So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[Zombie_61]

Wise words indeed, that generation fought wars and witnessed murder on an industrial scale. Yet they do seem to pass on nuggets of sound advice. My grandmother was much the same, I can't remember what she said, word for word, but a precis in paraphrase would be:
Before saying something negative about someone, ask yourself: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? She would then add: If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all...

My best friend's father took this literally, though he phrased it slightly differently. I worked for him for several months, and would occasionally hear him mutter "Nothing at all" under his breath shortly after a conversation with a co-worker or customer. I finally asked him about this, and his response was, "I'm just trying to live up to the old adage, 'If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.'" For him it was a bit of a private joke, but it was also his way of letting go of any negative thoughts, emotions, or energies associated with those interactions. He was a "character" whose thoughts and opinions often didn't align with the world around him, but this little joke/trick seemed to help him get through his day.

 

[GHT]

Yes, it’s so, as some old-timey limey had it, that the world is a stage, that we all perform. But I can’t imagine having no people around whom it’s safe to remove the makeup. Or at least most of it.

Some old-timey limey. That line is almost as good as the author of the quote. That old limey was one, William Shakespeare, 1564 - 1616
And the play was: As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII.
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^
I wasn’t up to all that typing.
Dude’s been gone — what? — 400 years now?
And some point to Elvis as a celebrity worth more dead than he was during his life.

 

[GHT]

The earliest evidence for this type of remark was printed in Esquire magazine in 1978 in an article by the film director Peter Bogdanovich. The barb was aimed at Elvis Presley after his death in 1977, but the identity of the person using the quip was not given. When pop star Michael Jackson died in 2009, he was just fifty years old. One memorably caustic remark heard at that time was: "His death was a good career move." The author, Gore Vidal, had obviously read Esquire 22 years earlier and paraphrased the remark. Vidal a plagiarist? Perish the thought.

 

[tonyb]

The earliest evidence for this type of remark was printed in Esquire magazine in 1978 in an article by the film director Peter Bogdanovich. The barb was aimed at Elvis Presley after his death in 1977, but the identity of the person using the quip was not given. When pop star Michael Jackson died in 2009, he was just fifty years old. One memorably caustic remark heard at that time was: "His death was a good career move." The author, Gore Vidal, had obviously read Esquire 22 years earlier and paraphrased the remark. Vidal a plagiarist? Perish the thought.

Maybe Vidal read it in 1977 or ’78 and maybe he didn’t. I didn’t read it, yet the quip was heard so frequently that it was just in the air. And maybe, as you’ve suggested, Bogdanovich himself overheard it, found it amusing, and decided to use it.

I’ve used expressions, in print, that were coined in fairly recent years by persons either still living or not long dead. I’ve made reference, for instance, to John Nance Garner’s “bucket of warm spit” without knowing it was rightly attributable to him. The phrase was, as I said above, “just in the air.” (Although I’ve since read of reports having it that what Garner actually said, on opining on his position as vice president of the United States, that it wasn’t worth a “bucket of warm piss.” So, the reporter apparently committed the journalistic sin of falsifying a quotation. Or an editor did. You just didn’t print “piss” in mainstream publications back then.)

My Elvis commentary is in reference to those lists of “most commercially valuable deceased celebrities,” or rosters along those lines. Elvis Presley’s image, creative output, etc. is still a quite valuable asset. As is Michael Jackson’s. As is that of many others in the furnace-room choir.

Shakespeare is public domain, of course, but somehow I doubt that people will be paying much mind to Elvis Presley 400 years from now. Willie’s got legs like few ever have.

As to Vidal ...

Whatever one makes of his political views or the manner in which he conducted his personal affairs, it's hard to take seriously any critic who won’t recognize Vidal’s brilliance as a literary stylist. And his courage to be “out” when that came at a serious risk to one’s very life. I find myself re-reading essays he banged out decades and decades ago, just for inspiration.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Those Vidal vs. Buckley debates are still high among the most fascinating bits of 1960s television, the last real bastion of the erudite and slashing literary insult.

 

[tonyb]

Those Vidal vs. Buckley debates are still high among the most fascinating bits of 1960s television, the last real bastion of the erudite and slashing literary insult.

In my eyes there's little doubt who got the better of their nasty exchange at the Democratic Nat'l Convention in Chicago in '68. Buckley resorted to name-calling and threats of physical violence. I happen to have a copy of the Esquire anthology containing Vidal's reflections on that meeting, and over which Buckley took legal action when it first appeared in the magazine, shortly after the event itself.

