The Kids (Aren't) Alright - World Happiness Report

[fattyflattie 4639]

30 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The fatties of the world minimizing their issues is just another data point in why they’re so unhappy. 

No one is minimizing their issues.  But that’s what it is, their issue.  If Brisket can find happiness with red beans and rice with the family, so can anyone.  If someone need caviar to feel happy, but can’t gain it themselves, then we’re just scapegoating.  Life is pretty pretty fucking good here.  

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, immamac said:

if you are talking about a 120-150 person wedding that isn't "cheaped out" or at a venue that you have to do every fucking thing yourself or hire a planner then I agree.

Can you have a wedding for cheaper? Sure, but it just means you or your friends did more legwork and you didn't have a lot of "standard" amenities that most weddings have. like bar service and open bar, reception/cocktail hour, actual nice shit at a venue with real tablecloths and real silverware. You know, like a wedding that someone who cares about throwing arguably the nicest party they will throw for the foreseeable future would throw. 

A day of planner by themselves is running in the 3-5k range and a full on wedding planner is 10k+ (SIL getting married this year). Venue rental isn't even the biggest scam. DJ for a wedding? Good luck finding one who doesn't just throw on a spotify playlist and actually knows how to move people throughout the day from place to place without paying AT LEAST 3k. Catering/meal that isn't served on paper plates and is actually consistent, hot and of quality that you would expect at any olive garden these days is MINIMUM 50-60/head for the DINNER portion. If you add on snacks and apps during the cocktail hour + dessert or a late snack for the dance party that easily pushes 75-80/head (including service, grat etc). 

Anyone saying that a Wedding can be done for under 20k and be any kind of reasonable person's definition of a "decent/nice" wedding should go into business as a wedding planner and crush it making 25% profit off of selling that package to people. 

We made money on our wedding. $100 to reserve at Mayfield Preserve, catered lunch at a restaurant for a reception (which we were planning to pay for, but FIL picked up the tab), and we came out ahead with the presents we received.

I think it's back to Brisket's "rice and beans on a folding table" meal. We loved our no-fuss wedding. Our guests loved our no-fuss wedding. It was small, intimate, low stress, and didn't require a big outlay of cash at a time of life when you shouldn't be spending tens of thousands on a party anyway. People were happy to be there, not happy because it was in a fancy place or had valet parking. More than a decade later, we're still going strong.

[Goredho 17397]

I think its hysterical that a lavish wedding is being used as the bar for the affordability crisis young American's face.  It's far more basic.  Take the American dream I experienced growing up and as depicted on leave it to Beaver or whatever.  One parent works, the other is focused on home and family.  They have a nice house and a couple of cars.  They have a couple kids getting decently educated at public schools.  The children will go to college and not be saddled with cradle-to-grave debt.

Kids aren't disillusioned because they can't have a lavish wedding like they might see on the season finale of "The Bachelor".   They are disillusioned because the "American dream" is now a very unrealistic pipe dream for them.  That's the result of laissez faire policy decisions that simply trust corporations and the uber wealthy to safeguard the welfare of our society's middle class.

[Js1 85281]

Just now, Goredho said:

I think its hysterical that a lavish wedding is being used as the bar for the affordability crisis young American's face.  It's far more basic.  Take the American dream I experienced growing up and as depicted on leave it to Beaver or whatever.  One parent works, the other is focused on home and family.  They have a nice house and a couple of cars.  They have a couple kids getting decently educated at public schools.  The children will go to college and not be saddled with cradle-to-grave debt.

Kids aren't disillusioned because they can't have a lavish wedding like they might see on the season finale of "The Bachelor".   They are disillusioned because the "American dream" is now a very unrealistic pipe dream for them.  That's the result of laissez faire policy decisions that simply trust corporations and the uber wealthy to safeguard the welfare of our society's middle class.

The wedding example is being used to minimize the real issue, as you mentioned.  The American Dream is dead for millennials and Gen Z.   But people will use the wedding example as "entitlement" and that they should stop spending money on Starbucks and avocado toast and pick themselves up by their bootstraps and they'll suddenly be able to afford a home. 

[gofuckyourself 8205]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

My hyphothesis as to one of the major reasons that young people are unhappy in the US: meanness is discouraging and demoralizing, kindness and caring about other people breeds contentment.  And we are at a point in our cultural cycle that fucking elevates and worships meanness, cruelty, selfishness, and hurting others, and demeans and diminishes ANY concept of the common good, doing things for the benefit of your fellow man, and the like (hell, see cum rocket's reply above).  You think that young people don't see that?  They see it clear as day.

Contrast that with one of the countries highest on the happiness index, Finland (7 for youth, 2 for elderly).  The observation hit my wife like a hammer when we visited last year: they care about each other, they care about their children. As in, it is a point of national pride and identity.  It is conspicuous, it is woven into their daily lives and the stories they tell each other.  And I thought there was an interesting point in the discussion of "happiness" as it is observed in Finland.  It's not about walking around giggling with a shit-eating grin on your face; it's about contentment, and being satisfied.

Culturally, we don't value "having enough" at all.  You must either have excess -- wild success, conspicuous cars and fashion, etc. -- or you are a loser and a failure.  In someplace like Finland, happiness/contentment for the bulk of the country is being able to spend 2 weeks in the summer at a cabin on a lake.  Many of them don't even have electricity.  You sauna, you plunge in the cold lake, you drink by the fire with friends, you eat some food that makes the Finns happy (but man, most folks wouldn't be thrilled with it).  And it makes you happy.  Here?  You best be blowing it out on a tropical beach or somesuch, eating $200 per person dinners, or else you suck.  Yes, there are outliers (there are rich Finns, there are Americans who are happy and satisfied with ordinary lives).  But our dominant cultural theme is NOT healthy.

Kindness.  Taking care of each other.  Finding joy in simple things.  Finding happiness in connection, not in materiality.  Those are the simple and not-exactly-secret keys to happiness.  Our culture is far away from all of those things, and running further away from them every day.  We should stop running that direction.  Then, we should take some steps in the OTHER direction.

 

"Never enough" is the American dream. While Texas gets the reputation of "everything is bigger" and the pride in that -- it's obviously the entire country. Get more! It's in fact the expectation that American's go out and get all they can as fast as they can.

