The Good Old Times Fallacy or: How I Grew to Truly Hate It

[seanrobertson]

Hiya.

The fallacy referred to in the subject line is something I made up.
Essentially, it's putting a name to any arguments like this:

Kids these days suck for [whatever reasons]. Back in 1920, or 15,675 BCE for that matter, people didn't suck. We were decent folk, even when
the Druids among us had to stick some unlucky cuss with a sharpened
stone for our gods. (Whoops.) We did the right thing in every case,
walked 1,000 miles through the snow to go to school, etc., etc., etc.

I have heard this tired old argument again and again in many forms.
However, it has existed for many generations; e.g., my 75 year old grandfather's parents thought young ladies were less than polite for smoking cigarettes, yet smoking among my grandfather's generation was
at an all-time high among both men and women. Cigarettes stink, but
were the women really THAT less polite?

I maintain that these cross-generational comparisons probably date
back to the beginnings of language itself. It's an easy way to reassure
oneself that they're valuable, even though they can't move about well,
can't think as clearly as, or do anything quite as efficiently as their
younger counterparts (with a few exceptions, to be sure).

Many people are quick to find what I also call the "logic" of least resistance--that which occurs to them as readily as any empirical observation might.
They observe that the world around them is more complicated and worse of than it might've been in the 1950s, so they conclude today's people must be directly responsible for this bad state of affairs (and, of course, assume this is negative, though without it the old farts would often be hard-pressed
to pay for their massive monthly drug bills). Similar poor reasoning eventually led to the formation of religions: I can't explain it, and with
my ego firmly intact, I must conclude that a superhuman being is responsible for the rain/sunshine/whatever da f**k.

This is many fallacies rolled into one, not the least of which is hasty generalization. I'm also VERY tired of it. I've heard speech-impedimented
talking head Tom Brokaw promote his book, _The Greatest Generation_
one too many times, perhaps. But really...where do people get off with
this nonsense? So you went to Europe and fought Hitler's forces...I
can certainly admire that. But that cute red herring has just what to do with the *reasoning* behind putting the following generation, and the one after that, down? (For that matter, your generation's utter stupidity and laziness at letting Hitler conquer most of Europe practically FORCED you into fighting him; and, with all respect to veterans, it's not as if many HAD A CHOICE. Lots of people DID sign up, but it was for self-serving reasons. The U.S. economy was sorta shitty at that point after all :rolls:.)

Sorry to keep preaching. I just thought this would be perfect for
Science and Logic, and it is something that's irritated me for a long time.
I know I've heard it one too many times...

Sean
Analyst http://www.babtech-onthe.net/

[Master of Ossus]

The ancient Greeks had a similar theory about people: that people degenerated from one generation to the next.

[Galvatron]

The ancient Greeks had a similar theory about people: that people degenerated from one generation to the next.

Weren't the ancient Greeks a bunch of pederasts?

[Darth Wong]

I maintain that these cross-generational comparisons probably date back to the beginnings of language itself. It's an easy way to reassure oneself that they're valuable, even though they can't move about well, can't think as clearly as, or do anything quite as efficiently as their younger counterparts (with a few exceptions, to be sure).

I think there's two reasons for this:

1. Rose-tinted nostalgia syndrome. People tend to look back on the joys of their youth while forgetting its pain. Then they compare the present to this rose-tinted memory and (surprise!) the present reality doesn't measure up.
2. Reactionary syndrome. Simple-minded people tend to fear change. It doesn't matter what the intrinsic virtues of any particular change are: their instinctive reaction to any change is fear and resistance. New generations always bring change: social change, and in this century, technological change. Therefore, reactionaries (who often go by the name "social conservatives") whine incessantly about how society is going to hell because we're not living the way they did.

