Question for anyone who wasn't around in the 1980s

Kolya on 15/10/2007 at 01:44

Quote Posted by Brian T

the '00s are to the 1980s what the 1980s were to the 1960s

That's a line from a movie, right? Though not with these numbers... What is the name?

I think the original was: The 80s will be to the 70s what the 60s were to the 50s. And it involved a motorbike, and someone making peace with his hippie parents. Possibly Charlie Sheen.

EDIT: I found the movie, though it was Kiefer Sutherland, not Sheen. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099581/) Flashback

Thief13x on 15/10/2007 at 02:49

Inline Image:

http://www.thenemesis.de/img/emo.jpg

yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaah dude...times have changed, atleast country tends to stay somewhat the same

braces to be pummeled by diehard Cash fans

DX-455 on 15/10/2007 at 03:39

Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky

the Police reunion definitely kicks Kiss's and The Who's collective ass)

You actually been to see them yet RBJ? They were HORRIBLY out of time and weren't singing in the right key/pitch was off.:mad: :mad: :mad:

SubJeff on 15/10/2007 at 04:36

EVERY time they played!! Wow.

aguywhoplaysthief on 15/10/2007 at 06:21

Quote Posted by Thief13x

atleast country tends to stay somewhat the same

Dude, modern country music doesn't even resemble country from 1991, much less country from earlier decades.

Papy on 15/10/2007 at 06:29

Quote Posted by fett

You're dealing with people raised largely in an agricultural/industrial lifestyle by parents who had lived through the Great Depression. They themselves dealt with the nation changing drama of Pearl Harbor, Normandy, and Hiroshima.

You make it sounds as if all those people are suffering from Alzheimer disease and completely forgot about the last 50 years.

As I said, I am not the same person as I was in the 80s. I listen to 2007 radio, I watch 2007 TV, I read 2007 magazines. I certainly remember the good old times... but when I watch an old TV series I loved 20 years ago, I can only realize how much I changed. Granted, I'm only 38, but it's the same thing with most older people I know. Like me, once they satisfied their nostalgia and their need to feel young again, they realize how much that old TV series they bought on DVD really "suck". If I look at my parents, although they are not as "modern" as I am (particularly when it comes to music), they still watch and laugh at today's TV shows.

Ok, I'll stop being politically correct. I believe there is one thing you are not considering when you try to understand the difference in humor and attitude between "generation" : our mental abilities. Most people reach their peak between 15 and 20 years old. They maintain their abilities for 5 to 10 years, then it's a free fall. I certainly see myself progressively losing my abilities to learn, understand and elaborate complex thought. A lot of people still consider me as an intelligent and "witty" guy, but I'm certainly aware I'm not as "fast" as I once was. For now the decline is not that bad, the only real effect is it now takes me a little longer to learn and to think, but I know that in 20 years it will begin to be significant.

Sometimes, I have to teach people how to use a particular program or device. In order to evaluate what is the best teaching method and how long it will take, I try to know what is the general level of education of the person, if he or she had to deal with something similar before, and most importantly what is the age and sex or the person. The sad reality is a lot of people over 60 have a really hard time learning and understanding. We can say that part of this is a question of attitude, but I believe our attitude is mainly a consequence of our abilities.

Of course I don't mean every person over 60 have the intelligence of an 10 years old kid. I even once saw someone who was 78 and who was still able to learn and understand easily, who was still able to have an intelligent conversation and adapt fast to arguments. The same way, when I was in the army, there was a guy that was over 70 (don't remember his exact age, I think he was 76), who made a 100km run in 15 hours. he obviously walked most of the time, but still did the 100 km (60 miles). But those two were exceptions. Someone over 60 is not 20 anymore. He may have experience, I would even qualify a few older people as wise, but you don't need experience to understand sarcasm. You need an ability that, unfortunately, a lot of older people have mostly lost. Don't confuse despise due to superiority and despise due to fear and lack of understanding.

DX-455 on 15/10/2007 at 09:45

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

EVERY time they played!! Wow.

Where did you come up w/that?

fett on 15/10/2007 at 12:07

Quote Posted by Papy

You make it sounds as if all those people are suffering from Alzheimer disease and completely forgot about the last 50 years.

No, it's just a simple matter of being shaped in large part by the things we experience from age 20-30, and they were shaped by world war, the birth of corporate visual media, and a collective religious consciousness. Conversely, in the 80's we were shaped by a prosperous economy, the end of the Cold War, the birth of individualized entertainment (cable tv, internet, mass print media), and mass exposure of religious fraud (PTL scandal, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.). You don't forget all that comes after, but you sure as hell form strong convictions and opinions about the world based on the formative thinking between age 20-30. At least that's what I've experienced and observed both in my generation and the one in question.