I would add as far as "unhappiness" goes is that there doesn't seem to be an appreciation for the work required to learn new skills. Not just education and "book learning" but even just actual everyday skills that our ancestors HAD to learn. 

It may just be the people I'm around but everything is "too much work," or it's easier to just throw something away and buy a new one than learn to repair it.

The other day I forced myself to learn to fix a broken tabletop lamp. I had to actually think "should I bother? I can order a new one for $30 and it will arrive tomorrow."

Most people, I think, would choose the latter.  Ironically, there is more information than ever available to pick up those new skills. But the lack of understanding of the physical world around us contributes to this malaise and constant "search" for happiness in things.

I wonder if youth and the instantaneous gratification of social media, entertainment, gaming, etc. will only deepen this.

I observed it in myself so in the past couple of years started cooking more meals -- including slow, "complicated" dishes -- as well as woodworking and rejuvenating my reading habits in order to force myself to get to that "simplicity."

Life is best enjoyed simply, but that doesn't mean boring -- unlike what social and mass media and marketing espouse to the contrary.

[aggie08 21491]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The wedding example is being used to minimize the real issue, as you mentioned.  The American Dream is dead for millennials and Gen Z.   But people will use the wedding example as "entitlement" and that they should stop spending money on Starbucks and avocado toast and pick themselves up by their bootstraps and they'll suddenly be able to afford a home. 

It's almost like decades of "lazy, entitled millennial" jokes and stereotypes so the olds could pat themselves on the back weren't particularly productive and are now being pushed onto the next generations.

[Goredho 17397]

The American dream only needs to be reset to allow this trend to continue.

Rather than asking 95% to reset to accept a lesser reality than they would have experienced in 1973, I'd rather see the 5% reset to experience the reality they would have experienced in 1973. 

[Brisketexan 105071]

10 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm not exactly down a conspiracy rabbit hole, but patterns are patterns and it really is starting to look like "the fourth turn" or whatever historical thing you want to call it for the last 800 or so years at ~100 year cycles and a bit longer before that. All the signs are there, but the thought right now is can we break the current cycle and transition from an iffy time to a moderately okay time instead off absolute chaos and destruction which usually is needed to reset the system at this point. 

I don't think it's conspiracy at all.  Strauss-Howe generational theory is SPOOKY spot-on.  "Generations" was published in 1991 -- over 30 years ago.  Pick it up, and read the end where it talks about "what is likely to come next," and it's terrifying wizardry -- it's spot-on in predicting not just trends but the exact types of society-altering events that have happened since 1991.  And yes, we're full-on in that fourth turning.   E.g., a large-scale full war in fucking Europe....all of the shit.

My kids' generation isn't dumb.  They've read a history book or two.  They know the shitstorm that we're in, and that it's going to get worse before it gets better.  That fucking weighs on you.

[Goredho 17397]

I hope it doesn't come down to force, but it might.  I would hope that the 5% could see that it is in their best interests to ensure the 95% are content even in a capitalistic society.  The Camelots of the uber-wealthy are built on the backs of the working class.  They need only shrug to shake their foundations.

[dcbc 14465]

For those of you with kids, talk to them.  Ask the hard questions.  Keep an eye on behavioral and mood changes.  A vast majority of them  (based on experience with my own and talking to friends about their kids) are not feeling mentally well.  You can help and get them help.  Their is light on the other side.  But we chalked it up to typical teenager shit for longer than we should have and are lucky things didn't go horribly wrong from what we came to learn.

[Brisketexan 105071]

3 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I hope it doesn't come down to force, but it might.  I would hope that the 5% could see that it is in their best interests to ensure the 95% are content even in a capitalistic society.  The Camelots of the uber-wealthy are built on the backs of the working class.  They need only shrug to shake their foundations.

They won't.  Plenty of us in the top 5% -- including a handful of the super-wealthy 1% or better -- have been shouting that message from the rooftops, talking about it with our peers, working to further political efforts in that regard.  It's common sense that a stable and functional society benefits us all.  All of that has been utterly crushed by the message of "but SOCIALISM!  FREELOADERS!  MAH FREEDUMBS!"  There's no point.

Our rich are as dumb as our poor -- both keep choosing and furthering policies that will ultimately cause them incredible pain.  There's no telling people "don't touch that hot stove."  We simply have to touch it, to feel the brutal sizzle of our own flesh, before we'll yank back and say "gosh, maybe we shouldn't do that."

Leaving a bunch of us like 

[956 Worldwide 34702]

44 minutes ago, immamac said:

if you are talking about a 120-150 person wedding that isn't "cheaped out" or at a venue that you have to do every fucking thing yourself or hire a planner then I agree.

Can you have a wedding for cheaper? Sure, but it just means you or your friends did more legwork and you didn't have a lot of "standard" amenities that most weddings have. like bar service and open bar, reception/cocktail hour, actual nice shit at a venue with real tablecloths and real silverware. You know, like a wedding that someone who cares about throwing arguably the nicest party they will throw for the foreseeable future would throw. 

A day of planner by themselves is running in the 3-5k range and a full on wedding planner is 10k+ (SIL getting married this year). Venue rental isn't even the biggest scam. DJ for a wedding? Good luck finding one who doesn't just throw on a spotify playlist and actually knows how to move people throughout the day from place to place without paying AT LEAST 3k. Catering/meal that isn't served on paper plates and is actually consistent, hot and of quality that you would expect at any olive garden these days is MINIMUM 50-60/head for the DINNER portion. If you add on snacks and apps during the cocktail hour + dessert or a late snack for the dance party that easily pushes 75-80/head (including service, grat etc). 

Anyone saying that a Wedding can be done for under 20k and be any kind of reasonable person's definition of a "decent/nice" wedding should go into business as a wedding planner and crush it making 25% profit off of selling that package to people. 

Counterpoint that ties into the influencer lifestyle and fraying social ties: 

I cannot count how many weddings I have been to in my life (mostly pre-college) where the ceremony was at a church where the couple attended and the reception held at the church hall or a social club hall where a parent belonged or at a nice house’s yard that was a family friend or something.  The cost was decorations, catering, clothes, and a few hundred to the officiant.  And no one blinked an eye or felt they got cheaped out.  The max expectation that was for rich people was a country club reception.