I've heard speech-impedimented talking head Tom Brokaw promote his book, _The Greatest Generation_ one too many times, perhaps. But really...where do people get off with this nonsense? So you went to Europe and fought Hitler's forces...I can certainly admire that. But that cute red herring has just what to do with the *reasoning* behind putting the following generation, and the one after that, down? (For that matter, your generation's utter stupidity and laziness at letting Hitler conquer most of Europe practically FORCED you into fighting him; and, with all respect to veterans, it's not as if many HAD A CHOICE. Lots of people DID sign up, but it was for self-serving reasons. The U.S. economy was sorta shitty at that point after all :rolls:.)

The same generation that creates and sustained Hitler and Stalin managed to bring one of them down. Whoopee. <sarcasm>Let us all bow down and praise them</sarcasm>. I'm proud that my countrymen fought bravely at Dieppe and other places, but let's not forget that this "Greatest Generation" created more problems than it solved, and had contemptible tendencies toward extreme racism. Have we all forgotten the treatment of blacks until the 1960s, or the treatment of Jews in 1950's America despite the recent horror of the Holocaust? Have we forgotten the xenophobia that led to McCarthyism? I find it utterly incomprehensible that people think we should look up to the values of the so-called "Greatest Generation".

Sorry to keep preaching. I just thought this would be perfect for
Science and Logic, and it is something that's irritated me for a long time.
I know I've heard it one too many times...

Me too.

[lgot]

Not to mention the great ability of a human to judge and perceive another human by his own likings and feelings. Its not only about generations but groups and individuals who act and critic like if you had to be one of them to be successful - something so relative as sucess is - you had to make their choices and feel like them. So that make "that past times" better when the true is each time, society have its own level of hardness, level of success all that.

.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

What about the generation after the "greatest generation", which invented modern pacifism, with draftdodgers who opposed the Vietnam War not because of the US soldiers dying, but because they wanted the Communists to win. Now, most Baby Boomers fought in the Vietnam War, but there was a group of themthat would rather protest and smoke rather than fight for their country. This group included Bill Clinton, Jane Fonda, and Jimmy Carter Jr. Some of them are now professors at the universities that they used to protest on.

[Darth Wong]

Way to hijack that thread! It started with a rant against the bullshit "Greatest Generation" fallacy and you used it as an excuse to attack the Boomer generation because of some draft-dodgers.

What about the generation after the "greatest generation", which invented modern pacifism, with draftdodgers who opposed the Vietnam War not because of the US soldiers dying, but because they wanted the Communists to win.

Wow, you crawled into the heads of all the draft-dodgers and figured out their true motivations? Cool. BTW, what business did you have telling the Vietnamese how to run their government? Why should it matter to you? Nobody in Vietnam was trying to destroy America.

Now, most Baby Boomers fought in the Vietnam War, but there was a group of themthat would rather protest and smoke rather than fight for their country. This group included Bill Clinton, Jane Fonda, and Jimmy Carter Jr. Some of them are now professors at the universities that they used to protest on.

One small problem with your argument: the US soldiers in Vietnam were not fighting for their country. America was not under attack. Not one North Vietnamese bullet came anywhere near American soil. America was butting its nose in somebody else's business. Instead of "fighting for their country", these soldiers were "fighting for the promotion of a particular ideology in somebody else's country". Not quite as inspiring, is it?

I feel bad for US soldiers who went over to Vietnam to die in somebody else's war. I also feel bad for people who, 30 years later, are still so wound up with ideologies that they still can't figure out what really happened. This is a lasting legacy of the McCarthyism created by the "Greatest Generation": people who believe that the promotion of an ideology outweighs the sanctity of human life.

[Gil Hamilton]

What about the generation after the "greatest generation", which invented modern pacifism, with draftdodgers who opposed the Vietnam War not because of the US soldiers dying, but because they wanted the Communists to win. Now, most Baby Boomers fought in the Vietnam War, but there was a group of themthat would rather protest and smoke rather than fight for their country. This group included Bill Clinton, Jane Fonda, and Jimmy Carter Jr. Some of them are now professors at the universities that they used to protest on.

