What upsets you more as you age

[Lamb]

What things do you find upsets you more as you age?

 

[psalms 91]

Loud noise

 

[Josiah]

There are LOTS of kids in my neighborhood, but few teens. The boy next door is 17 and plays (well, playED) basketball in school. He likes to do a bit of one-on-one. With no high school guys to play with him, he knocks on my door and asks if I'd like to join him. I'm usually up for it. Here's the thing..... he's figured this out..... all he has to do is wear me out (and it doesn't take him that long), then he can wipe the court with me. Hate that.



.

 

[JRT]

How is he with chess?

 

[tango]

Stupid people.

I don't have a problem with people who don't understand stuff and want to learn. I just have a problem with people who are wilfully ignorant. Always have, and probably always will.

 

[Lamb]

I have a problem with people who don't hear out the other side. I have a relative who immediately will go into a deluge of name calling using all the liberal adjectives against anyone who doesn't agree with their positions, whether or not that person fits the descriptions.

 

[JRT]

Hair.

Dang stuff falls off my head and takes root in my ears, in my nose and on my eyebrows.

I'm starting to look like a bald Yosemite Sam.

 

[tango]

I have a problem with people who don't hear out the other side. I have a relative who immediately will go into a deluge of name calling using all the liberal adjectives against anyone who doesn't agree with their positions, whether or not that person fits the descriptions.

It's so much easier to reply to an argument with nothing more than "spoken like a true Republican" or "spoken like a true Democrat", as if that were a useful counter. Likewise the people who respond with a claim that someone is "brainwashed by FOX/CNN/whatever" or "spouting the NRA playbook" or some such. It saves actually putting some thought into a position, if you can fall back on the chain of illogic that says "the NRA is wrong on everything, you agree with the NRA, therefore you are wrong on everything".

If something is done in jest it's one thing but most of the time it's anything but jesting. I mention jesting because I have a friend who I disagree with on almost everything political but she and I respect each others' viewpoints even in the areas we disagree (mostly because we can understand why the other thinks the way they do, even if we disagree on a goal or disagree on how best to achieve a goal). We do agree on some areas - she has some views more associated with my stance and I have some views more associated with her stance. Generally if we're discussing something political neither of us often misses a chance to use a charged political comment, suggesting the other is an unthinking follower of the opposite ideology.

I'd really like to know just how things got so polarised that people refuse to even discuss different viewpoints, and people assume their way leads to the land of milk and honey while any other way leads to guaranteed dystopic nightmares.

 

[JRT]

I term it the tribalization of US politics and it has only gotten worse in the past 40 years with the linkage of religion into politics. I don't really know which party to that cabal has been subverted worse. Here in Canada the situation does not seem as bad for two reasons. The first the tradition in the British parliamentary system of the "loyal opposition" and this seems to somewhat mitigate the demonization of the other party or parties. The second is that right from the beginning the Canadian confederation was an ongoing compromise between the opposites of language, of religion/culture and of federal/provincial powers. Or maybe it is because Canadians are just so doggone polite?

 

[tango]

I term it the tribalization of US politics and it has only gotten worse in the past 40 years with the linkage of religion into politics. I don't really know which party to that cabal has been subverted worse. Here in Canada the situation does not seem as bad for two reasons. The first the tradition in the British parliamentary system of the "loyal opposition" and this seems to somewhat mitigate the demonization of the other party or parties. The second is that right from the beginning the Canadian confederation was an ongoing compromise between the opposites of language, of religion/culture and of federal/provincial powers. Or maybe it is because Canadians are just so doggone polite?

In the UK things seem to be getting more polar as well, whether it's the question of whether to vote Conservative/Labour/LibDem, whether Brexit is a good thing or not, and so on.

Interestingly I read that the British House of Commons was designed such that the front benches are separated by the length of two swords. Presumably in days gone by that was required for both sides to feel safe from the other. British politics uses at least some polite language, although referring to someone as "the Right Honourable gentleman" before insulting them seems to do little more than delay the insult.

The more I see politics turning into two ever-more divided sides trying to assert dominion over the other side, the more I see slashing the size of government as the only outcome that will work and encouraging people to just mind their own business. If you don't like guns, don't own a gun. If you don't like gay marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex. If you don't think eating meat is a good idea, go vegetarian. If you hate bicyclists, don't ride a bicycle. If you don't want to pray, don't pray. Just stop expecting everyone else to live the way you want to live, whatever your preferences might be.

 

[Josiah]

I've watched the UK House in action. OMG, it's MUCH worse than the US House!

But yeah, politics in the USA has always been very nasty. As I understand it, the most negative campaigns were very early in our history - much worse than today. But it DOES seem to me, the divide has gotten worse during my lifetime.

