Quote:
Originally Posted by Formulansx
Car forums are horrible for this.
|
Fanboys, everyone hates them
Quote:
Originally Posted by encarter13
I would guess the per capita murder rate was a lot higher way back when. If history and Hollywood has taught us anything, it would be that murder was common back in the day. You're in the Wild West and someone bumps into you, it ends with a dual in the street. Prospecting for gold and bump into an indian tribe, kill them or be killer. Medieval times and someone disrespects your house, run your sword through them. However, the world didn't hear about these events. They were not tweeted or live streamed to the world.
|
Interesting, so I tried to look it up. Murder is one facet of "hate". But its difficult to assess because looking at the historical record, one has to exclude "war", which is another facet of hate, and records don't seem include murder: in lands like ancient China or the like; against slaves; against anyone warred against (i.e., native Americans). But generally, the current rate is about 5 (always per 100,000 people). Also records sometimes conflict but trends do exist. There has been two big cycles in the 1900s, first in the 20s when it peaked near 10 and in the 80s around 10. Around 1900 and today its around 5 or less. Cities are much higher in 20s or more. One might attribute the higher rates because of the gangsters of the 20s and drugs in the 80s but I don't know the real reason.
Prior to that the numbers are all over the place. Most people only know the Hollywood image of the gunfighter. But some reading indicates that was a fantasy. Some cities like Dodge might have been the same rates are current US cities like Chicago, NY, and Balt. But mostly people were trying to farm and such. The drop might have been because towns and cities started to have police forces. Before that, it gets much worse. From the fall of the Romans until 1800, you got stabbed deep you were in big trouble. So murder didn't actually required severe damage. Just get a deep puncture would and they didn't know how to operate or understand infection, you died. And going back to the Roman Empire, I think it was far worse. Life was cheap. No police, just "vigilantes"
Vigiles Urbani. And remember, none of the murder rates includes deaths, AFAIK or could tell, of slaves from the Greeks until modern times.
I suspect today is a relatively peaceful time and it got much, much worse as one went back in time by centuries. So yeah, today, you instantly know everything going on as everyone has Twitter and you know immediately about death. In 1980, a peak murder rate time in the 20th century, one only got news from TV and papers. In 1930, another higher cycle, it was papers and radio. In 44 BC, well, good luck knowing that the farmer 10 miles away was murdered.
Hate has always existed and if one considered homicide as a primary measure, we doing pretty good these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star Ferry
-- Business is booming, but wages are stagnant. And poor people generally don't own corporate stock.
-- Millennials are probably torrenting the movies online. I doubt it's because they're all busy doing something more expensive and fun
-- On the topic of interest rates, cheap money is a moot point for those who don't qualify. If a millennial has consumer debt, he/she probably does pay over 14% apr because it's a credit card balance
Powerfunk has a point. It's hard to blame people for their bad behavior when they lack a realistic shot at a better future.
|
This is what he wrote: "
everyone here is ... not [blaming] the economy. People tend to lash out if things aren't going well for them and they see little hope. I'm in my early 30's and basically nobody my age can buy a house without parental help, job stability is low, nobody can afford to have kids until they're 40, we can't rely on pensions or social security etc. Class mobility ain't what it used to be."
To that I claim nonsense. How about the Persian, Greek, and Roman slaves? How about the peasants and crop farmers? How about the Native Americans whose land was taken? You think they were happy?
While his point might have some validity in a current context say between 2006, pre-recession, until today, in the big scheme of life we live in luxury. There is no other way to put it, we lead luxurious lives with "welfare" and "social security". Get shot or in a car accident, you are whisked away to shock trauma. In the past, you just died, and usually by 40.
But for the OP, I do believe he is wrong, as its a matter of perception.
If it were 44 BC, you didn't know about the hate 10 miles away.
If it were 200 AD, you didn't know about the hate 15 miles away (maybe you owned a horse then)
If it were 1840, you didn't know about the hate 500 miles away (you had Pony Express or telegraph)
If it were 1929, you didn't know about the hate other than what the newspaper or radio told you - that is, they filtered it for you. Everyone should realize how much information was censored from the public. With the media acting as a middle man, this could have been worse than the past because know they decided what you read.
If it were 1980, you didn't know about the hate other than what newspapers, radio, or TV told, you, that is, the media filtered the hate for you.
Today? There is no need for any media. You instantly know about all the hatred in the world. Instantly.
No one is filtering it. No one is interpreting it for you. This means someone else isn't deciding what you see and hear.
And that's what the OP is missing.