If by "fighting for your country", you mean "fighting to protect several politicians sizable investments that would have gone down the shitter if Vietnam became communist" you are right.
Incidently, out of the people you listed, only Jane Fonda actually was in the North Vietnamese corner. What about George Bush Jr., who was bravely defending pubs from Charlie because daddy got him into the Air Force Reserve?

[weemadando]

The Monty Python, "Back in my day" sketch says it all. Repeatedly.

[Peregrin Toker]

Cool. BTW, what business did you have telling the Vietnamese how to run their government? Why should it matter to you? Nobody in Vietnam was trying to destroy America.

Erm... I thought the government of South Vietnam was supported by the USA, and that they expected the USA to "help" them if they were attacked.

If you lived in a relatively small country, and it was attacked by a neighbour country backed up by one of the world's superpowers, wouldn't you expect your most powerful ally to assist??

However, I am in no way endorsing the USA's involvement in the Vietnam War!! In fact, I sometimes think that the Vietnam War was a typical example of the way the USA sometimes behaved like a 20th century Roman Empire... (and that is NOT meant as a compliment!)

[Durandal]

Every American citizen has the right to evade the draft. The military is an environment in which your civil rights are forcibly suspended. Voluntarily signing up for such treatment and waiving your rights is a personal choice, but the government has absolutely no right to force people into such a situation. Selective Service runs contrary to everything the founding fathers envisioned.

[Steve]

Every American citizen has the right to evade the draft. The military is an environment in which your civil rights are forcibly suspended. Voluntarily signing up for such treatment and waiving your rights is a personal choice, but the government has absolutely no right to force people into such a situation. Selective Service runs contrary to everything the founding fathers envisioned.

Well, IIRC, said Fathers also considered every able-bodied male to be a member of the militia of the USA, but that was to be expected during the times (Especially since militias were only part-time armed forces raised in times of emergency).

I think the draft should only be used in times of extreme national emergency. I'm talking nukes flying or enemy soldiers in force on American soil. And even then, well, I'm not too much a fan of the draft, it's probably just that it's the preferable evil to not having the necessary manpower to win.

Because, the thing is, mass armies of citizen-soldiers are becoming outdated. Warfare today is a very sophisticated mechanism, requiring months and years of training for soldiers to get right. Oh, some countries, like China, still field mass conscript armies, but conscripts will never fight with the same morale as volunteers.


As for Vietnam, that was a fuckup going back twenty years to the end of WWII. Truman should've told de Gaulle and the French what to do with themselves and recognized Nguyen Ai Quoc's attempt to make an independent Indochinese government. Instead, he let the French bully him into refusing that recognition in exchange for bases in France... which the French promptly reneged on anyway!

Of course, we all know where this went. Unable to get support from the US, Nguyen Ai Quoc eventually went Red.... and became Ho Chi Minh.

Then Chance #2, where we could have bit the bullet and had a strong SE Asian ally aside from Thailand, by having a Vietnamese reunification vote. It would have gone in Ho's favor in all likelihood, but Ho was a nationalist like Tito, and could have made Vietnam an Asian Yugoslavia, thus neutral in the Cold War.

Finally, we should have written up Vietnam as a loss and concentrated on keeping the Reds out of Cambodia and Laos. But we didn't do that... so all three went Red.

Twenty years of fuckups, and who can we blame for it in the end? The French! Why? Because I like blaming the French, they're so.... blameable.


BTW, Mike, the "Greatest Generation" thing is usually restricted to the Western Allies, from the stuff I've read. In fact, the book that coined that phrase (at least recently, from what I've seen) was only about the Americans of that time. And it's a matter of perspective, really: that generation grew up in the Great Depression and fought the Second World War, then came home and turned the United States into a superpower. They had their faults, but really, all generations have their faults.