Another thing to remember: The USA is quite unique in the world because of our destine for government. Our country was BORN of this anti-government view. The whole Constitution is designed to product the people from government. Popularism of all forms is fundamentally an anti-government thing (including the form that put Trump in the White House). "Kick the bums out!" is a frequent cry in the USA. There is a fundamental distrust, dislike of government here...... ironcially mixed with a growing socialism which of course holds that government is better than the people.



.

 

[ValleyGal]

Politics aside,

If you don't like guns, don't own a gun. If you don't like gay marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex. If you don't think eating meat is a good idea, go vegetarian. If you hate bicyclists, don't ride a bicycle. If you don't want to pray, don't pray. Just stop expecting everyone else to live the way you want to live, whatever your preferences might be.

YES!!

Things that bother me more as I get older. Tango hit it on the head. I have been "unfriended" by nearly all my old friends from my hometown simply because I believe in "live and let live" rather than "my way or the highway, and I'm gonna force my religious beliefs on even those who do not believe." If they value the right to practice their religion, then it is totally hypocritical of them to not afford me the same right to choose my spiritual/religious path! So yeah.. judgment and hypocrisy bother me more and more - along with the fact that dear friends will allow these matters to destroy once-meaningful friendships.

That, and being falsely accused or misinterpreted on a regular basis, in a negative way, or being manipulated so that it's up to me to be responsible for other people's issues. Total injustices, whether to me or to someone else.

 

[tango]

Politics aside,

YES!!

Things that bother me more as I get older. Tango hit it on the head. I have been "unfriended" by nearly all my old friends from my hometown simply because I believe in "live and let live" rather than "my way or the highway, and I'm gonna force my religious beliefs on even those who do not believe." If they value the right to practice their religion, then it is totally hypocritical of them to not afford me the same right to choose my spiritual/religious path! So yeah.. judgment and hypocrisy bother me more and more - along with the fact that dear friends will allow these matters to destroy once-meaningful friendships.

Another aspect to this whole thing is the way some people act as if permission is the same as a mandate. To take the first example I used, "you may own guns" isn't the same as "you must own guns", although the way some people speak you'd be forgiven for thinking everything was either required or prohibited.

That, and being falsely accused or misinterpreted on a regular basis, in a negative way, or being manipulated so that it's up to me to be responsible for other people's issues. Total injustices, whether to me or to someone else.

I think a lot of the manipulation is about misrepresenting reality in order to unfairly demonise people with a different viewpoint. Only this morning I read an article discussing the relative merits of maintaining lockdowns against lifting restrictions and it presented the argument "is it really worth risking even one life in order to get a haircut?". Although the article made it very clear it was presenting arguments in a very melodramatic way, it also missed a key point. Even before the virus started causing problems the reality was that we risked lives by going to get a haircut - 30,000+ people die on the roads every year and most of us drive to places like the hairdresser. We just don't think about the risk of death when we get in the car.

When something like the lockdowns seen over the coronavirus are presented as if they were as simple as "people want to reopen the economy - they are so selfish, putting money before lives" or "people want to destroy everything just because they are afraid" it creates a false dichotomy, implying people have to pick a side rather than landing somewhere in the middle. It also overlooks the reality that being allowed to reopen a restaurant doesn't obligate anyone to go to the restaurant.

Social media in particular has mostly degenerated into little more than "look at all the reasons my stance is rational, and now let's demonise the people who are so stupid they can't even see the merits in the argument - they are obviously brainwashed by CNN/Fox/whatever". Sadly the way it turns into little more than an echo chamber means that, whatever your stance on anything, the chances are the world looks like a place where the majority agrees with you.

 

[Andrew]

Hollywood decency and it's degenerating influence on the youth.
I don't care much for current television or movies, too much filth, along with celebrity worship even in the music industry.
The occult references are at it's peak like never before.. I'm only 35 but am hyper aware of of it's negative impact especially here in America.
The term Hollywood comes from ancient pagan druidism, they used the wood of the holly tree to cast spells and enchantments over their audience..
To Entertain means to hold or capture one's attention
You turn on your Tell A Vision and find a list of Channels, each Channel has a Program etc...
The word very Cable comes from Kabal which means "to receive"..
I get disgusted and offended by the majority of networks down to their ads, it wasn't so obvious to me growing up but now it's just complete trash and basically pornography and satanic..

Not into comic books based movies either, it's a modern day equivalent to greek and roman god and goddess myths and admiration..

-35 year old curmudgeon lol

 

[hedrick]

What things do you find upsets you more as you age?

