The general decline in standards today

[LizzieMaine]

Such courtesy is still alive and well in the Powder Room, at least. But I've certainly run into this in other venues, to say nothing of the random people who write and demand "I need you to tell me everything you know about xxx subject for my school report." Or the ones who just go ahead and help themselves to work you've done and slap it up on their own website without so much of an acknowledgement that such a thing as copyright exists.

The Internet has made a lot of things easy. Not all of them good.

 

[bunnyb.gal]

As I mainly hang out in the Powder Room, I second what LizzieMaine has said: for the most part when there is a query-response-discussion, there is a thank you for the info (or a smiley face or what have you), so I've never been aware of it being an "issue". Speaking for myself, I've always approached posting as if it were a conversation (idem for text messages, emails...); I do try as much as possible to follow the conventions of normal polite conversation, because to do otherwise just feels completely wrong to me.

 

[C-dot]

All you can do is try - Face-to-face conversations rarely, if ever, involve so many people, and its impossible to respond to every single thing said. I'm sure we all read and take in the majority of what is written here.

Then again, we are the ones discussing the decline in standards, and as Lizzie says, this forum is positively genteel compared to others out there!

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Sometimes I think we all get lost in the web world. I am a very polite person in person. Sometimes we just forget about it when we're online, I think.

Spitfire's complaint and your apology form an interesting discussion as to how real world values translate to the internet. I think it's actually a discussion, because, taking me as an example: I'm pretty good about saying thank you - I arguably do it unnecessarily in real life. I thank officers for speeding tickets. It's just a reflex. I don't have to think to say thanks. On the other hand, ET could count on one hand the number of times I've posted in a message board just to say thanks. If I've got more to say on the topic, I'll throw a thanks in the bigger message, but I don't, for the most part (exceptions could be dug up I'm sure) like making spammy I agree, thanks, smiley, etc types of replies. I probably won't change my habit in that regard, but it's good to know some people object.

 

[Puzzicato]

Why should anyone say "thank-you" on this or any discussion thread??? It's just that; a discussion board, not like someone is asking for help changing a tire. Makes no sense and appears rather condescending in much the same way white people go into a Chinese restaurant and bow to the waitress or busboy. WTF???? They'll bow, but then stiff them on the tip. Yeah, you're really equal to them. No, that's being a condescending tight wad.

On a discussion thread, no. It would be very strange for me to say "Why thank you for having this conversation with me". In other threads, however, if someone says "Where can I buy this?" it seems a little churlish not to at least say "Thanks" for the time taken in giving an answer. Of course, some people may forget they asked the question (I am probably guilty of this) but it should at least be acknowledged, I think. Especially since some people here have spent years amassing knowledge, which they share readily and in depth. And in some cases have to repeat ad nauseum.

 

[sheeplady]

Lincsong, we see the problem in microcosm right here in America every day. In point of fact, I think that is what got us in trouble with the real estate/mortgage crisis. Certain fools in our legislative branch want to make believe that we are all entitled to a nice house in the 'burbs. They believe that the barista at Starbucks, or the cashier at Burger King are entitled to the same benefits and rewards as someone such as myself, who invested 21 years earning a military pension and has worked my entire life at a variety of decent paying jobs, taking great care to spend wisely and save money, etc. I, by no means, intend to belittle these other folks, but the simple truth is, they haven't paid their dues and earned the rewards that I have.

Just as a side note, it wasn't just the barista at Starbucks trying to buy a nice house in the 'burbs. It was about people buying houses that they could not afford, in fact, it's less about the barista and more about the far reaching greed of everybody. The loophole created by allowing low-income individuals to qualify for houses was then effectively used by everyone who was greedy in the system to get ahead, at least in the short term.

