounds like they're pretty disgusted by those type of people. Especially characterizing that type of behavior as "neuroticism and anxiety" instead of, ya know, trying not to die.
Maybe don't try to make what OP said worse than it was. It's fine if you don't agree, but don't extrapolate their argument into something they didn't say and then dislike them based on that.
Honestly, I mostly agree with OP, though I think I have chosen to mostly accomoate to the extent possible, just because I still want to throw parties. I mix a shirly temples and buy non-alcoholic rum and beer, get some vegan food if I'm serving food, etc. But it is, indeed, a pain, if maybe not a major one. I think the real issue here is just that people are glued to their screens and their pills. A lot of people don't want to party because they're already on a cocktail of pills (you know the ones) and that isn't compatible with a couple drinks for them.Mainly, though, people are atticted to games, doomscrolling, and TV, kind of in that order, and would prefer to sit getting quietly depressed rather than go out and spend time talking with people.
It sounds like you're ignoring one of the commenting guidelines, which is "assume good faith." You're reading things into the comment that aren't there, and replying to that rather than what was actually said.
This attitude has become so much more prevalent as well — hot take culture, focused on “dunking” and thereby looking better/smarter/whatever than the “competition”. Totally exhausting and another reason, perhaps, gathering with semi-strangers is less fun.
> Society is still effectively shut down for them and very few people seem to care.
1) I feel bad for you if you're genuinely sick and at risk, but I'm sure you know that there's a perception out there that many people are trying to milk Covid concerns merely to continue working from home or reaping other benefits that they value: and meantime they go out to restaurants and live life more or less normally. We all saw many of our political leaders who were fear-mongering Covid the worst do that.
2) You have to feel bad for anybody who is scared and feeling isolated, but what else do you want humanity to do? Short of just incinerating the planet, there's no method known to science to eliminate Covid in the wild. We shut down a lot of human activity for years (at massive expense, that we're going to be paying for many years) and even sacrificed part of our children's future to help the most vulnerable. Other than putting humanity in a total economic death spiral (that will be many times worse than Covid) I'm not sure what else can be done to give immunocompromised people a better situation.
3) I don't know how I'd live if I was genuinely immunocompromised, but the really sick people I know such as cancer patients going through chemo who are in/out of hospitals constantly are genuinely trying to go out and live their lives as normally as they can and trying not to be a slave to their illness.
4) Has anything qualitatively changed for immunocompromised people with Covid? Pre-Covid, there was influenza and other diseases that posed some measure of risk to people. Covid seems worse than them and can kill of course, but obviously isn't anywhere near something like Ebola in terms of risk. You're facing maybe a tiny bit more life risk than you would have in say 2018.
>many people are trying to milk Covid concerns merely to continue working from home or reaping other benefits that they value
How is this "milking" anything? The last few years have proved that lots of white collar jobs don't need to be done from an office building.
>Other than putting humanity in a total economic death spiral (that will be many times worse than Covid) I'm not sure what else can be done to give immunocompromised people a better situation.
This is a false dichotomy. The science is clear on this one. Continue wearing masks in public places, physical distancing, practicing basic hygiene, and continue requiring vaccinations. Yes, all of those things are proven to reduce transmission of COVID as well as other airborne viruses like the flu. Society doesn't need to shut down or enter a "death spiral" to do any of them. Leaders just caved to political pressure and stopped enforcing them.
>are genuinely trying to go out and live their lives as normally as they can and trying not to be a slave to their illness.
Yes, and they probably still have to wear masks and avoid certain places that are likely to carry an increased risk of infection. "Not being a slave to the illness" doesn't mean you go out and take stupid risks.
>Has anything qualitatively changed for immunocompromised people with Covid?
Yes, COVID is significantly more contagious than influenza, and causes more severe illness than influenza.
> How is this "milking" anything? The last few years have proved that lots of white collar jobs don't need to be done from an office building.
