You can point to a lot of things really. The rise of neoliberalism as an economic standard, the incorporation of 60s' cultural movements into consumerism and identity issues, the end of the Cold War which seemed to wipe out any question of an alternative system, and then finally the changes to our relationships due to the internet. It all contributes to a lack of collective purpose, as if we'd outgrown such things, but it creates a lot of confusion and alienation.Escape wrote:I don't know if this rates above the others, but I was thinking about how the Internet's fostered it recently. For all the online-social energy behind acceptance, it's never been easier to shun those you don't like. Poor welfare's an interesting one if you expand it over a century. I watched a bit of Saturday Night and Sunday Morning the other night and realised how little we've progressed socially since the 1960s. That film's very nearly as far in our past as Queen Victoria's final years were in theirs. To a degree, it's as if life reached a point of sufficient comfort for most people from the '70s through to the '00s, and it's only now, with a resurgent Labour seeking to capitalise on soaring poverty, that we're seeing countrywide anger again. The Monarchy went from all-powerful to questioned by a rapidly rising number in that first half-century, but that push against autocracy has eased right off. Before Diana, even. This is probably the sort of thing you read and work with, Jon, so feel free to recommend.hyper individualism
Yes, for sure the big problem here was not having a whole load of people indiscriminately returning fire in the vague direction of a 32nd floor hotel room.Rusty Dees, who was with Mansholt at the time, said: “The biggest problem for me and for many was that we didn’t hear anybody returning fire. I’m very concerned that we had no one outside to protect us. Unfortunately for me being unarmed and unable to do a whole lot decided it was time to get out of there.”
Diluted Dante wrote:I like the idea that he walked into the hotel wearing all of the guns.
Kazuo wrote:From the Graun's live updates: Some survivors of the attack have been defending US gun laws.
Yes, for sure the big problem here was not having a whole load of people indiscriminately returning fire in the vague direction of a 32nd floor hotel room.Rusty Dees, who was with Mansholt at the time, said: “The biggest problem for me and for many was that we didn’t hear anybody returning fire. I’m very concerned that we had no one outside to protect us. Unfortunately for me being unarmed and unable to do a whole lot decided it was time to get out of there.”
Lord_Griff wrote:I had an unsettling shower thought. Maybe, just maybe, as he represented as normal an American as you can on the bell curve, with no priors, could he have set himself up to be the villian in order to instigate changes to gun control thereby saving lives in the long run? Having left no reasoning, and preventing any interrogation would allow for that eventuality?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!