A subprime loan is a subprime loan is a subprime loan. It doesn't matter if you make $10,000 a year or $1 million- if you can't afford the home you bought, didn't put down the right downpayment, you're subprime. (And plenty of middle class and upper class individuals took out subprimes.) It has nothing to do with socio-economic class, and everything to do with greed and living within your means.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well said. In the days when people went to their hometown bank manager to look for a mortgage -- a banker who knew the town and understood applicants' individual situations -- something like the subprime crisis simply couldn't have happened. The deregulation and corporatization of banking is as much a root of the problem as people living beyond their means -- there should have been someone there willing to say "Sorry, based on your income and assets, we couldn't issue this mortgage." But it's not about serving the public responsibly any more.

 

[sheeplady]

The problem is, with loss of the hometown lender is that you've also lost the sense of who is a good bet. There are many people who don't meet the qualifications of the loan on paper, but will make good on that loan- better than those who look good on paper. But if you don't "know" the person, you don't "know" this.

In the current system, with syndication and bundling of mortgages, many loan officers were rewarded for making bad loans, because as long as the bank sold them, it didn't matter how awful they were. The loan officer got money, the bank got money, the homeowner got a better loan than they should have, everybody went home happy. They didn't realize it was one big game of hot potato, and when it fell apart, everybody had hot potatos they couldn't get rid of.

I think it's also important to note that not every bank (or every big bank) worked this way. One of the major big banks actually paid their loan officers based upon how good the loan was, and they've faired the best in this crisis. If the loan made the bank money (after a capital charge for operating costs), then the bank gave loan officers money. If it lost money, then the loan officer got nothing. Because this one bank only syndicated part of the loans they held (holding onto part of each of their loans, sometimes holding onto entire loans), they also wanted to make sure that they made good loans, because they didn't get rid of them totally. They had a really brillant strategy to make sure that they balanced their own risk and reward.

 

[Undertow]

Check out ...to see a bunch of graphs showing crime rates on a general decline. If anything, things are getting better. I'd dig up an article showing the progress of science and technology, but, that's what Google is for. Minorities are continuing to break down barriers and glass ceilings over time as we speak. I'd say that's always a good thing. If the world is going down the toilet because your small town isn't 40 years behind anymore, that's hardly proper justification for doomsaying.

There was an excellent story on NPR a few months back about the topic of the statistics of crime. It seemed there was an epidemic in NY city in which many precincts were either under reporting or misreporting crimes in order to beat the statistics (thereby receiving additional funding, keeping a positive population flow, increasing bonuses, etc.).

I'm not suggesting there is any correlation between a decrease in crime and a rise in mis/non-reporting, but it stands to reason that statistics are just as easily skewed as one's personal opinions. Statistics are political at worst and comical at best. If you're interested in the silliness of statistics, I suggest you read an excellent book called Crimes Against Logic.

Furthermore, to say that science and technology are progressing, thus, society as a whole is improving is flimsy. Are we really better off because we're not using hewn stone to cut wood for fires? So then what of the Amazonian tribes left untouched? Crush them all I suppose; they don't have iPhones and therefore they are an inferior civilization? The two simply do not correlate. Certainly, we enjoy a level of luxury and convenience, but that doesn't mean we've improved - unless of course, you're stating that a society should be valued based on its current technology, in which case we'll always be woefully behind future generations, barring some kind of doom-from-above-scenario.

Regarding society going down the toilet because a small town isn't 40 years behind - as crass a statement as it was, small towns offer a good pulse of America. The meth problem, for instance, is quite peculiar in small towns across the Midwest. To discount the meth problem simply because it takes place in small towns would be irresponsible. Sure, big cities and their welfare may seem more important a factor when deciding the overall health of a nation, but a million snowflakes create an avalanche.

 

[Undertow]

You are truly one stuck up...

Opinion or not; forigven or not; this disgusts me. I'm ashamed to even see this at all.

 

[Pompidou]

There was an excellent story on NPR a few months back about the topic of the statistics of crime. It seemed there was an epidemic in NY city in which many precincts were either under reporting or misreporting crimes in order to beat the statistics (thereby receiving additional funding, keeping a positive population flow, increasing bonuses, etc.).