I strongly agree with you that a lot of white collar jobs don't necessarily need to be done from an office building. I'm referring to people who playact at being terrified of Covid as a justification for working from home while in their personal lives they go out and live life normally. The fear that some people exhibit is an act for personal gain: based on their actions they don't believe it.
> This is a false dichotomy. The science is clear on this one. Continue wearing masks in public places, physical distancing, practicing basic hygiene, and continue requiring vaccinations. Yes, all of those things are proven to reduce transmission of COVID as well as other airborne viruses like the flu. Society doesn't need to shut down or enter a "death spiral" to do any of them. Leaders just caved to political pressure and stopped enforcing them.
I've written responses to this kind of argument on HN many times. In a nutshell my position is the following:
1) I honestly don't think too many people are having major science disagreements: they're having risk-management disagreements. Your risk-tolerance and values are different than others, and you're disagreeing about what's worth doing, you're not actually disagreeing all that much about data. Pretend it's 60 degrees F out: a Canadian might say that it's a scorcher and an Australian might say it's freezing. Same exact science (60 degrees to both), just a different way of looking at things. Neither is scientifically wrong.
2) For what it's worth, suggesting a human action is never the outcome of any science experiment. The science is NOT clear on wearing masks or doing any of those other things because that is not the domain of science. All science can do is provide objective data (to the limits of human ability to measure) and humans decide what to do in light of that data outside of the domain of science.
> Yes, and they probably still have to wear masks and avoid certain places that are likely to carry an increased risk of infection. "Not being a slave to the illness" doesn't mean you go out and take stupid risks.
I honestly don't know the statistics on how immunocompromised people actually live, but anecdotally I've seen that it depends on the person. I knew somebody that died of his illness that wanted to live his life completely normally for as long as he possibly could and was willing to risk being knocked out by Covid.
> Yes, COVID is significantly more contagious than influenza, and causes more severe illness than influenza.
The phrase I used was "qualitatively" changed.
As far as your use of the word "significantly", what does that word actually mean here? I'm curious what the actual stats are. How many immunocompromised people were around in say 2018? What percentage of them died due to a random respiratory illness then? Compare that to Covid time-period as best as possible. How much does that death rate actually change? Does it go from 5% risk of random death to 6%? or from 7% to 88%? I am not sure, but I suspect that the actual difference wouldn't be jaw-dropping to anybody here, but I'd like to learn those stats from you so I can appreciate your situation better.
No offense, but you are the extreme minority. Given the average social circle, there might not even be a single person that fits that mold. What's stopping everyone else from getting together? It's not because they're worried about bringing covid home to to their wife because her sister in-law is compromised.
My point is in response to you saying that you find OP's sentiment condescending when it's clearly not even targeted at the few people that have these real issues.
I feel you on this one. On one hand, I'm happy that bio, everything-free, non-something etc became more mainstream, because we have a much larger selection and supply of such goods available. On the other hand, some people are ruining the reputation of those who have legitimate needs and restrictions.
This idea is something if felt but have been unable to articulate.
For example, one of my very close friends is an ultra progressive guy. He’s vegan and talks a lot about personal responsibility to combat climate change. He was condemning people partying at my house for using disposable vapes since the packaging and plastic is wasteful…never mind the 6 pack of beer bottles he brought!
Another close friend is borderline carnivore, and likes to joke about controversial topics.
Having both of those guys around inevitably leads to arguments (mostly friendly) but that shit makes the other guests uncomfortable!
People need to stop caring so much about how others live and speak. Your personal philosophy isn’t special and shouldn’t prevent you from socializing with others!
At least in the US, extreme political polarization has also made it so ~40% of people won't even hang out or party with another ~40% of people, and vice versa. I've got friends on both sides, and I'd never be able to host a successful party that included them all. People can't leave that shit at home anymore.
I don’t understand why should people “leave that shit at home”? I’m not defending the parent example of a friend being progressive and criticizing others while engaging in similar wasteful behavior, but if you really believe in something, doesn’t it hurt to see the opposite? I suppose most people’s views in the US are superficial and team based in which case then I agree.