And the "Greatest Generation" does include the men who fought in such units as the 442nd Combat Team, the 100th Infantry Battalion, 332nd Fighter Group (aka the Tuskegee Airmen), and the 92nd Infantry Division. I am, of course, referring to units of minorities that suffered under the burden of racism (The former two units were Nisei, Japanese-Americans, and the latter two were units of black Americans). They, at the very least, deserve to be considered the "Greatest Generation", overcoming racism within their own ranks and performing exceptionally in battle against the forces of fascism (which was definitely the greater evil, even if you consider the racism in North America and Western states). The 442nd CT became the most highly-decorated unit of it's size in US Army history, and the 332nd Fighter Group never lost a bomber under their protection.

Is my mention of them a dodge? Not really, I mentioned them because I like what they did, kicking Nazi ass and in the process proving wrong all the racist scumbags that held power back then. Which is why I certainly consider them to be the greatest generation, or at least the greatest of their generation if you don't want to make them "the greatest generation".

Okay, I'm done rambling, I'll shuddap now. Probably have more fascists to beat up with Mark (Iceberg) on SB anyhow... (Want details? Check our Non-scifi forum, the thread "Service Guarantees Citizenship".)

[Durandal]

Well, IIRC, said Fathers also considered every able-bodied male to be a member of the militia of the USA, but that was to be expected during the times (Especially since militias were only part-time armed forces raised in times of emergency).

I don't remember anything about that. The founding fathers simply gave everyone a right to bear arms.

I think the draft should only be used in times of extreme national emergency. I'm talking nukes flying or enemy soldiers in force on American soil. And even then, well, I'm not too much a fan of the draft, it's probably just that it's the preferable evil to not having the necessary manpower to win.

If the situation gets to be that dire, then you'll likely have the Redneck Militias doing their thing. Hell, if nukes started flying, my ass would be off to Canada pretty quickly, seeing as I'm an hour outside of Chicago.

Because, the thing is, mass armies of citizen-soldiers are becoming outdated. Warfare today is a very sophisticated mechanism, requiring months and years of training for soldiers to get right. Oh, some countries, like China, still field mass conscript armies, but conscripts will never fight with the same morale as volunteers.

Agreed. The battlefield isn't the place for me. I'd be more useful to my country in a computer warfare-related field or communications. Or maybe designing bombs or something. I wouldn't want to be a grunt, though. I'd be useless on the battlefield, and I'd probably never make it through Basic. Well, I might, but not with anything resembling flying colors.

As for minority squadrons, there is a very highly distinguished black bomber squadron that flew a perfect record, and they were recognized, especially today. Can't remember the number for the life of me, though...

[AdmiralKanos]

BTW, Mike, the "Greatest Generation" thing is usually restricted to the Western Allies, from the stuff I've read. In fact, the book that coined that phrase (at least recently, from what I've seen) was only about the Americans of that time. And it's a matter of perspective, really: that generation grew up in the Great Depression and fought the Second World War, then came home and turned the United States into a superpower. They had their faults, but really, all generations have their faults.

They grew up during an economic depression, but how does that make them great? Shit luck doesn't make someone great. They destroyed a monster they helped create, the US became a superpower by default, after the rest of the world had been reduced to stone-age subsistence, and the first thing the US did with its power was start trampling all over other countries' sovereignty to advance its ideology, and oppressing free thought at home. Does that make them great? And every time in my life that I've run into a truly vehement, unrepentant racist, it's always someone from that fucking generation. There were some good ones, of course, but as a group, I don't see why they should be canonized.

I am, of course, referring to units of minorities that suffered under the burden of racism (The former two units were Nisei, Japanese-Americans, and the latter two were units of black Americans). They, at the very least, deserve to be considered the "Greatest Generation", overcoming racism within their own ranks and performing exceptionally in battle against the forces of fascism (which was definitely the greater evil, even if you consider the racism in North America and Western states). The 442nd CT became the most highly-decorated unit of it's size in US Army history, and the 332nd Fighter Group never lost a bomber under their protection.

