| |
| ▲ | jwagenet 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generat... Definitely controversial academically, but the idea of a generational cycle has been considered. | |
| ▲ | hgomersall 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's much simpler to think that as a society we've manufactured a similar set of circumstances to the last time. That is, a growing proportion of the population that feel they have very little and no prospects or hope. | | |
| ▲ | ArnoVW 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I won’t enter into a conversation about inequality and social justice, even though there are indeed points to be raised. I would however like to point out that people are not only victims of society, and that they have a responsibility as a critical member of society and an elector. Historic awareness, understanding of economics, law and geopolitics. To give an example: Mr Trump was not just votes into office, but RE voted into office. His plan was public for all to see. More than 50% of American voters voted for him. I am having a difficult time to believe that 50%+ of the US are economically oppressed that had no choice but to vote for Trump. Inequalities exist but they do not justify everything, neither do they explain everything. | | |
| ▲ | slg a day ago | parent | next [-] | | >More than 50% of American voters voted for him. I am having a difficult time to believe that 50%+ of the US are economically oppressed that had no choice but to vote for Trump. I think it's important to be accurate with this stuff. 49.8% of voters voted for Trump, approximately 32% of eligible voters voted for him, and roughly 23% of the population voted for him. Don't discount apathy, disillusionment, and disenfranchisement in all this. | |
| ▲ | robertlagrant 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Inequality is very different to no prospects, or no hope. | | |
| ▲ | ArnoVW 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Totally agree. But does that not reinforce my point? Or are we saying now that 50%+ of the US has “no prospects or no hope”? Really? Anyone thinking that is sorely mistaken about how good we have it, and I’m afraid is soon to find out. Destroying the apparatus of state and destabilizing international relations is not going to be good, certainly for those “with no prospects or hope”. And that was not difficult to foresee. | | |
| ▲ | robertlagrant 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Totally agree I'm a little confused - if you agree, then why did you mention inequality in the first place? | | |
| ▲ | ArnoVW 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | the original statement was "they feel they have very little and no prospects or hope." As I said in my original comment, I think that is hyperbole at best, and deluded victim-thinking at worst. But I do consider that there is an issue of inequality. So I softened the original statement, and then showed that it still did not explain or even justify the massive vote for Trump ("Inequalities exist but they do not justify everything, neither do they explain everything") In other words, I interpreted the original statement generously and replied to the best possible version of the argument. That is one of the unwritten house rules, and it is what keeps HN a nice place. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hgomersall a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You make an interesting point, but there's an issue that significant resources are put into making sure that people do not understand economics, law and geopolitics properly. Economics is particular egregious in that the academic discipline is, for the most part, complete horseshit, and popular economics is a bastardised version of that. Geopolitics is also filtered heavily through whatever lens one views it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | fifilura 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Feels like cherry-picking. WWII had very little to do with America in the sense that the American involvement was only a reaction to others messing things up. While the other two are purely American. | | |
| ▲ | cguess 2 days ago | parent [-] | | WWII had little to do with America? Go look up lend/lease and then remember we were bombed by Japan. The US was intrinsically linked to WWII from the beginning, just not with troops on the ground. | | |
| ▲ | fifilura a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes but the cause was not American. And USA was pretty reluctant to be dragged in (not Roosevelt but the voters). I am just pointing out that you can make up any list in hindsight and make it look like Nostradamus prophecies. Where is french revolution or the great war in that list? | | |
| ▲ | DocTomoe a day ago | parent [-] | | > Yes but the cause was not American. Yes, it was. America was setting up the scene for the pacific war by raising customs and tariffs on Japanese imports with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930). The Japanese were just democratizing when the US decided to kill their economy. Thus, the Japanese had one of two choices - take needed resources they purchased before by force, or accept a massive decline in standard of living. They decided to take the first route. Attacked the Chinese, and when the US started sanctioning it, eventually they bombed Pearl Harbour. And don't forget how the Nazis were basically funded out of American pockets. Just because the first shot was not fired by an American does not mean they were not the cause. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | elteto 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What, no WW1? |
|