I think it's the whole etiquette of "Don't discuss religion or politics in polite company." If you really passionately believe in some political figure or religious thing, that's great. Other people don't, and I'm hosting a party for everyone to have fun, not just for believers. So, for the sake of getting along, leave it behind. Surely even passionate people can avoid talking about these topics for the mere 2 or so hours they spend trying to have fun!
I nearly had to throw someone out of a pool party being hosted for a bunch of 10 year old kids. The kids were all having a blast, but Mister Politics just couldn't stop talking about and inserting his political views. In this particular case I was in agreement with him, but it doesn't matter. This shit doesn't belong at an event that's supposed to be fun.
I agree with you in spirit but I’ve found as I’ve gotten older, I actually have more fun doing things with people whose life views I agree with. It’s hard to bury feelings if someone else is against immigrants (my parents are one), are against techies (that’s me!), anti-abortion, and many other current things I care about.
I’m not the type to raise a stink but I usually won’t have as much fun there either. I guess it’s more that my desire to avoid unpleasantries and making a ruckus than leaving my feelings at home.
Nothing wrong with us, we rock :). I guess I’ve heard comments about our wealth inequality, gentrification, and mobility that not all careers have but there’s no easy solve.
This is the point. Leave that shit at home so the "other" folks don't have to see your shit. And if they agree to this social construct then you will not have to see their shit either.
Right, but I guess the presumption is you’re the arbiter of what shit is worth leaving at home versus not. I assume if a known pedophile came to a party, others might say something and you’d be okay with that.
Not trying to raise a big point but I just don’t think it’s easy for everyone else to leave things they care about at home as some others. The more passionate, the harder it is.
I would agree to "leave that shit at home" insofar as it means "leave that shit at home until it is mature enough to be taken out in public".
If you can discuss your opinions without giving or taking offense, then fine. I certainly haven't reached that level of maturity, so it is an ideal for me.
> ... but if you really believe in something...
Let's be clear whether this means you feel a need to persuade the person you're sharing your opinion with. If so, have you given serious thought about how to persuade? What is more important here to you: sharing your opinion or bringing others to adopt it?
The gold and vitamins is because anything to the right of NPR has trouble getting advertisers. There's a podcast I listen to called The China Show that is dedicated to news about things going on in China that's critical of China. They have tons of listeners but have to have the absolute most awful advertisers like online gambling sites because nobody wants to risk being their sponsor and pissing off the Chinese government.
With regards to the Chesterton fence, I don't discuss vax politics with anyone at this point unless they signal that they have a deep understanding. That goes for most conspiracy stuff too. That's because even if they are totally open and desiring to hear to my position, the information is so segregated based on what media one pays attention to, I'll end up giving a big 30 minute stump speech explaining all the stuff they never heard of because they don't listen to alt. media and it's just annoying and a one-sided conversation that I'd rather not have. Better that they go listen to a podcast or something if they're interested than waste time on that sort of one-sided conversation.
> never mind the 6 pack of beer bottles he brought!
Glass is infinitely recyclable, whereas "disposable vapes" could be referring to just the cartridge (hopefully) but also could mean the full-fledged single-use vapes with a lithium battery inside. If its the latter, they really should switch to the former. If its the former then I think your friend was being a bit excessive griping about that but a 6 pack of infinitely recyclable glass is hardly a comparison to the perma-trash generated by plastic vape carts.
edit: just want to add, those lithium batteries aren't "disposable" because of any innate attribute of the battery, they're only "disposable" because they are sold that way. The batteries could have been reused if the company manufacturing the vape just designed it as such: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsJMj7FtroY
Most recycling winds up in a landfill. It’s expensive and costs energy. Sometimes we just pay china to put waste into a landfill and call it recycling.
There’s also the bottle caps, the packaging, and carbon cost of shipping a MUCH heavier product. There’s gotta be carbon output for growing barley and producing the actual beer too!
All so my environmentalist buddy can get drunk.
He shouldn’t feel guilty. The point is he’s doing the same thing as the vapers: emitting waste for a fleeting psychoactive effect.