I'm not suggesting there is any correlation between a decrease in crime and a rise in mis/non-reporting, but it stands to reason that statistics are just as easily skewed as one's personal opinions. Statistics are political at worst and comical at best. If you're interested in the silliness of statistics, I suggest you read an excellent book called Crimes Against Logic.

Furthermore, to say that science and technology are progressing, thus, society as a whole is improving is flimsy. Are we really better off because we're not using hewn stone to cut wood for fires? So then what of the Amazonian tribes left untouched? Crush them all I suppose; they don't have iPhones and therefore they are an inferior civilization? The two simply do not correlate. Certainly, we enjoy a level of luxury and convenience, but that doesn't mean we've improved - unless of course, you're stating that a society should be valued based on its current technology, in which case we'll always be woefully behind future generations, barring some kind of doom-from-above-scenario.

Regarding society going down the toilet because a small town isn't 40 years behind - as crass a statement as it was, small towns offer a good pulse of America. The meth problem, for instance, is quite peculiar in small towns across the Midwest. To discount the meth problem simply because it takes place in small towns would be irresponsible. Sure, big cities and their welfare may seem more important a factor when deciding the overall health of a nation, but a million snowflakes create an avalanche.

I wasn't arguing that science and technology are the primary measure of the quality of a society. My entire argument, from statistics showing a downward trend in crime, to the increase in science and technology were simply to refute a small part of the overall debate - that the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket, that we're doomed, etc. I was showing that everything ebbs and flows, and what's getting worse now will get better later, and in most cases, vice versa. I was cautioning people against viewing the line-graph of the quality of civilization as a steep downward slope, or worse still, a straight vertical line with a down arrow. I was cautioning against taking personal anecdotes and extrapolating them to the whole of the country. I have good neighbors and there's been no violent crime on my block, but I don't tell everyone that there's no way the US has a crime problem because there's no crime on my block. There was crime before. We had a murder some 10 years ago. No murders since. I live in a small town. I could argue that America is on a permanent rise to yet unseen greatness- a utopia of crimelessness where neighbors all get along. Instead, I only argue that, overall, we're pretty much the same. That's all. There are ups and downs but we survive.

 

[scooter]

Undertow, you're quite correct in both your statements above. The comment was BEYOND crass and tasteless. As for under/misreporting, as I said earlier, "Figures lie and liars figure!" Here's an example, I have heard it said that 50% of all car accidents are caused by drunk drivers. If that is the case, then the other 50% are caused by sober drivers. So statistics dictate (skewed logic, but statistically correct), if we got everyone drunk, we could eliminate all accidents.

As for the mortgage discussion, you good folks are making the same argument, but phrasing it differently. Our esteemed legislators in their fervor to win over voters, pushed thru the deregulation and softer lending rules in an effort to win over voters. They WANTED people who had no business buying a house to do exactly that. I wasn't pinpointing the barista or the cashier, they were merely example of folks who simply don't earn enough money to pay for a house. At least not an expensive one! But our legislators wanted them to believe they could afford same, in order to curry favor with certain voters. The glaring flaw with democracy, as I once read, is that it is only successful until constituents realize they can vote into power those who promise them the greatest rewards! I believe our current president is a good example of this, it's not that he's a bad man, but he made promises he simply could not keep. Now whether he knew it that the time he was making them or not, that is a whole other discussion.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Let's keep the current-era politics out of the discussion please. Such discussion is prohibited here, and there's no quicker way to get the thread closed. Politics can't solve any of these problems anyway -- politics are merely a reflection the culture, not the driver of it.

As far as small towns go, I think they're the canaries in the coal mine of any society -- when they start to go bad, you know something is seriously wrong. Small-town life is mutating into something very different from what it was as recently as twenty years ago, and in my view the rampaging drug problems, random violence, crime, corruption, second-rate education, and economic displacement aren't a worthwhile price to pay for whatever modern benefits may be coming our way from "progress."