That's nice, but it also serves to underline the state of racism: they were racially segregated units, demonstrating a social policy which would live on until the bad, terrible Boomer generation tore it down in the 1960's. Was the Boomer generation perfect? Of course not; I resent them for a wide variety of things. But do they deserve to be lambasted next to the "Greatest Generation"? I strongly feel that they do not.

Is my mention of them a dodge? Not really, I mentioned them because I like what they did, kicking Nazi ass and in the process proving wrong all the racist scumbags that held power back then. Which is why I certainly consider them to be the greatest generation, or at least the greatest of their generation if you don't want to make them "the greatest generation".

OK, I'll go for that.

Okay, I'm done rambling, I'll shuddap now. Probably have more fascists to beat up with Mark (Iceberg) on SB anyhow... (Want details? Check our Non-scifi forum, the thread "Service Guarantees Citizenship".)

There will always be fascists. Mind you, there will always be nose hair too.

[Mr. B]

The way i see it is that all generations are basicaly the same. If WW2 had happened in the 90s the result would have been the same. What really matters is who is in charge.

If Hitler had been someone else Germany might have won. If Rosevelt had been someone else the US might have one. ETC.

To call them the greatest is only because random chance favored them instead of the next generation.

[Pablo Sanchez]

There's an interesting point about the Greatest Generation. Did you know that less than 40% of US Servicemen in WWII were volunteers, while 70% of those who served in Vietnam went of their own free will? It's an interesting and very telling statistic.

More on the topic, I'm also not a fan of the "Greatest Generation" fad. Not merely because it's a self-fellating nostalgic fantasy, but because of the Stephen Ambrose, pop-history shitbag that sprung up around it. As a WWII History enthusiast, I find myself consistently insulted by the level of work that those shills pump out.

[Steve]

As I said, I don't disagree with not considering them "the Greatest Generation". There are plenty of reasons not to: the racism that still plagued the nation today, the whole Red Scare problem...

Although, I daresay, even if we hadn't gone about doing that kind of thing, the Soviets would have. Would you prefer we hadn't and the Soviets had gained political domination over large portions of the globe? I'm not saying that it was right, it wasn't, but it was the lesser evil. And while the argument can be made that, morally, there is no lesser evil, morality and politics rarely go hand in hand, and when regarding politics, one must adopt a realist and pragmatic attitude.

I still don't see how the US "Greatest Generation" can be said to have destroyed a "monster of their own making". They didn't make Hitler or Mussolini (hell, the latter had come to power when they were still in diapers or not even born yet), and you'd have to blame the Neutrality Acts on the generation BEFORE them: the WWI generation that despised Europe and some of whom that considered American participation in WWI a mistake.

[AdmiralKanos]

As I said, I don't disagree with not considering them "the Greatest Generation". There are plenty of reasons not to: the racism that still plagued the nation today, the whole Red Scare problem...

Although, I daresay, even if we hadn't gone about doing that kind of thing, the Soviets would have. Would you prefer we hadn't and the Soviets had gained political domination over large portions of the globe? I'm not saying that it was right, it wasn't, but it was the lesser evil. And while the argument can be made that, morally, there is no lesser evil, morality and politics rarely go hand in hand, and when regarding politics, one must adopt a realist and pragmatic attitude.

The ultimate outcome of direct American intervention in Korea and Vietnam was communist victory and lingering resentment of America and its values. How did this harm communism? Capitalism defeated communism by virtue of being a better (albeit still not perfect) system. Attempts to force the issue were ineffective.

I still don't see how the US "Greatest Generation" can be said to have destroyed a "monster of their own making". They didn't make Hitler or Mussolini (hell, the latter had come to power when they were still in diapers or not even born yet), and you'd have to blame the Neutrality Acts on the generation BEFORE them: the WWI generation that despised Europe and some of whom that considered American participation in WWI a mistake.