The problem of climate change is so far above everyone’s pay grade. People shouldn’t be chastising others for their carbon footprint. It’s silly and impacts nothing.
I love my homie but Christ he’s gotta stop playing climate change moral arbiter
> Most recycling winds up in a landfill. It’s expensive and costs energy. Sometimes we just pay china to put waste into a landfill and call it recycling.
Source for this being applicable to glass? The news sources I've seen say that it's mostly an issue with plastics.
Also, glass isn't terribly polluting. It's inert and it will eventually degrade into sand. It'll take a long time but it's not like microplastics that stay in the body.
And we've been recycling glass before recycling was a big thing of course.
Politics is the art of meddling the state’s stewardship into people’s everyday life. Otherwise, it’s just heads of state talking together and no-one dares or feel empowered about managing the directions. But if you decide everyone should paint their bikeshed yellow? if you make everyone yell at each other for a mask? if you make one group believe their future depends on their siblings not consuming resources? This is politics.
I'm not sure controversial issues and neuroticism breaking up parties is new whatsoever. I have read too many things that sound exactly like what you've written from the 70s, 50s, 30s, 20s, 10s, 1880s, ..... Even in the 1500s aristocrats in France complained about throwing fewer "parties" because of the spicy topic of Catholic vs Protestant.
Generally, if parties are decreasing, I would argue it is more because there is so much new and very good entertainment that is just way lower effort. I don't know we need politics or ideology to explain it, these things aren't new.
And just to add to this, I actually think the political polarization of today is just not substantial compared to many other eras. Every generation since the early modern period thinks it’s politics are the most controversial. But the 1880-1950ish era sticks out to me as special. That was the era of real progressivism, communism, socialism, fascism, teetotalers, religious revival, super-powered unions, monopolistic capitalism, wars of political ideology, passivism, hardcore nationalism, etc. It had just so much more ideology dividing people than our world today. The generations that really lived it are dead and many people have forgotten now, but it just takes a bit of reading from that era to see how vehemently politically divided people were.
People had a rule back then that you didn't talk about sex, politics, or religion. Now sex and politics in terms of gender identity, sexual orientation and all the other flavors of identity politics are front and center in a lot of people's minds on a day to day basis.
I believe this is some kind of false cultural memory. Just because the topics are new doesn’t mean the underlying divide and ideological debate are different or less vehement.
Today its “what is gender”, yesteryear it was “should women vote”. Today its the LGBTQ agenda, yesteryear it was prostitution, porn, infidelity, marriage debates. Today it is political religions, yesteryear it was “Does God allow re-marriage?” “Do Catholics go to hell?”. Today we align along ideologies on twitter, yesteryear we aligned by joining the Elks or the Masons or the unions.
Also do you really think the table stakes for modern debates are anything close to what was going on at the turn of the century? Gender identity really compares to “should women vote”? Discussions around race today have the same stakes as “Are white people the biologically superior race?” Political discussions today compare to real considerations of Communism (NOT “them liberals is communists”, but real deal communism was on the table)
The only really new, big stakes discussion I see on the table today is climate change. Everything else has been more or less hashed out by generations now dead.
Even though I agree I'd ask, what it was we didn't learn from these examples that we are doing it yet again? We know how those all ended, and I think being able to throw good parties may be the way we keep it from going the same way.
A friend recently introduced me to this quote, and even though it generalises a little[1], I think it ring true:
> Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.
I think we're entering that last cycle again, where people are inventing trivial hardships for themselves, because media teaches them that only a life with some type of adversity is worth living.
In other words, everyone is desperate to be a protagonist in what is an extremely comfortable world, so they invent villains. Then they post about their great protagonism on social media. In part, I think, this is due to the neurosis created by the fakeness of social media.
Also, since all achievements on social media are pixel-thin, it is also turning people into equally shallow reprobates.
The recent trend of unironically calling people "NPCs" and "bots" just reinforces these beliefs, IMO.