Want another example? What about Little and Pony League having shirts sponsored by a garage or law office, and the coaches are all dads who got shanghaied into doing it?  How the fuck did baseball become a rich kid’s sport where its travel team or nothing? What model do you think left mom, dad, and kid more well adjusted? 

I generally think that Michael Moore is a total ass but bowling alone touched a nerve.  If you want a better mood join the Elks.  Coach a youth sport. We’ve turned so many community activities into nothing or just businesses.  

[Frank Drebin 5659]

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Counterpoint that ties into the influencer lifestyle and fraying social ties: 

I cannot count how many weddings I have been to in my life (mostly pre-college) where the ceremony was at a church where the couple attended and the reception held at the church hall or a social club hall where a parent belonged or at a nice house’s yard that was a family friend or something.  The cost was decorations, catering, clothes, and a few hundred to the officiant.  And no one blinked an eye or felt they got cheaped out.  The max expectation that was for rich people was a country club reception.

Want another example? What about Little and Pony League having shirts sponsored by a garage or law office, and the coaches are all dads who got shanghaied into doing it?  How the fuck did baseball become a rich kid’s sport where its travel team or nothing? What model do you think left mom, dad, and kid more well adjusted? 

I generally think that Michael Moore is a total ass but bowling alone touched a nerve.  If you want a better mood join the Elks.  Coach a youth sport. We’ve turned so many community activities into nothing or just businesses.  

And homes.  The average home size in the 1950s was around 1,000 SF.  Now you have much larger homes and much smaller families.

[Da Fino 2776]

22 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I hope it doesn't come down to force, but it might.  I would hope that the 5% could see that it is in their best interests to ensure the 95% are content even in a capitalistic society.  The Camelots of the uber-wealthy are built on the backs of the working class.  They need only shrug to shake their foundations.

It won't. 

[Celery Man 20932]

1 minute ago, Frank Drebin said:

And homes.  The average home size in the 1950s was around 1,000 SF.  Now you have much larger homes and much smaller families.

And the 1000 sf homes from the 50s are still out of reach 

[TwiceHorn 31439]

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

Entirely, huh? You're honestly arguing that external factors don't contribute at all? That's what you want to go with?

I guess groomers don't really exist then and we have no need to push "family" and Judeo-Christian ethics.

[956 Worldwide 34702]

The house size thing (I also have a violent reaction to saying we build “homes” and not “houses”) is not just unrealistic consumptionism. Zoning and NIMBY has made it damn near impossible to profitably build smaller.  All those post-War American dream suburbs couldn’t be built in most cases. More “fuck you, I want my house value to go up” mentality. 

[Brisketexan 105071]

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

The house size thing (I also have a violent reaction to saying we build “homes” and not “houses”) is not just unrealistic consumptionism. Zoning and NIMBY has made it damn near impossible to profitably build smaller.  All those post-War American dream suburbs couldn’t be built in most cases. More “fuck you, I want my house value to go up” mentality. 

This.  At nearly every turn, we have created a DISINCENTIVE to "satisfactory," and massive incentives to "excess."  Generally, it is now economically stupid to build modest size homes on modest size lots.  Profitability numbers dictate 5,000 sf McMansions.  And it's a stupid cycle: we have the system and rules we have because of developers and their lobbying efforts....and now future developers would be stupid not to play by those rules.

Hell, cars are similar.  Auto makers make massive money off of giant trucks and SUVs.  While small cars are profitable, the margins and dollars per unit are much lower.  So, automakers have every incentive to crank out stacks of bro dozers, and little incentive to build sensible, affordable, fuel efficient cars.

The list goes on and on.  We are at peak "me," peak consumption, and it's making us more MISERABLE, not happier.

[956 Worldwide 34702]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

 

Hell, cars are similar.  Auto makers make massive money off of giant trucks and SUVs.  While small cars are profitable, the margins and dollars per unit are much lower.  So, automakers have every incentive to crank out stacks of bro dozers, and little incentive to build sensible, affordable, fuel efficient cars.

The list goes on and on.  We are at peak "me," peak consumption, and it's making us more MISERABLE, not happier.

There’s also an escalating cycle with cars and safety. “Protect your family by putting them on the INSIDE of this family-crushing machine.” 

[fattyflattie 4639]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  At nearly every turn, we have created a DISINCENTIVE to "satisfactory," and massive incentives to "excess."  Generally, it is now economically stupid to build modest size homes on modest size lots.  Profitability numbers dictate 5,000 sf McMansions.  And it's a stupid cycle: we have the system and rules we have because of developers and their lobbying efforts....and now future developers would be stupid not to play by those rules.

Hell, cars are similar.  Auto makers make massive money off of giant trucks and SUVs.  While small cars are profitable, the margins and dollars per unit are much lower.  So, automakers have every incentive to crank out stacks of bro dozers, and little incentive to build sensible, affordable, fuel efficient cars.

The list goes on and on.  We are at peak "me," peak consumption, and it's making us more MISERABLE, not happier.

And who’s fault is it for needing a pavement princess brodozer? Certainly not the manufacturer’s.  They build sensible, affordable, and fuel efficient cars, too. They don’t sell in the quantities you think are correct, but who is to blame.  
 

Why would a for profit builder focus on shotgun houses when your money comes in the less costly additional footage?  Not to mention that house is likely to get a solid loan from a solid buyer because news flash, people buying high end shit typically are more sorted than those that cannot.  What we can all agree to is if that there is more money to be made there, it would be happening.  This would be akin to you lowering your hourly rate, while working harder, to accommodate clients who are less likely to pay.   Do you practice that way in your practice? Not a one off pro Bono shit you’ve done, have you designed your practice that way for the better good (those that can’t afford 650/hr attorney)? 

[Captainant 27637]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

And who’s fault is it for needing a pavement princess brodozer? Certainly not the manufacturer’s.  They build sensible, affordable, and fuel efficient cars, too. They don’t sell in the quantities you think are correct, but who is to blame.  

Manufacturers are making larger vehicles because it allows them to sidestep fuel economy regulations. Manufacturers aren't selling as many low end cars and smaller because the lower end buyers in the market has been hollowed out and luxury/big is where the money is with new cars. 