Time has been kinder to the "queer."

 

[LizzieMaine]

Buckley got topped more often than he ever wanted to admit, and on his own show. One of my favorites is his encounter with Groucho...

 

[tonyb]

Have y’all ever noticed that in about nine cases out of 10, when a person says “with all due respect,” what follows is anything but respectful?

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Not to stir the pot, but.." (proceeds to stir pot.)

 

[Lean'n'mean]

" Don't take this the wrong way but....."
"I hope you don't mind me mentioning this but...."
"No offence intended but...."
"WIthout wishing to insult you....."

 

[tonyb]

"Far be it from me to complain, but … "

 

[EngProf]

"Present company excepted..."

 

[ChiTownScion]

"Present company excepted..."

"Oh, on you, it looks good..<eyeroll>"

 

[GHT]

Have y’all ever noticed that in about nine cases out of 10, when a person says “with all due respect,” what follows is anything but respectful?

With all due respect is an eloquent way of saying: Kiss my ass. A colourful example of this expression came up in the Oireachtas (Irish legislature) when Paul Gogarty, a member of Ireland's Green Party, unloaded some fairly robust language on Labour Party member Emmet Stagg during a debate using this term.
"With all due respect and in the most unparliamentary language, f**k you Deputy Stagg, f**k you, ". He then added, "I apologise now for my use of unparliamentary language."

 

[tonyb]

With all due respect is an eloquent way of saying: Kiss my ass. A colourful example of this expression came up in the Oireachtas (Irish legislature) when Paul Gogarty, a member of Ireland's Green Party, unloaded some fairly robust language on Labour Party member Emmet Stagg during a debate using this term.
"With all due respect and in the most unparliamentary language, f**k you Deputy Stagg, f**k you, ". He then added, "I apologise now for my use of unparliamentary language."

This is why we celebrate Saint Patrick’s Day.

 

[Edward]

Do you know that I read and re-read every post I make, then I proof read it again once it's posted, but my smart-ass spellchecker knows better than me. It should of course, be dual, which I have just edited it to. I'm convinced that my spellchecker is hooked on something illegal, it's always underlining correctly spelt words.

Does it, by any chance, keep reverting to something called "US English" (as opposed to somethnig called "UK English")? MIne does, and it is such a pain.

My perspective on this may be somewhat different than others. I've been wearing seat belt's since long before it was mandatory. Having been in a position to immediately see the aftermath of the differences in what not wearing them and what wearing them can be, I'm glad it's not so much a choice anymore.

The problem I've always had with the 'choice' argument is that it assumes too much on the part of the decision maker: by the ery nature of the beast, those who will never make resonpsible choices are the ones on behalf of whom such paens are usually made. In 1973, when the UK (despite being three decades or so behond medical knowledge) finally made wearing a motorcycle helmet a legal requirement, the chief argument against doing so was one of 'choice'. Problem was that the 20% of riders who still chose nt to wear a helmet were exactly the same group who were similarly irresponsible about all their choices (and largely the same group of people who were the reason national speed limits were intorduced into la as well). I guess it's in large part a matter of whether we choose to allow Darwinism to take its natural course, or intefere to protect people from themselves. I might have moresympathy with their chocies but for the fact that, with crushing inevitability, more often than not they cause harm to other people as well as themselves. The smoking ban was another example: the ultimate jusfier there was not limiting smokers, but preventing their choice to smoke from impacting on the health of all the rest of us who choose not to. (Though TBH, my favourite thing about it is not the reduced risk to my own health from second hand smoke so much as being able to come home from a night out and not stink like I rolled in the ashtray.)

Here in this freedumb-loving state motorcyclists age 18 and above can legally ride without helmets. For my own entirely selfish reasons, I hope that remains the case.

Young, irresponsible men who die from head injuries in RTAs statistically make the best group of organ donors. Alas, being irresponsible they are also by far less likely to register to be an organ donor. This is why the UK - long overdue - from Spring 2020 is shifting to an opt-out system or organ donors.