[1]: I also find it a bit funny we have to put these types of disclaimers everywhere, since everyone goes out of their way to be offended over trivialities
That quote always bothered me because I don't think it's accurate on either a personal or societal level. It's not a good model for viewing the world. It's one of those things that rings true but when you actually think about it it's hard to find it actually mapping to reality or having any predictive power
What?? I actually think it maps pretty well to the reality. I have seen it at a personal level in my social circle and at a broad level of civilizations.
I was going to post the same complaint as the parent comment; for example:
"Hard times create strong men" - maybe, but starvation doesn't make you strong. Being dead from disease doesn't make you strong. Rising to adversity might make some people stronger, but it will harm others who survive but are damaged. It could be that the already-strong people rise to adversity and the weak get crushed by it, Darwinianly? Or that the weak endure through hard times as much as anyone because hard times are generally about health food or money and even 'weak' beggers can get enough of those to survive. Today's homeless are generally enduring lack of food, poor health, low money, and nobody considers them being made 'strong' by it, they're harmed by it.
"strong men create good times" - warriors are strong, barbarian raiders were strong, unpleasant bosses who abuse their workforce and reign by terror are strong, those are horrible times. Is there a connection between strong people and good times? What about average people who are neither weak nor strong, working in concert? What about people who are generally considered weak, but are thinking long term planting the trees that will shade tomorrow, community building, etc?
"good times create weak men" - do they? Do they necessarily? Why is this framing "good" as "bad"? Wouldn't going to the gym regularly and getting stronger be "good times" for someone? Wouldn't working the family farm hard, being physically strong and providing for your family, be good times and not making you weak? Is it luxury which makes people weak - previous point, do strong people create luxury specifically?
"weak men create hard times" - do they? Plenty of strong people (dictators, for example) have created hard times for millions. Plenty of weak people have had no impact on the times at all. Isn't the history of progress littered with people who were "a weak and sickly child" who spent their lives hiding indoors, thinking about math, died young, and changed the world - were they making hard times?
It's connected to the 'one generation makes family wealth by working hard, next generation preserves it but can't build it, next generation spends it'. In that, the hard times are where you have no money and have to work. The good times are where you have money and no work. The next hard times are where you lose the money and have to work again. But then, getting back into work and earning money is a homeless unemployed person's good times, life on the up.
At the 'level of civilizations' it's far too vague to say the fall of Rome was caused by "weak men" or that the rise of Rome was caused by "hard times".
And then you look again at the GP, and see that the only reasonable interpretation of "strong" that phrase can have has no relation at all with competence.
Or worse, because bad times create broken people. And while broken people can stand adversity, they are much less able to create something non-broken.
Bad doesn't have to mean PTSD-inducing "walking dead" scenarios…
Also, whether hardships makes or breaks you depends largely on your outlook and coping skills (this comes from someone who's had CPTSD and had to stop suicidal idealisation and learn coping skills in my late 20s).
All skills diminish, if unused. Having too easy times means there's less need to "cope"
It's very likely most millennials have poor coping skills due to the predominantly emotionally neglectful parenting styles the previous generation
> Bad doesn't have to mean PTSD-inducing "walking dead" scenarios…
I think that in apocalyptically bad times good people (the "weak") get taken advantage of by ruthless assholes (the "strong") who do better when they act like selfish monsters, but those kinds of people just prolong the bad times. The "strong" just fight amongst themselves while oppressing everyone else. "Might makes right" doesn't result in favorable outcomes, just tyranny. Bad times can tempt or force people into becoming monsters, but you can't have good times with monsters running things.
Good times allow (and insist) that folks behave like a civilized people who look out for each other and that not only helps promote future good times and advancement but also creates an environment where genuinely vulnerable people who couldn't survive the bad times can thrive and contribute. When people are fighting for survival they don't have time to invent new cool things and learn about how the universe works.
I guess after a while the good times allow some of us to get annoyed by all the good people who keep telling everyone we have to be nice to others and there's time to look around at all the vulnerable people who couldn't survive without our support and wonder if we'd just be better off without them, but I can't imagine that working out better in the long term.