You gotta engage your critical thinking for a second before you jump straight to the circular logic, fattster. 

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Why would a for profit builder focus on shotgun houses when your money comes in the less costly additional footage?  Not to mention that house is likely to get a solid loan from a solid buyer because news flash, people buying high end shit typically are more sorted than those that cannot.

In a situation where living space and homes are a zero-sum game, we really should not be building a profit center. It will inevitably lead to haves and have nots, and when you're talking about housing, that means you are planning and intending to have a persistent homeless community as a feature and not a bug. If the market exists and provides value only for the wealthy, then we live in a caste society and not a capitist society. 

[bullzak 416]

A lot of good points here but for me this biggest difference from my childhood is tech/social media. Everyone has a bullhorn now and so many of them are batshit crazy or evil. Tailor made for extreme tribalism.

So now we are a nation of people who scream at each other and don't listen to anybody. My Apple News feed uses some perverted search algorithm that makes the app nothing much more than an outrage/fear machine. Every other story is something I need to be pissed or worried about, notwithstanding the fact that I probably can't change it. 

Now spring all that shit on young people without enough grounding experiences to keep them sane, and here we are. [Dont forget to add in the madness of Covid]

The upcoming election will ramp this whole deal up by eleventy billion times. You win elections by identifying a problem and making sure to blame the guy you're trying to beat. You read enough of that crap you can't help but be miserable. 

Edited March 20 by bullzak

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Manufacturers aren't selling as many low end cars and smaller because the lower end buyers in the market has been hollowed out

No. Anyone who can afford a 100k pickup can afford a 22k shitbox.  We choose not to, as is our right.  Neighbor just bought some new Nissan shitbox for his 16yo. 28k off the lot, they exist.  You are insinuating that affordable vehicles don’t exist.  Individuals make the decision to forgo thay option.  
 

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

In a situation where living space and homes are a zero-sum game, we really should not be building a profit center. It will inevitably lead to haves and have nots, and when you're talking about housing, that means you are planning and intending to have a persistent homeless community as a feature and not a bug. If the market exists and provides value only for the wealthy, then we live in a caste society and not a capitist society. 

Affordable homes are available.  Not, you cannot find them in Beverly Hills, River oaks, or the park cities.  They are building rows and rows of little pos houses 10 miles west of me right now, completely fucking up multi million dollar horse properties all around.  Which is going to cause them to sale because they didn’t sign up to live next to the dregs, opening up more land for shitty little houses occupied by people who live in shitty little houses.  The market exists for everyone.   

[Brisketexan 105071]

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

And who’s fault is it for needing a pavement princess brodozer? Certainly not the manufacturer’s.  They build sensible, affordable, and fuel efficient cars, too. They don’t sell in the quantities you think are correct, but who is to blame.  
 

Why would a for profit builder focus on shotgun houses when your money comes in the less costly additional footage?  Not to mention that house is likely to get a solid loan from a solid buyer because news flash, people buying high end shit typically are more sorted than those that cannot.  What we can all agree to is if that there is more money to be made there, it would be happening.  This would be akin to you lowering your hourly rate, while working harder, to accommodate clients who are less likely to pay.   Do you practice that way in your practice? Not a one off pro Bono shit you’ve done, have you designed your practice that way for the better good (those that can’t afford 650/hr attorney)? 

It's a spiral that builds on itself, based on both baseline human nature (short term greed -- from both the seller and consumer), economic and zoning incentives (that is, policy choices we've made) (sure, the builder makes money on the s.f., but why does the equation of "I can build 5,000 s.f. on this lot" have to ALSO be confined to "....but only for a single family, not townhomes etc.?")

A cultural ethos of "more is always better" is surely blameworthy.  A similar cultural ethos that has given rise to policy and regulatory choices is surely blameworthy.  A market structure that rewards short-term gain over long-term profit and stability is surely blameworthy.  And the list goes on.  And permeates EVERYTHING.  Shit, let's just talk your basic burger combo:

MORE IS BETTER!  The consumer gets "more."  The seller makes more profit per meal for higher overall profit numbers (10% of $10 is more than 10% of $5).  EVERYONE WINS!

Except....many people lose (most significantly on the consumer end).  Giant portion sizes aren't actually making us happier, long-term.

Bigger houses aren't making most of us happier, long-term.

Big SUVS aren't making most of us happier, long-term.

As a society, we've made poor choices.  And then we've implemented legal and regulatory schemes that incentivize those choices....so we make even MORE of those choices, and it goes on and on.

Nobody is saying that profit is a dirty word -- far from it.  The problem is when near/short-term profit taking is harmful to our collective long-term interests.  E.g., I harvested 20 tons of grain this year.  I could sell all 20 tons (making profit on all 20 tons), or, I could sell 19 tons and hold back 1 ton to use as seed for next year's crop.  Second path is the smart play....but the first path is how our society works now.  Rolling back some of our gains into our collective long-term future is the smart play.  But everything we've put in place, from ethics to laws to regulations, fights against that these days.

[Farmerted 125]

I have 3 kids 20-25 . They have all struggled with this the youngest the least. The older two - get off your machines , get some exercise , get your sleep right . that and a 6 month course of celexa helped quite a bit - the youngest is in college sports - that has its own issues but in general very busy so less time for the social media. Humans are very adaptable but the human mind and risk /threat assessment apparatus is completely overwhelmed by our latest technology( this fucking phone in my hand) . 
At 18-30 I watched the news we had the fucking Cold War to worry about , I knew of people richer than my family - I had wants , fears and insecurities - they weren’t front and center 22 hrs a day. 
turn off the social media 

[956 Worldwide 34702]

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  At nearly every turn, we have created a DISINCENTIVE to "satisfactory," and massive incentives to "excess."  Generally, it is now economically stupid to build modest size homes on modest size lots.  Profitability numbers dictate 5,000 sf McMansions.  And it's a stupid cycle: we have the system and rules we have because of developers and their lobbying efforts....and now future developers would be stupid not to play by those rules.

Hell, cars are similar.  Auto makers make massive money off of giant trucks and SUVs.  While small cars are profitable, the margins and dollars per unit are much lower.  So, automakers have every incentive to crank out stacks of bro dozers, and little incentive to build sensible, affordable, fuel efficient cars.