Good point. Hitler was created by the Greatest Generation's Parents. Nevertheless, they shared his social outlook in many respects (albeit watered-down), particularly on the issues of blacks and Jews.

[Durandal]

A lot of historians think that World War II and World War I were actually the same war, but that everyone just ran dry the first time around, so they all took a 20 or so year hiatus then got right back to it.

So, it would make sense if the "Greatest Generation's" parents were responsible for Hitler.

EDIT: And, by the way, the common misconception that no one knew of the Holocaust until late in the war is pure bullshit. The "Greatest Generation" in America actually turned away Jewish refugee ships fleeing from Europe, and Rabbis actually took to the streets with signs depicting the crimes against the Jews in Europe, but the "Greatest Generation," the one that we should all strive to emulate, the one that is the epitome of everything good and moral ... ignored them. They ignored them until the soldiers actually saw first-hand what the Germans did.

Wow, I wish every generation was as complacent as that one.

[Steve]

The ultimate outcome of direct American intervention in Korea and Vietnam was communist victory and lingering resentment of America and its values. How did this harm communism? Capitalism defeated communism by virtue of being a better (albeit still not perfect) system. Attempts to force the issue were ineffective.

The direct outcome of the Korean War was Communist victory? I always imagined it as a tie, since South Korea remained independent

Vietnam, on the other hand, is true.

Good point. Hitler was created by the Greatest Generation's Parents. Nevertheless, they shared his social outlook in many respects (albeit watered-down), particularly on the issues of blacks and Jews.

Sadly, no generation has been perfect, this one just had the benefit of being around when the US reached superpower status, so they get the credit.



And Mike..... nice avatar.

[starfury]

yeah me too, I am so sick of old farts complaining about this and that, read my post on schools. and yes the 1960's generation has it's own share of problems but I am so sick of the romanticism of that era.

they became "great" by default, despite the fact that as durandal pointed out it's their arrogance toward the rest of the world that allowed Hitler/Stalin?tojo to take power in the first place.

Yeah I am sick of the "good old times" claptrap

[Zoink]

Two things are for sure:

Most of the old people saying "good old times" were once apon a time your age and complained how their elders said "good old times".

Most people here, when they are MUCH older will inevitably say something like "good old times" to their childeren.

[TheDarkOne]

lol, I'm already saying things like "the good old days" and I'm only 18. Though its only to do with things like toys or TV shows, which were btw beter when I was younger.
The really annoying thing is you can never really tell if toys or TV shows are worse now then they were a few years ago, Because anyone who experenced TV shows from a few years ago, first hand, is no longer in a position to judge shows today as they are no longer a kid, and you can't ask a kid because they have never experenced things from a few years ago first hand.

[MKSheppard]

The ultimate outcome of direct American intervention in Korea and Vietnam was communist victory and lingering resentment of America and its values. How did this harm communism? Capitalism defeated communism by virtue of being a better (albeit still not perfect) system. Attempts to force the issue were ineffective.

We won in Korea and Vietnam, and gained a peace treaty in both
events, but in 1975, the Communists launched a massive conventional
invasion of S. Vietnam backed with LOTS of armor.

Ford wanted to send the B-52s back in and bomb the living fuck out of
the Communist invasion force, but Congress stopped him, and as a result
South Vietnam fell to a massive conventional assault.

[Pablo Sanchez]

We won in Korea and Vietnam, and gained a peace treaty in both events, but in 1975, the Communists launched a massive conventional invasion of S. Vietnam backed with LOTS of armor.

So we failed in our primary objective, that of maintaining the existence of South Vietnam. Yes, we certainly won that war! Just like Argentina won the Falklands, right? I mean, they initially conquered the islands, and they only lost after Britain started to fight them.

As for US Intervention in '75: This was a political impossibility, and the NVA leadership knew it. If they thought that the US would send in the bombers, they wouldn't have invaded. But they knew that the threat was only a paper tiger, that the US was tired of fighting in Vietnam.