Cutting off Conservative Friends:RANT

[heyzeus]

The lesson is, everything was better in the 50's.

Unless you were not white, or a woman, or not a specific kind of Christian, or gay,or a writer or artist, or poor, or had any health problems, or were accused of being a communist. Then, life was much, much worse.

But still, totally ideal time.

[sighyoung]

[heyzeus]

See? There you go Sigh. Look how much fun that young woman is having, with all those friendly people behind her cheering her on her way to school. I'm sure they're yelling "Gooooooooo young student! Get straight A's!" And the troops? Well, what event isn't more official if uniformed troops are there. Like when they unfurl the flag at the Super Bowl.

The 50s! If only we could go back to that wondrous time when you could give the counter clerk at Burger King eight pennies in order to be spared the nightmare of receiving 42 cents in change.

Oh, and the coloreds and jews and queers knew their place. HIYO!

[Bo Hart]

The lesson is, everything was better in the 50's.

Unless you were not white, or a woman, or not a specific kind of Christian, or gay,or a writer or artist, or poor, or had any health problems, or were accused of being a communist. Then, life was much, much worse.

But still, totally ideal time.

This weekend, I sat down and had a few beers with my good friend's father. He's in his 60's, very conservative, and loves to talk politics. I'm 26, very liberal, and also love to talk politics.

At some point in the conversation he was going on about how great things were in the good ol' days, and how morality and ethics have gone out the window in today's society.

I contested ths, citing the strides strides black people have made, and asked, "don't you think they're better off today than they were 50-70 years ago?" He said, "not necessarily. Did you know that 75% of people in the prison system are black?"

I then pointed out the progress women have made, with greater equality in the workplace and household. He replied, "maybe so, but women leaving the house and the rise of dual-income families has lead to the destruction of stable families as we know it." He went on to explain that being around the opposite sex in the workplace, away from one's spouse, introduces the temptation of an affair, divorce, etc.

Oh, and he also feels passionately about seatbelt laws. Thinks it is huge and unacceptable violation of his freedoms and rights. He actually made the argument that, because of seatbelts, more people live longer and cheat death... which leads to more people living long enough to require assisted living, which is a huge financial burden on our families and societies.

Anyway, he is a great guy, and actually said a lot of intelligent and through-provoking things. But, wow, he really had some gems; I guess it goes to show that, if you squint hard enough, you can convince yourself that the glass sitting on your table really is half-empty.

[Freed Roger]

I wasn't alive in 50s-early 60s, but one aspect that statistically was better was the prospects of upward mobility - blue collar and lower-end jobs could get you in the middle class. Corporations were civic-minded in the good way - remnants of that existed into my childhood by hometown corps - rather than civic minded in how much can corps. extract from this community in corporate welfare. Strong union presence, regulation, and progressive taxation were factors.

...but none of that fits into our conservative friends' narrative either.

[sighyoung]

He actually made the argument that, because of seatbelts, more people live longer and cheat death... which leads to more people living long enough to require assisted living, which is a huge financial burden on our families and societies.

If they would rather die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population.

I'm sure the gentleman meant well, but his "government distorts the beneficial effects of natural law" argument is the worst form of ignorance. By that argument, doctors should be banned, and we should let people molder on the streets.

[Gashouse]

Oh, and he also feels passionately about seatbelt laws. Thinks it is huge and unacceptable violation of his freedoms and rights.

I lean pretty far left, but I think seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws are dumb. You're only more likely to kill yourself if you're in an accident. Who cares if your only risk is to you? Let evolution play itself out.

[Bo Hart]

I'm sure the gentleman meant well, but his "government distorts the beneficial effects of natural law" argument is the worst form of ignorance. By that argument, doctors should be banned, and we should let people molder on the streets.

Yes, I thought exactly of that analogy. However, as I started to say it to him, it occurred to me that he was a cancer survivor who had gone through extensive medical treatment, so it would've been utterly tasteless to say anything like that.

I lean pretty far left, but I think seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws are dumb. You're only more likely to kill yourself if you're in an accident. Who cares if your only risk is to you? Let evolution play itself out.

I agree. In fact, I conceded to him that we selectively enforce safety ("why are seatbelts mandatory but bicycle helmets optional?") and that we're not very consistent about it. However, the way he rationalized it was just... absurd.

[Arthur Dent]

We've had this argument before, but I think the freedom argument about seat belt belt laws is way overplayed. People want that word to do a lot more work than it does. First of all, seat belt laws are extremely effective. The big outlier in U.S. seat belt use is New Hampshire, which has no seat belt laws. Passing and enforcing these laws greatly increases seat belt use, which in turn, greatly improves crash survivability. Like every other law, a seat belt mandate limits a freedom, in this case the freedom to fly through your windshield. IMO, this is not a important freedom to protect. And seat belt use is not some purely private decision. As a driver, I do not want to be involved in an unnecessarily fatal crash even if the fatality is not me. And I don't want the people I know and care about to be killed in crashes. Having a seat belt law reduces the likelihood that this will happen without any significant cost. The argument against is foolishly rigid application of ideological thinking.

[redbirdjazzz]

We've had this argument before, but I think the freedom argument about seat belt belt laws is way overplayed. People want that word to do a lot more work than it does. First of all, seat belt laws are extremely effective. The big outlier in U.S. seat belt use is New Hampshire, which has no seat belt laws. Passing and enforcing these laws greatly increases seat belt use, which in turn, greatly improves crash survivability. Like every other law, a seat belt mandate limits a freedom, in this case the freedom to fly through your windshield. IMO, this is not a important freedom to protect. And seat belt use is not some purely private decision. As a driver, I do not want to be involved in an unnecessarily fatal crash even if the fatality is not me. And I don't want the people I know and care about to be killed in crashes. Having a seat belt law reduces the likelihood that this will happen without any significant cost. The argument against is foolishly rigid application of ideological thinking.

++