"alternative facts." The Christian community started by tolerating rejection of evolution and astronomy, because it was inconvenient for theology. The virus spread to history, then climatology. Then resistance to vaccines. And I'm now seeing the flat earth making a comeback among conservatives.

 

[tango]

"alternative facts." The Christian community started by tolerating rejection of evolution and astronomy, because it was inconvenient for theology. The virus spread to history, then climatology. Then resistance to vaccines. And I'm now seeing the flat earth making a comeback among conservatives.

Is this a new thing, or is it just more apparent in the age of social media?

 

[Albion]

The more that people are connected across the globe with others from all sorts of different backgrounds, the more that they are going to come into contact with new and perhaps intriguing ideas.

Some of these new ideas will be fascinating while others are better described as bizarre. But the old barriers of space and culture are falling, so we will be seeing more and more of this phenomenon.

It certainly is not a development that attaches to any particular political group, economic class, or religious movement, by the way.

 

[hedrick]

Is this a new thing, or is it just more apparent in the age of social media?

It's hard to say. I grew up in a liberal community. The only real "alternative facts" I was aware of was rejection of evolution. On social media, I see a lot more, but it's possible that I'm just in contact with a more diverse group.

However I think there's a real change. When I was growing up, my parents had a copy of “The Bible as History.” That book wouldn’t be written today (outside the evangelical community) because of new discoveries. The big bang is new. Global warming is new. A widespread understanding of sexual orientation is new. I think the mainstream and conservative worlds are genuinely diverging.

But I don’t think it’s just those changes. I very much fear that as people start considering things like evolution and the big bang to be the result of scientists conspiring against Christianity, conspiracy explanations are spreading. How else to explain growing opposition to vaccination and reappearance of the flat earth.

 

[tango]

But I don’t think it’s just those changes. I very much fear that as people start considering things like evolution and the big bang to be the result of scientists conspiring against Christianity, conspiracy explanations are spreading. How else to explain growing opposition to vaccination and reappearance of the flat earth.

Did flat earth theories ever go away?

As for opposition to vaccination it seems to me there are different camps that it's worth differentiating between. Aside from the conspiracy theorists who believe Bill Gates and George Soros are in some kind of evil plan to bring in a dystopian future through adding some unwanted medical payload to mass-issued vaccines, there are others with more genuine concerns. The original study linking MMR to autism is generally regarded as discredited but that does little to reassure the parents (I personally know several) whose children developed autism-like symptoms very shortly after receiving an MMR vaccine. When I was a child boys weren't given a rubella vaccine and, from what little anecdata I've come across, it's mostly if not exclusively boys who appear to have suffered side-effects.

I think it's also fair to say that no medical procedure can be guaranteed 100% safe (and to be clear, the existence of side-effects doesn't mean a vaccine is "unsafe" any more than people dying in car crashes indicate driving is "unsafe"). With that in mind it doesn't seem unreasonable to argue that if society wants the benefits of herd immunity it's not so much to ask that society helps carry the costs to benefit the few who do suffer side-effects. Otherwise it's easy to see an analysis from the perspective of a parent who figures if they skip the vaccine they still benefit from herd immunity but don't risk the side-effects, whereas if they take the vaccine they risk having to raise a damaged child for no added benefit.

The people who believe in the evil cabal trying to turn us into drones or some such are often almost impossible to reason with - they have enough indisputable fact (e.g. it's not exactly a secret that Bill Gates has given billions of dollars to develop vaccines) to then liberally sprinkle mildly conspiratorial questions (why is Bill Gates so interested in vaccines?) and conclude that he's up to no good. The people afraid of side-effects that are vanishingly unlikely are at least applying some form of sensible reasoning to a process even if they are hugely overestimating the risk of something bad happening. Chances are they get in their cars every day and don't even think about the small risk of not coming home again. Here it's harder to shift the balance of reason because so many people who take an opposing view show equally inconsistent reasoning in their own outlooks - the people who argue "if it saves one life it's worth it" when it comes to a law they favor but would never give up their own car, for example.

In many ways it comes back to the problem that humans aren't very good at assessing risk. We tend to hear about something spectacular and think it will happen to us. It's the reason we talk of a "war on terrorism" and nothing is mentioned about a "war on nuts" even though over the last 20 years nut allergies have killed more Americans than terror attacks.

I suspect, in the US in particular, at least some opposition is also a very simple pushback against being told what to do. It's one thing to say to people "this vaccine is available" and invite people to take it but as soon as people are told "this vaccine is mandatory" they resist. To add a little irony the people who are minded to argue "my body, my choice" when it comes to abortion appear to be more likely to argue "your body, my choice" when it comes to vaccination, which does little to help the cause.