The list goes on and on.  We are at peak "me," peak consumption, and it's making us more MISERABLE, not happier.

There are so many non-market based incentives and tweaks that are at play here. The issue is that they are the status quo and  attempt to use similar tools to get a different outcome is seems as market interference rather than rebalancing incentives. I don’t want to move cloakroom and to keep it on topic so I’ll leave it there.  Every market is always regulated and the question is only “in favor of whom.” 

[Sbbruin 21829]

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Let me preface this by saying that COVID was dangerous and we did the best we could with hard choices.  That said:

- It absolutely wrecked young people’s shit to all go home for like a year and half. We forget that a year is a damn long time to a kid and that people 15-25 are the ones who most need to be around peers. We are still unwinding what that means and of course in the U.S. we did it the hard way.
 

- Youth social media is WACK.  I really believe TikTok’s algorithm is tweaked to show young people videos of people who are unhappy and unstable and want you to feel that way, too.  I am a huge believer in mental health and therapy when needed but there’s a whole, very popular genre, of influencers insisting that normal life challenges like going on a bad date or having a shitty job for a while are in fact brutal trauma.  

Yes.  I had high schoolers during Covid and I think it fucked them both up to a measurable degree.  And their peers.  Relationships are so different among teens today than they used to be.  While they have more connectivity through countless devices and platforms, the true interpersonal relationships are elusive.  My son, a good looking bright kid if I do say so myself, was (is) a sophomore in college before he got his first real girlfriend.  And that is far more common than it used to be.  Very few of his HS class were really dating.  Hell, we were ALL dating it seemed back in my day.  Some more serious than others, but the forced face-to-face communication we had sparked relationships that otherwise only exist through texts and snapchat.  Hell, my kids barely realize their phones have an actual phone function.  

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's a spiral that builds on itself, based on both baseline human nature (short term greed -- from both the seller and consumer)

We aren’t shitting on humans.  We are shitting on Americans and blowing the Finns. 
 

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

MORE IS BETTER!  The consumer gets "more."  The seller makes more profit per meal for higher overall profit numbers (10% of $10 is more than 10% of $5).  EVERYONE WINS!

Yet every single chain sells $1 kids burgers.  4 justaburgers can hit the spot right quick for $5.  We (me) choose that #2 and whatasize it, and that long predated Facebook and MySpace.  
 

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Nobody is saying that profit is a dirty word -- far from it. 

I implore to you to digest post #81 and tell me about where profit falls into that conversation. 

[Goredho 17397]

7 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Yes.  I had high schoolers during Covid and I think it fucked them both up to a measurable degree.  And their peers.  Relationships are so different among teens today than they used to be.  While they have more connectivity through countless devices and platforms, the true interpersonal relationships are elusive.  My son, a good looking bright kid if I do say so myself, was (is) a sophomore in college before he got his first real girlfriend.  And that is far more common than it used to be.  Very few of his HS class were really dating.  Hell, we were ALL dating it seemed back in my day.  Some more serious than others, but the forced face-to-face communication we had sparked relationships that otherwise only exist through texts and snapchat.  Hell, my kids barely realize their phones have an actual phone function.  

Same.  I under appreciated that a year of lockdown for me was 1/50th of my life, but 1/10th of my 10 year old's life.   I under-appreciated how that experience of isolation would affect them.  They turned to digital means of interrelation with others and we are still trying to help navigate them out of that.

[Brisketexan 105071]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

We aren’t shitting on humans.  We are shitting on Americans and blowing the Finns. 

Yes, we are.  Because CULTURALLY, the Finns have done the work to instill and champion a full set of values, instead of just indulging in basic human instincts.  That's the point, dude.  It's damned near the entire point.

 

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yet every single chain sells $1 kids burgers.  4 justaburgers can hit the spot right quick for $5.  We (me) choose that #2 and whatasize it, and that long predated Facebook and MySpace.  
 

Correct.  See the comment above.  It comes down to what we value.  While base human desire is for "more," some cultures have done a good job of instilling a sense of value for "enough."  Ours....has not.  Go to most restaurants in western Europe; portion sizes are much smaller than here.  "Enough" is what they generally want, culturally.  "More" is what Americans generally want, culturally.

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I implore to you to digest post #81 and tell me about where profit falls into that conversation. 

I disagree with the proposition that building housing can't/shouldn't consider profitability.  But when our models for profitability, and our incentives for same, create a system that skews the housing mix, that's the problem.  Bottom line, our social policy choices, as embodied in our regulatory choices (both regulations we pass, and those we decline to enact), should look much more like the choices that created the Mueller development than those that created Circle C or Cinco Ranch.  Rules and regulations (both passed and not passed -- as Rush said, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice") reflect the things we value as a society -- that's where the rubber meets the road.  And our system has some very misplaced priorities.

[Brisketexan 105071]

4 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Same.  I under appreciated that a year of lockdown for me was 1/50th of my life, but 1/10th of my 10 year old's life.   I under-appreciated how that experience of isolation would affect them.  They turned to digital means of interrelation with others and we are still trying to help navigate them out of that.

It unquestionably changed the trajectory of my kids' lives, and they were in their late teens.  My son graduated high school, and he just wasn't ready for college (and he knew it).  So, he did a gap year....which will end up being perhaps THE formative event of his life.  He grew up and learned so much, but that might not have happened had COVID not jacked with his high school experience.

My daughter, on the other hand, had the college freshman year she had dreamed of (and a dream that had come true) get cut short.  Her ability to socialize at a crucial period in her young life took a hit.  Her plans on where and what to study took a hit.  It put her someplace other than her first choice for her language study abroad, and bumped it to her senior year instead of junior, so her college career ended kind of with a fading out whimper.  Which left her a little directionless.  Which she's working on overcoming even right now.

But....COVID was a universal experience.  Seriously, everyone on earth had something of a common experience.  And we lost a lot - time matters.  So, yeah, I think that especially for young people, COVID is a contributor to sadness.

[Helobious 9450]

21 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yet every single chain sells $1 kids burgers.  4 justaburgers can hit the spot right quick for $5.  We (me) choose that #2 and whatasize it, and that long predated Facebook and MySpace.  
 