I don't see such changes as being positive, and I don't expect my opinion is going to make a nickel's worth of difference -- because the momentum's already built too far in the wrong direction. We have too many people today who honestly don't think things are any different than they ever were -- because they simply weren't around when things *were* different. And when you don't believe there's a problem, you aren't going to care about doing anything about it.

 

[Undertow]

Pompidou - I do understand now, thank you.

I'm not as concerned with a doomsday scenario so much as a simple self-reliance scenario. If the USD collapsed and hyperinflation were introduced, what would we do? How would we cope? Past civilizations already possessed basic knowledge of survival, but it would seem our technology has muddied our waters.

Regarding the original topic (general decline in standards), I would argue the painful truth is that few care enough to hold on to the "old ways". Our culture has simply moved away from treating each other with respect in every transaction. The quality of goods is no longer important unless there is a big $$$ pricetag attached. The sanctity of life isn't quite what it used to be. [huh]

Whether you look at that as good or bad, it's more or less what it is. Where some things have improved (connection to the world) or remained the same (Lincoln brand shoe polish), some things have fallen pretty far (quality of durable goods).

 

[scooter]

Well, you can try and eliminate politics from this discussion if you wish, Ms. Maine, but the simple truth is, the buck stops there. That is what separates the politician from the everyday citizen. He realizes promises are what gets him elected, whether he can deliver or not. Once he's in office, he has the luxury of making up any lie he can pass off as semi-truthful in order to justify breaking those promises. This represents a serious decline in standards, one that is recognized by every citizen in the country and breeds contempt and distrust. By the way, I don't believe this is the sort of political discourse the moderators are concerned about, as I'm not picking sides, or advocating for one party or another, simply stating facts as I see them.

Think about our employers today as opposed to yesterday. They care nothing for the people who work for them for the most part. It's all about the bottom line, they demand unquestioned loyalty from employees, but will let that employee go at the drop of a hat if it will improve their bottom line. The employees sense no one cares about them, therefore; they don't care about the company/employer. It can't work that way, loyalty is a two way street. In years past, one might go to work for a company, and retire from that same company. People cared about each other, not so much any more. The bean counters have seen to that!

 

[LizzieMaine]

The problem with dragging politics into a discussion like this isn't the theoretical aspect of it -- eventually someone's going to decide to throw in "veiled" thrusts at some political figure they don't agree with, and everyone's going to know who they're talking about. We don't allow that here. Period.

As far as politicians driving the standards down, I disagree. I think the standards are driving the politicians down -- if you have a culture too cynical to take "community service" seriously, where everyone is looking for an angle, everyone wallowing in their own self interest, well, that culture is going to get exactly what it deserves. Those who live by the fast buck will perish by the fast buck.

 

[scooter]

I respect your opinion, but I could not disagree more. Leadership, by it's very nature, starts at the top. When you cannot trust your leaders, people start to believe they are left to their own devices and take whatever measures they can to insulate themselves form harm. Our leaders have proven time and again they are corrupt and cannot be depended upon to do what is right, that they are for sale to the highest bidder. They are what has led us to the morass we currently inhabit.

 

[SGT Rocket]

You raise a really good point. I've never thought of it that way, and have probably done exactly what your complaint is here. To anybody I've done that to, I whole-heartedly apologize!

I may have done that as well. If so, y'all please forgive me. I may have done it unintentionally before I figured out how to "subscribe" to a thread hear. I'm a little slow on the whole chat room thing.

 

[scooter]

I want to share with you a humorous story. As far as I know, this is true, or at least I was led to believe it was. A citizen was trying to explain the concept of daylight savings time to an old American Indian. After several attempts to impress the logic of DST on him, the old Indian slowly shook his head, looked at the man attempting to explain and said, "Only a white man would cut a foot off the end of a blanket, sew it on the top, and think he had a longer blanket!"

Perhaps the moral of this story is, often we're not as smart as we think we are, as a society. Then again, perhaps it is that we are our own worst enemy!

 

[scooter]

Sgt Rocket, I love the democracy quote!