Perhaps things play out somewhat the same in less than apocalyptically bad times too.
Thank you, this is what I was wanting to comment but was too lazy to type it out. This is what I meant, not that it's strictly false but just that it requires so many clarifications/exceptions/etc. it's not a useful model anymore
Right, I've never heard somebody quote it and declare that we're currently in the hard times. Its only purpose is to let other people know that you consider them unwise and soon they'll be sorry.
For anyone who doesn't know the context: This quote is literal fascist rhetoric to promote machismo and contempt for the weak.
It might resonate the first time you hear it (most good propaganda does), but if you contemplate it for more than 10 seconds and you'll realize it's obviously untrue.
You're interacting on an open forum with people from all over the world, who couldn't care less what ideas are considered permitted or not permitted according to your local party line.
Why does it have to be interpreted as fascist rhetoric? What propaganda does it embed? Why does everything have to revolve around hatred?
Also, you don't have to be macho or physically strong to be strong. That just seems like your own bias leaking into the discussion.
That it might promote contempt for weakness might be true, though, and it didn't cross my mind. I don't like that it does that. At the same time I don't think weakness should be glorified either. Ideally, weak people should be helped to develop their own strong self.
Thank you for posting that! I've not read it yet. It seems like an interesting read (I love esoteric trivia like this!). I started it but realised it's much longer than I am prepared for this late at night. So, I'll try to read it over the coming days.
I don't know if it improves later, but they seem to only consider physical prowess as a form of strength. I generally interpreted this as strength of mind.
Also, I've taken the phrase less literally than they did. Man to me implied "human" (ie the same as man kind) because these quotes are usually designed to be succinct and memorable. They seem to think it's exclusive to human males.
But I've not read it in full yet, so we'll see when I finish it
I think we're entering that last cycle again, where people are inventing trivial hardships for themselves, because media teaches them that only a life with some type of adversity is worth living.
I don't think that's even remotely what the quote means. You seem to be taking it as "weak men make up hardships" as opposed to "weakness leads to a broken down system and future suffering for society".
For example, one might say that weakness in facing climate change will lead to hardship in the future. Another example would be that weakness in facing fascism allows it to rise and wreak havoc on society. Coincidentally, that quote is super popular among fascist-leaning types.
I meant both of those things. Have you looked at society recently? The former is currently acting as a catalyst for the latter.
And speaking of fascism and intolerance for others in general: it's unfortunately getting worse. I largely blame social media and the busybodies that waste away on them... Says I, as I moonlight as a keyboard warrior on a forum; the irony doesn't escape me
Right, I've maybe misspoken then. Sorry about that. I think I meant traits that I commonly associated with fascism (bigotry, opression, discrimination, etc).
In any case, I don't know what to call it, but the resemblance to witch trials, heresy (and maybe fascism? I'm unsure now) is just uncanny.
Not sure any large human society has been free of the ills of bigotry, oppression and discrimination, tho, century by century, we keep shifting things for the slightly better.
If we are at the "Weak men create hard times", then we are soon at the "hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men". Atleast we have that to look forward to. Seems we bring it on ourselves
I think calling people bots in FPS games was always a thing. It's when people have poor pathing, or make seemingly nonsensical decisions. I meant more in real life
I must be incredibly lucky because I am a millennial and this is not my experience with my social circles. We have a game night almost every week (5+ people), and usually a few parties a year (15+ people) with no drama or fuss. Is this not normal? Is it different depending on the area you grow up in?
It is normal. I still have the same group of (college years) friends since the early 2000s, and the same group of co-workers from 2016-2019.
The only reason we don't meet weekly anymore is because I moved to another country, for career growth.
I'm betting my reality is also very common for people who grew on small towns and had to move, or for people who live in large countries where you often move around for jobs (like the USA).
I'm flying to Paris to meet one of those friends this weekend, though. But I doubt a lot of people have the money to do this on a whim like we (tech workers) do.
> I'm betting my reality is very common for people who grew on small towns and had to move, or for people who live in large countries where you often move around for jobs (like the USA).