I'm sure somebody in this nearly 500 page tome has mentioned it already, but I'm here to vent my spleen on internet comment sections. It matters not what site you go to or what position they take, many comments both in support and opposition of any article take the affliction of moronism to new heights.
It saddens me that the ability to discuss or debate in a reasonable manner has been completely lost, but even worse the stupidity shown by far too many people on both sides of any argument has caused me to completely swear off of even reading what they have to say.

What really grinds my gears about such internet comment sections is ho confirmation bias overtakes everything. We get the old, lazy politics for the slow of thinking writ large - "all lawyers are greedy, all politicians are corrupt, all jounalists are dishonest...." ad infinitum, ad nauseam - but yet these self-appointed sages will believe any old rot they found being spouted on some dark corner of youtube or random blog with neither sources, evidence nor accountability, if it suits what they want to believe. That our broadcasters often misinterpret 'impartilaity' to mean these kooks, like the literal flat earthers (the moon landing was apparently a military conspiracy purely to make us think that the earth is a sphere, they claim - in all seriousness), should be given airtime only makes it worse.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We live in an age of pointless nihilism, the nihilism of a generation of pissed-off fifteen-year-old boys who never grew up. When you don't have to believe in anything, it makes things oh so much simpler for the morally lazy and the intellectually shiftless.

 

[Edward]

Here in the UK, and I'm sure it's the same across the English speaking countries, as well as many others, if you are charged with a crime, no matter how heinous, you will be given, free of charge, a qualified barrister, (lawyer) and legal team who will submit your defence in a court of law. Legal representation isn't cheap, the cost of it comes out central taxation. You can of course appoint and pay for your own defence, just as you can appoint and pay for your own healthcare.

The lawyer bit is based on the widely-recognised notion that a right to a fair trial is universal human right; see, for instance, Article 10 of the UN's declaration of Fundamental Human Rights: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." Of course, in practice that's another thing: not all lawyers are created equal, and the best don't always tend to favour pro bono work or stick with the public sector.

Whatdrives me up the wall is the fact hat so few people insociety these daysactully comprehend the legal process, with many thinking than an arrest is equivalent to a guilty verdict, and refusing to accept such verdictsare valid, or even questioning the validity of the fair trial process - "paedophiles don't deserve a defence" is one such nugget I often hear. I blamea diet of police dramas where the big end finish is "you're nicked" and we all know it's the bad guy 'got'.

Freeloaders have always been, and will always be, and issue in society, be it healthcare or otherwise. Some people are simply going to take without contributing back. So how do we deal with them? In the US, we've traditionally decided not to...that it's simply the "cost of doing business". We accept and move on. I don't know if that's the right way or not.

Part of the issue is always going to be dealing with the true scope of the problem; in the UK, the public will often indicate in polls that they believe that beenfit fraud is around the 30% mark, whereas in reality it is something around 1.1% as of 2017 - and this is the highest it has ever been (a record rise since 2015's previous high of 0.8%). Of cours,e there are also vested interests in exaggerating the problem, which are a challenge themselves.

 

[Edward]

I think part of the reason is because we've made so many advancements in medicine. My mom said, growing up in the '30s, there was so much less doctors could do and it wasn't that specialized that you went to the GP for most things and that was that. Now, it's almost always off to the specialist and off for several (costly and involved) test once you have something that isn't very basic. To some extent, we paid less back then - and it felt more personal - as you had less things to pay for and you went to your GP for so much more.

A rapidly aging population, with us all living longer aswell as better medicinie and ability to treat conditions that were once fatal certainly puts more pressure on thesystem: the cost of advancement.

A Somali immigrant fellow of my acquaintance tells me that from his perspective clan identity is at the heart of the problems plaguing his homeland. It’s as if people would rather increase their own suffering than do anything to alleviate that of their adversaries. They’ll get behind a “leader” from their clan just because he’s “one of us,” no matter how unfit he might be otherwise.

It’s as common a human trait as any. We identify with, and distinguish ourselves from, other humans, mostly to impose meaning on our mortal existence. We want to believe in something larger than our individual selves.

It troubles me to see our society fracturing along ideological, racial, religious, etc. lines. Those lines have always existed, but I don’t think I’m just imagining that they’ve become more pronounced in recent years.

I now have some understanding of Marshall MacLuhan’s prediction that electronic media would foster a “re-tribalizing” of society. It seemed downright loopy to me when I first read of it, way back when, but it appears time (and technology) has borne him out.

Who benefits from this? Some do — financially, politically. Divide and conquer, and tally up the spoils.