There’s 0 whataburgers in the world where a justaburger only costs $1.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

With respect to housing, and this is entirely anecdotal and I've not delved into any serious examination of fact v feeling but something we've noticed in our area is just how many SFR homes are snapped up by investors large and small and thus taken off the market for younger purchasers. For example, a new school opened up and there was the predictable flight towards the 'new' attendance area by those who had the means to move. Instead of selling their former homes, many switched them to rentals. In another area close to a higher ed campus, SFR homes were replaced with lease by the room units which makes sense as the homes were not amenable to the population density that a college neighborhood would need except that took yet more stock of older homes with no replacement. Those are the small investors for the most part, but the large scale operations buying up homes by the thousands seems to compound the problem. For better or worse, home ownership has been one measure for young couples starting out and even if they're like my family and not looking for a large home (ours is much less than the 2021 average of 2,480 sq ft as we ring in at 1,900 sq ft and that's plenty) it's getting more difficult to locate well built 'small' homes like ours that haven't been snapped up by investors. Granted, some neighborhoods have HOA or covenant restrictions against renting and that can help in that endeavor, but older neighborhoods like ours do not so it's been interesting watching the changes over time. Our children may not be so fortunate in their househunting, but they also have learned that happiness dwells within the walls of the smallest abode provided there is love and kindness.

[Brisketexan 105071]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

With respect to housing, and this is entirely anecdotal and I've not delved into any serious examination of fact v feeling but something we've noticed in our area is just how many SFR homes are snapped up by investors large and small and thus taken off the market for younger purchasers. For example, a new school opened up and there was the predictable flight towards the 'new' attendance area by those who had the means to move. Instead of selling their former homes, many switched them to rentals. In another area close to a higher ed campus, SFR homes were replaced with lease by the room units which makes sense as the homes were not amenable to the population density that a college neighborhood would need except that took yet more stock of older homes with no replacement. Those are the small investors for the most part, but the large scale operations buying up homes by the thousands seems to compound the problem. For better or worse, home ownership has been one measure for young couples starting out and even if they're like my family and not looking for a large home (ours is much less than the 2021 average of 2,480 sq ft as we ring in at 1,900 sq ft and that's plenty) it's getting more difficult to locate well built 'small' homes like ours that haven't been snapped up by investors. Granted, some neighborhoods have HOA or covenant restrictions against renting and that can help in that endeavor, but older neighborhoods like ours do not so it's been interesting watching the changes over time. Our children may not be so fortunate in their househunting, but they also have learned that happiness dwells within the walls of the smallest abode provided there is love and kindness.

That's a significant issue, and a relatively new trend as well.  Yesterday's Texas Standard had a report digging into just that subject (including a discussion of some of the larger institutional investors buying up thousands upon thousands of homes), and how even Greg Abbott was taking notice and observing that while the free market is good, we have to balance that with the need to have housing available for our people.  No idea what he proposes doing (probably nothing, especially once he gets checks from the right contributors), but noting that we've made some counter-productive policy choices that have hurt our people is not unnoticed, even by the folks on the political spectrum who you'd think wouldn't care.

[F250 28764]

35 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

While they have more connectivity through countless devices and platforms, the true interpersonal relationships are elusive.  My son, a good looking bright kid if I do say so myself, was (is) a sophomore in college before he got his first real girlfriend.  And that is far more common than it used to be.  Very few of his HS class were really dating.  Hell, we were ALL dating it seemed back in my day.  Some more serious than others, but the forced face-to-face communication we had sparked relationships that otherwise only exist through texts and snapchat.  Hell, my kids barely realize their phones have an actual phone function.  

I've seen others mention this but it hasn't been my observation. I have three sons, two were in high school during Covid and the oldest was in college.

All of them dated throughout high school, had an established social group, frequently attended events with friends and in groups of couples.

I remember a conversation I had with a group of my son's friends the summer before his H.S. junior year. They were talking smack about of their friends not hanging out as much anymore because he is always with his girlfriend.

Having experienced this dynamic as a youth, I informed my son and his friends that any of them would choose to spend time with a girlfriend over a bunch of dudes. I told them it's always the first one in the group that gets in a serious relationship that catches all the flack because the rest of you don't know what it's like. A year later they were all coupled up except one kid that they were always trying to setup with someone. It was the same way with my group of friends in the 90s.

As far as social media is concerned, they frequently used it to arrange in person get togethers or stay in contact with friends that moved away.

[Guadaloopy 10960]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes, we are.  Because CULTURALLY, the Finns have done the work to instill and champion a full set of values, instead of just indulging in basic human instincts.  That's the point, dude.  It's damned near the entire point.

 

Correct.  See the comment above.  It comes down to what we value.  While base human desire is for "more," some cultures have done a good job of instilling a sense of value for "enough."  Ours....has not.  Go to most restaurants in western Europe; portion sizes are much smaller than here.  "Enough" is what they generally want, culturally.  "More" is what Americans generally want, culturally.

Finland is 90+% Finns.  The degree of difficulty in instilling and acting on a common set of values is orders of magnitude lower in a racially and culturally homogenous population.  It's not about them "doing the work" so much as the fact that they have far fewer societal obstacles to overcome than a pluralistic society like the US.  Whether we like it or not, the tribal instinct is deeply ingrained in our psychology and it significantly hinders our ability to work together on common solutions.  It's a hard problem to navigate.  

Edited March 20 by Guadaloopy

[F250 28764]

41 minutes ago, Helobious said:

There’s 0 whataburgers in the world where a justaburger only costs $1.

Yeah, I believe they removed the Justaburger from the menu years ago and replaced it with the Whataburger Jr. which costs several dollars not $1.

[Brisketexan 105071]

3 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

The degree of difficulty in instilling and acting on a common set of values is orders of magnitude lower in a racially and culturally homogenous population. 

Well....it's certainly harder when we've spent centuries trying really hard (and we're reinvigorated in that effort) to treat some of those racial groups like shit, so....yeah.  It's still about shared cultural values.  And the thing is, those things that we like to THINK of as the good core American values....they are largely shared among all of our different racial/ethnic subgroups.  And we have found ways to share in those unified ideas.