You pretty much prove my point here:

Quote Posted by Papy

Most people reach their peak between 15 and 20 years old. They maintain their abilities for 5 to 10 years, then it's a free fall. I certainly see myself progressively losing my abilities to learn, understand and elaborate complex thought. A lot of people still consider me as an intelligent and "witty" guy, but I'm certainly aware I'm not as "fast" as I once was. For now the decline is not that bad, the only real effect is it now takes me a little longer to learn and to think, but I know that in 20 years it will begin to be significant.

Sometimes, I have to teach people how to use a particular program or device. In order to evaluate what is the best teaching method and how long it will take, I try to know what is the general level of education of the person, if he or she had to deal with something similar before, and most importantly what is the age and sex or the person. The sad reality is a lot of people over 60 have a really hard time learning and understanding. We can say that part of this is a question of attitude, but I believe our attitude is mainly a consequence of our abilities.

One of the results of this is disinterest and/or inability to appreciate new cultural developments - especially when they are contrary to long held attitudes and opinions. Humor, music, televised media, literature - they can appreciate modern versions of these, but they usually choose not to because these things don't speak in their collective generational language.

Of course I don't mean every person over 60 have the intelligence of an 10 years old kid. I even once saw someone who was 78 and who was still able to learn and understand easily, who was still able to have an intelligent conversation and adapt fast to arguments. The same way, when I was in the army, there was a guy that was over 70 (don't remember his exact age, I think he was 76), who made a 100km run in 15 hours. he obviously walked most of the time, but still did the 100 km (60 miles). But those two were exceptions. Someone over 60 is not 20 anymore. He may have experience, I would even qualify a few older people as wise, but you don't need experience to understand sarcasm. You need an ability that, unfortunately, a lot of older people have mostly lost. Don't confuse despise due to superiority and despise due to fear and lack of understanding.

ZymeAddict on 16/10/2007 at 07:50

Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky

ummm, I don't think what is happening here is what you think is happening here.

Though, hey, you had already provided the moronic opinion, I just helped you out with a little base language.

But, really, fuck off and die.

No, I think what is happening here is exactly what I think is happening here. You, like too many other idiots nowadays, can't form a coherent argument to counter an opinion you consider "moronic", and instead resort to ad hominem attacks and four-letter words. So again, thanks for helping to prove my point. :thumb:

Quote Posted by Kolya

ZymeAddict, while it looks like RBJ can't help but prove your point at the moment, the idea that language was caught up in a downward spiral has been pursued since the ancient Greeks. There's really nothing to it. Language follows the principles of efficiency and social appropriateness. And I doubt you want the social circumstances back that led to the seeming politeness in 60s language.

Sorry Kolya, but just because an idea is old doesn't make it incorrect. Language does fluctuate, and it's "level" is usually directly related to the health of a society. I would say it's an indisputable fact that the average person now has a fouler vocabulary than probably any other time in history, and this degrading process started right after the vaunted upheaval of the 1960s which my liberal profs are always going on about.

Right now I'm a sophomore in college, and I can't go anywhere without hearing someone my age having a conversation about "fucking" this and "shitting" that. Motherfucker, Pimp, Ho, cunt, etc, etc, etc.

I admit, I use this kind of language too (though not nearly to the extent of some), but recently I've become increasingly tired of it. Why is it necessary for everyone to talk like this all the time? It almost reminds me of the idea of "Newspeak" in George Orwell's 1984: so completely simplify and degrade the language so that eventually no one will be able to communicate on any sort of higher level.

I don't mean to go on rant, but this has really been bugging me lately.

...........

Fett, I don't completely disagree with what you have said. Obviously sarcasm is used far more frequently in modern society than it was back then, but I don't think that it is necessarily a good thing. Sarcasm and cynicism seem to be way overused in modern discourse in my opinion.

(Speaking of sarcasm, when I referred to "group-think" I most certainly was being sarcastic, so there's no need to go off in that direction.)

I don't think the media is exaggerating the situation of language as much as you might think, however. Perhaps, (I'm assuming) being older, you haven't encountered what I have to the same extent, but at least among my generation it's pretty bad, and only seems to getting worse.

And what is the "socially evil shit" you're referring too that everyone was too "polite" to speak out against? Racism? Sexism? I hardly see how those issues had much to do with being polite or trusting. It was a matter of the social outlook of the time.