Yes, 100%. I met with my (high school) friends weekly when I lived at home. And I met with my brother's friends, who were entirely on the opposite end of the political spectrum from me. We partied together, swam together, went out together, no issues. We'd sometimes get drunk political discussions, but usually we just didn't go there because it really never came up or mattered. And, if it did, we'd usually do it jokingly and never really fight about it.
Now I'm half a world away and any time any of them are anywhere near where I'm at on traveling, I go visit. I've planned to fly to Scotland to visit some of them before Christmas but it fell through on their end. They're planning a Euro trip this autumn; I'll meet them wherever they're at.
Not a tech worker, but i'm lucky in that I can afford it thanks to cheap European flights.
> we have encouraged widespread neuroticism and anxiety...
Are they neurotic or are you projecting?
I have friends from many of those lifestyles, while myself, I am a "non-pork". But have never worried about what my friends with different lifestyles want at my party. We invite them all and most show up. Vegans may bring their own food. Halal eaters can stick with vegetarian options, if any.
And I never been offended by pork options at my friends' parties. Almost always there are side dishes.
Our parties are very diverse and our friends are very tolerant and curious about different people. We had friends who would get offended by alcohol or non-halal meat but they ended friendship.
You don't need to go crazy for other people's lifestyle. Good friends will stick around, intolerant will leave.
I think you've rediscovered why the potluck was invented. Maintaining the purity of your bodily fluids by only drinking rain water mixed with pure grain alcohol?
Great, bring some over and talk to the paleo-pesco-vegan about how well it pairs with phish and wild-caught twigs and berries.
> - I'm just getting old (closing in on 50) and people my age don't party anymore
I remember my parents' generation and their friends circle. My parents' friends circle was not only a friends circle, but it was a group of people who studied in the university altogether, in the same disciplines, and got appointed to the same city and actually same organizations after graduation. So not only they were just friends, but they were also work friends, colleagues, a lot of things.
I remember them regularly meeting in each other's houses and having fun, going to places together, taking vacations together and doing many other things up until ~40 years of age. Then such things suddenly became much more infrequent, then altogether stopping by their mid 40s.
For me, I find parties at the niche conventions I go to the most fun. At these conventions are tons of like minded people who are into the same weird stuff and it's easy to do get togethers after days at speakers and exhibits and have great conversations. The problem with the modern world is people who live next to each other aren't really forced to be in the same culture. Especially in big cities, everyone plugs in and lives in their strange niche no one else cares about or worse polarized echo chambers.
I think that's a pretty good observation. The real trouble is finding a common interest when cultural boundaries are incredibly fluid. And there's plenty of competition for your attention span (including the attention span required for the prep/commitment involved with parties).
I've considered going to DEFCON or that one quirky convention at CMU to network in my niche.
> Between the discretionary lifestyle demands of vegetarians, vegans, non-glutens, non-porks, non-drinkers, anti-smokers, non-problematics, non-outdoorsies, hover-parents, maskers, and the increasingly insane milenial need to make all their experiences on-brand and instagrammabl
Interesting, this has not been my experience at all. I just throw parties, invite everyone, and whoever comes, comes, and whoever doesn't, doesn't. That's it, I don't even think about dietary concerns or other stuff like that. I'll keep some vegan or vegetarian stuff purely incidentally but if people have a strong concern, they bring their own food or simply don't come, same with any other type of concern too.
It recently occurred to me how important my fraternal org is in my life after taking some time away from it. Showing up to see 30 or so guys who aren't family, and who were happy enough to see me, say hello, have a pint, dinner and small talk is maybe a once a year experience for most guys over 40, but for me it's about 10x/year, just with that group. There's a natural filter, where you don't have to re-negotiate all these anxieties every time you try to get people together.
One reason parties disappeared is because we have encouraged widespread neuroticism and anxiety about maintaining purity in different and various forms, and that intolerance has effectively eroded the social fabric. Surely we can hav e new kinds parties, ones that are lame, and that nobody enjoys, but we can have the satisfaction that at least those other people aren't here...