But man, are we pushing back against ALL of those ways today.  Again, "fuck you, I got mine, but especially the 'fuck you' part" is being elevated and exalted in our culture.  I don't want to go CR, but there's a certain leading national political voice who is the high priest of the church of "fuck you, me me me."  And he has rabid followers, who worship him.  I don't postulate that he is the disease -- he's actually the most glaring symptom, writ large.

We went from a culture that exalted a presidential speech that said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," to......this shit.  That's a depressing cultural shift.

2 minutes ago, F250 said:

Yeah, I believe they removed the Justaburger from the menu years ago and replaced it with the Whataburger Jr. which costs several dollars not $1.

Justamotherfuckers......

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 hour ago, Frank Drebin said:

Abigail Shrier just wrote a book relevant to this.  I know she is controversial for her other book and takes related to LGBTQ, but her new book has nothing to do with it and makes a lot of points parents should ponder.

The book dives into trying to figure out why kids are having so many mental health problems, when there are so many resources devoted to improving mental health outcomes. Anxiety, depression, suicide, etc are all higher than they've ever been with kids, even though their lives are arguably better than ever before. It just doesn't make sense. A few key takeaways from the book:

1. A constant attention on how kids are "feeling" or "thinking" is causing negative outcomes. Constantly ruminating on your emotions and how you feel negatively impacts your mental health. If all you do is focus on your emotions, you are destined to be anxious or depressed. We incessantly ask kids how they're feeling, if they're happy, how their mental health is, etc, and this is creating kids who think they're fragile instead of resilient.
2. Trying to solve every problem for kids has caused a generation who can't do anything for themselves. Earlier generations were told to "suck it up" or "you'll live" or "rub some dirt on it" all the time. Many of us came to the conclusion this is "bad parenting" because our feelings were neglected, and we vowed not to do this to our own children. Because of that, kids immediately over-dramatize everything that happens to them, making mountains out of molehills, and thinking the world must revolve around their emotions and feelings.
3. You develop confidence and strong mental health by doing things, not by thinking or via therapy. You can't think your way out of anxiety. You don't gain confidence by analysis of your thoughts or mental health issues. You gain confidence and eliminate anxiety by doing gradually more difficult tasks, excelling at them, and realizing you are a competent, capable person. The non-stop attention therapy gives to these small, common emotions we all feel blows them out of proportion to their seriousness (not talking about genuine disorders here, just normal anxieties that millions of people go to therapy to try to avoid).
4. One of the best ways to decrease your happiness is to chase it. Our society constantly tells kids they should be "happy" and asks them if they are. Happiness isn't a state you should be in 24/7. That's not realistic. Joy and bliss aren't permanent states - they are fleeting. Contentment, stillness, and being even-keeled are much better goals to aim for mentally.
5. The happiest, most well adjusted kids come from families with loving parents that have rules and structure for the household. 
6. Constantly surveying school-age kids about their mental health causes more issues than it solves. Mental health resources is big money. Districts need to validate all the resources allocated towards mental health, and they often do that via surveys. Asking kids non-stop questions like:

- Have you thought about self harm?

- Have you thought about suicide?

- Have you been so anxious you can't get out of bed? Etc, etc puts into their heads the idea that themselves, or many of their peers are broken and cannot function properly in the real world. It normalizes situations that would be incredibly rare at any other time in history. 

Here is an interview she did with Jordan Peterson. JP is  hard to listen to, but she makes incredible points. There are shorter cuts from Rogan if you don't want to spend the time.

Shrier simply asks why the cohort that received the most mental health treatment is the worst off mentally, and draws the obvious conclusion. Social media is obviously a huge problem of course, there are lots of other factors, but in the end, I think it's a lack of meaning in life. Purpose, if you prefer. Healthy stress. Nobody around is actually helping them. Why do IDF soldiers have such low rates versus US soldiers? 

Young folks have everything and nothing at the same time.

 

[Captainant 27637]

42 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

With respect to housing, and this is entirely anecdotal and I've not delved into any serious examination of fact v feeling but something we've noticed in our area is just how many SFR homes are snapped up by investors large and small and thus taken off the market for younger purchasers. For example, a new school opened up and there was the predictable flight towards the 'new' attendance area by those who had the means to move. Instead of selling their former homes, many switched them to rentals. In another area close to a higher ed campus, SFR homes were replaced with lease by the room units which makes sense as the homes were not amenable to the population density that a college neighborhood would need except that took yet more stock of older homes with no replacement. Those are the small investors for the most part, but the large scale operations buying up homes by the thousands seems to compound the problem. For better or worse, home ownership has been one measure for young couples starting out and even if they're like my family and not looking for a large home (ours is much less than the 2021 average of 2,480 sq ft as we ring in at 1,900 sq ft and that's plenty) it's getting more difficult to locate well built 'small' homes like ours that haven't been snapped up by investors. Granted, some neighborhoods have HOA or covenant restrictions against renting and that can help in that endeavor, but older neighborhoods like ours do not so it's been interesting watching the changes over time. Our children may not be so fortunate in their househunting, but they also have learned that happiness dwells within the walls of the smallest abode provided there is love and kindness.

That's a major factor driving up home prices too - you can't ever really negotiate a price down now because you're going to get sniped by a private equity puke or someone buying SFH'S with cash to turn around and seek rents for PaSsIvE iNcOmE while complaining that nobody wants to work anymore. 

3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Here is an interview she did with Jordan Peterson. JP is  hard to listen to, but she makes incredible points. There are shorter cuts from Rogan if you don't want to spend the time.

Shrier simply asks why the cohort that received the most mental health treatment is the worst off mentally, and draws the obvious conclusion. Social media is obviously a huge problem of course, there are lots of other factors, but in the end, I think it's a lack of meaning in life. Purpose, if you prefer. Healthy stress. Nobody around is actually helping them. Why do IDF soldiers have such low rates versus US soldiers? 

Young folks have everything and nothing at the same time.