But to what end? So we can bury our dead and say we won? And that those liberals or conservatives or socialists or libertarians or Christians or Muslims or whoever didn’t?

I say dump your identity, or at least don’t wear it on your sleeve. And don’t plaster the back of your Prius or F-350 with stickers proclaiming your ideological identity, no matter what it might be. It’s not changing any minds. Indeed, it likelier leaves people thinking you’re personally insecure.

To some extent, I find the web version of tribalism, the most basic of human instincts, to be a good thing. Healthier to see people associate with each other based on common interest than something as bizarre and arbitrary as the clod of earth on which they were , through no choice of their own, coincidentally spawned.

Yup. Young men (I was one once) are hard-wired (pun intended) to shtup anything that will hold still for it, voluntarily or not. The survival of the species once depended on that, too.

I've neer been convinced by that argument, to be honest. Andany species that needs to rape to survive, well... that's aspedcies evoution would do well to take out of the system entirely, as it has no validity.

We will never eliminate tribalism while we have faith schools.

I'm all in faour of freedom of faith, but I do tend to agree that faith schools are problematic andeacerbate differences in society, NOT because of what tey might teach, but simply and directly becasue of the lack of awareness of 'the other' that they perpetuate by their very nature. I grew up in the Northern Ireland eras of de facto segregated education ,and it as a hugepart of what helped to perpetuate social division. In present day England, a firther rinkle to the problem is that one faith group is persistently targetted for attack, while the very worst examples of the problems caued by faith schools belong to other, less-questioned or rigorously held to account, faiths. Scapegoats are never helpful.

I wear cowboy boots, too. (And Converse All-Stars.) I’m in blue jeans most every day. I’ve owned trucks and likely will again.

As an older, bald-headed, somewhat overweight lifelong American fellow of predominantly Northern European extraction, I find people — mostly younger people — making wildly erroneous assumptions about my personal history, my political views, my aesthetic preferences, etc., etc.

Call it lingering tribalism, I suppose. People see what they expect to see.

Try being a white guy with a shaved head in East London and explaining to your electoral candidates on the doorstep that not only do you not care about immigration, you are one yourself and can we talk about libel reform instead? Stereotyping is real.

The ability for people to be civil or even maintain friendship and just not discuss known points of disagreement has become very difficult regardless of the topic.
I may disagree strongly with another's views, and they with mine but we need not condemn each other as evil because of it.
The real issue is that people refuse to see the manipulation they are succumbing to driven by others making big money from keeping them foaming at the mouth and miserable.

Of course, a ot depends on whether you mean 'views' or 'values'. I've been shocked in recent years at just how vile some people can be, the unpleasantness of their bigotries or attitudes, and yet they have the face to turn around and say that noone else has the right to challenge their unpleasantness because "it's my opinion" - or, in worst cases, "freedom of speech", as if free expression is a trump card which justifies the nastiness expressed in a way which means it must go unchallenged.

Agreed. I generally hate it when people say "some of my best friends are..." but I do make an effort to get to know people whose views are different from mine. I have friends here on the Lounge who are pretty much the opposite from me philosophically, and one of my closest friends in real life was raised in the beliefs of the John Birch Society, and was educated at a fundamentalist religious college. And I, of course, to her worldview ought to be a dirty Commie rat -- but she too is able to look past such things. She's a product of her environment as much as I'm a product of mine, but in the end we were both born human beings and that's how we're eventually going to die. Why let any of the rest of it get in the way?

"Some of my best friends are...."

"My brother's wife is X, and..."


"I'm not racist, but..."

Shakespeare is public domain, of course, but somehow I doubt that people will be paying much mind to Elvis Presley 400 years from now. Willie’s got legs like few ever have.

Hard to know. I imagine it depends on wether Elvis is ever elevated to being thougt of as "high culture". Mozart was disposable pop music in his day (granted, he isfamed now as a composer rather than performer, but still). Shakespearewas considered a populist hack in his own era - a theatrical Dan Brown. Dickens was much the same. All credit to Elvis, of whom I remain a fan, but I sure don't want to live to see a world where Dan Brown is celebrated as literature.....

This is why we celebrate Saint Patrick’s Day.

Tell that to the folks who think it belongs to somebody called "St Patty" - whoever she is. (Maybe she is the lady who convinced the US that the Irish all eat "corned beef and cabbage", and drink watered down green beer? ).