And YIKES dude. Peterson and Rogan are not who I would seek out for informed takes. Peterson outright believes in a natural hierarchy of authority and power, and blames virtually all of society's ills on "being woke". I really would not take any social commentary of his seriously unless you're looking to get big into incel culture

[bullzak 416]

19 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

Finland is 90+% Finns.  The degree of difficulty in instilling and acting on a common set of values is orders of magnitude lower in a racially and culturally homogenous population.  It's not about them "doing the work" so much as the fact they they have far fewer societal obstacles to overcome than a pluralistic society like the US.  Whether we like it or not, the tribal instinct is deeply ingrained in our psychology and it significantly hinders our ability to work together on common solutions.  It's a hard problem to navigate.  

This. The Scandinavian countries are virtually monocultural. The US is THE melting pot of the world. Its one of our strengths but cultural and racial strife come with that. With the ascent of social media, it defines us right now. 

And as for romantic relationships, these kids have no idea how to flirt with each other. At all. There is nothing like taking a few weeks to get up the guts to ask out that hot girl and either succeed or fail. And then do it again. 

Oh and everything isn't personal man. We could all use a refresher on that. 

[Guest]

Just now, Captainant said:

And YIKES dude. Peterson and Rogan are not who I would seek out for informed takes. Peterson outright believes in a natural hierarchy of authority and power, and blames virtually all of society's ills on "being woke". I really would not take any social commentary of his seriously unless you're looking to get big into incel culture

I actually looked this book up and was interested to check it out. Then I see she is doing that circuit and I'm not so sure I want to read it.

[956 Worldwide 34702]

9 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Here is an interview she did with Jordan Peterson. JP is  hard to listen to, but she makes incredible points. There are shorter cuts from Rogan if you don't want to spend the time.

Shrier simply asks why the cohort that received the most mental health treatment is the worst off mentally, and draws the obvious conclusion. Social media is obviously a huge problem of course, there are lots of other factors, but in the end, I think it's a lack of meaning in life. Purpose, if you prefer. Healthy stress. Nobody around is actually helping them. Why do IDF soldiers have such low rates versus US soldiers? 

Young folks have everything and nothing at the same time.

 

What is her take on the mental health thing? Because the way the question is framed has strong vibes of “why do people in chemo die of cancer more often than people not in chemo?”

 

Edited March 20 by 956 Worldwide

[F250 28764]

5 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

I actually looked this book up and was interested to check it out. Then I see she is doing that circuit and I'm not so sure I want to read it.

She is definitely a member of the "everything I don't like is woke" posse.

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

What is her take on the mental health thing? Because the way the question is framed has strong vibes of “why do people in chemo die of cancer more often than people not in chemo?”

 

exactly my thought while reading it.  my mind went to 'the guy with the all the bandaids has all the cuts.  we must get rid of bandaids!'

[Frank Drebin 5659]

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

What is her take on the mental health thing? Because the way the question is framed has strong vibes of “why do people in chemo die of cancer more often than people not in chemo?”

 

She says that over-focusing on ones own emotional state, which is championed by therapists, Social Emotional Learning advocates, and modern school counselors, leads to more instances of anxiety, emotional weakness, and depression. It's a concern about where we tell kids to focus, inwardly vs outwardly, in a way. By ruminating on "our feelings" too long or too much, we give them more power over us, not less. We feel more helpless and anxious through this self-focus.

She makes the argument that therapy is an intervention needed for people with real issues, but when applied to otherwise "normal" kids, we actually can and do cause harm. We've turned every parent into a "mini-therapist", every kid gets a diagnosis, resulting in over-intervention in our kids otherwise normal emotional development, and stunting their ability to deal themselves with negative emotions in a healthy way.

She didn't say this, but it reminded me of the classic parable of the butterfly, where the kid can't stand to see the butterfly struggle, so they help it out of the cocoon, only to watch it die from lack of wing strength. 

[F250 28764]

Just now, BeardIP said:

Is this the arch enemy to the "everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi / hatemonger"?

It means she is pushing an ideological agenda and not science.

[YGIFS 19449]

8 minutes ago, bullzak said:

This. The Scandinavian countries are virtually monocultural. The US is THE melting pot of the world. Its one of our strengths but cultural and racial strife come with that. With the ascent of social media, it defines us right now. 

And as for romantic relationships, these kids have no idea how to flirt with each other. At all. There is nothing like taking a few weeks to get up the guts to ask out that hot girl and either succeed or fail. And then do it again. 

Oh and everything isn't personal man. We could all use a refresher on that. 

I get your point, but this is a big misconception.  We used to be a model 'melting pot.'  But statistically speaking, we are just above average in terms of diversity (ethnicity, language, religion, etc.).  We're in basically the second quartile or third quintile.  Most 'white' people in this country used to speak 2+ languages, now most of them can barely speak English.  We are nowhere near as diverse as we used to be/think we are. 

Their issues do not stem from us being "so culturally separated."  The happiness levels of young people aren't about DEI, ESG, Biden, cost-of-living, climate change paranoia, social media (though this is getting worse to be sure), the economy, polarized politics, Covid (the kids from the 1918 Influenza pandemic got their shit together just in time for a dust bowl, recession, and a second World War just fine), or pornhub, or lack of religious morals.  Or any of that bullshit we tell ourselves at night or over coffee after church on Sundays.  They're not as happy because look at us.  We're almost all between 30-80 years old.  We're all highly educated and live comfortably.  And we're all fucking complete assholes and many of us even embrace stupidity and cruelty as virtues.  They're surrounded by dicks, assholes, and stupids for 3 generations above them.  I don't blame them at all.  And we're kind of like the smarter, more cultured ones.  imagine what it's like to be a young person out there surrounded by the average dipshit Joe filled with hate and ignorance.  They're miserable 'cause we fucking suck but can't shut the fuck up about how awesome we are and how easy they have it.  I think we forget sometimes how shitty it is out there for most Americans.  And regardless of who is in charge, it will only get worse.  The people working to make that happen aren't taking a day off, so mental illness won't either. /rant  

[Frank Drebin 5659]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

It means she is pushing an ideological agenda and not science.

I have read her book on this issue.  I don't think this book has anything to do with the woke versus non-woke culture wars.

[Captainant 27637]

22 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I have read her book on this issue.  I don't think this book has anything to do with the woke versus non-woke culture wars.

You also misquoted MLK in defense of Chris Rufo's CRT culture war, so reader beware lol

Spoiler

You know I've got receipts

 

 

 

Edited March 20 by Captainant