So, today right when I was feeling some dispair and desperation for the future of the USA as a home for my two little children . . . having just had a conversation with a friend about history and civil wars, empires crumbling and etc. I thought ''hey, there are LOTS of wonderful and amazing things about America and its people, we just need to shake the cobwebs off again. We need to get outside our comfort zone and remake ourselves again. We need another 60's!"

Much of what came out of the 60's was due to oppression and a yawning gulf of values seperation between generations. And though the national discourse lately has shifted so much that ideas that seemed ''moderate'' 10 years ago is now branded as ''liberal''. And the fact is, MOST Americans are liberal. That is, most Americans don't want to impose their values on other Americans, we want to live and let live. But most Americans still feel some satisfaction in helping each other out. Most Americans don't think ''my god is real and yours is fake'' or ''my god can beat up your god". Most Americans don't think we should be isolationists from the rest of the world. Most Americans do think that all of our children deserve good health care and education. But most Americans are strong minded, and when cornered will fight back at whatever they preceive is threatening them - and this instinct has been used to seperate and divide us.

We need to unite, celebrate our differences, regain the respect and admiration of the world. We need a cultural/social revolution.

Yeah, I know everything wasn't rosy about the 60's - it had its own problems. But I think that it also made America stronger. We need another 60's.

They say u can tell a liberal from a conservative from their perception of the 60's.

They also say if you can remember the 60's you were not there.

unfortunately, if you want any kind of societal "shift" you can't just call it in. It takes a convergence of events (historically a mix of the very bad and very good) and ideas. To complicate it further there has to be a strong desire for change in the majority.

I think we're approaching a time that has many or all of those ingredients. We're war weary, hated by a large chunk of the world (and for the first time we're starting to understand why) on one hand but relatively rich and safe in our homes on the other. Most people are complacent but hungry for alternatives (I'm not talking domestic politics, it feels like a more fundamental desire than that).

It feels seems very "pre-sixties" to me right now, all we're missing is an event/person to nudge the first domino and an over ridding ideology that people can get behind. Those are two big ones though, the event can almost be anything so it's the idea or focus that's the hard part and without it "big" things tend not to happen. The sixties had "freedom", for women, for minorities, from the churches, for the churches, etc... freedom generally.

I don't see a basic and powerful ideal today that can keep the momentum for real change. Maybe it's just around the corner, maybe it's here but I'm not aware yet and maybe all this is just a little burp in history and we'll all just settle back into the status quo.

I'd love to see a sixties like foundation shift but timing and ingredients are everything and we have no control over that (though we'd like to think otherwise). At least thats how it looks to me.

Not only that, political control systems seem to have the majority of people in their grasp still. I've heard already in many places that Bush is very likely to be re-elected and it's starting to freak me out. I'm not too sure however, that changes would have to be provoked by the majority since back in the 60's there were sparse minorities that came together and formed a cultural movement that was later followed by the rest of the population (at least what I recall from some History documentals, to this I am bound: it's their version of how things happened :confused: ).

I think Bush and his puppeteers are likely to keep power, regardless of how voters place their votes. But I also think that a serious cultural/social revolution would be required to change things, because the Bush Regime is is not the cause of all of America's problems, but rather more like symptoms of much deeper problems happening. The very fact that they got where they are, and have managed to do what they have - without a full scale revolt happening, shows that there are deeply embedded problems in the USA these days.

Tossing them out of office could be the start hopefully of some real change, but it needs to go far past just getting rid of them.

The only good thing about the 60's was the music. Seriously, what really changed? It became a thing of fashion, consumerism, an excuse to have sex more freely. And uhh...drugs. I could've done without the revolutionary hippy crap and just the music, thankyou.

It was a convergance of technology, not social revolution.

Why the 60's? I mean yeah civil rights and all that is good but how about a second industrial revolution brought about by mass production of carbon nanotubes? If you can produce carbon nanotube in mass quantities then you could make huge grids of windmill stretched up into the jet stream producing the world’s energy for almost free.

The 60's were not a very good time; we almost went to WWIII with Russia that pretty much meant mutually assured destruction. If you ignore war and just look at the culture then the WWII 40's would be a much better time due to the coming together of everyone for the common good.

The Silent Generation could be silent no more. They were sickened by what society had become and broke away. They embraced freedom, diersity, exploration, peace and love. They, not the Boomers, opened the eyes of the teeming masses to what we could become. The problem was that they were unfocused as to how to go about it on a large scale. Still, it was a start.

J.F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Muhammed Ali, Civil Rights Act, March on Washington, Motown, LBJ --- I was born :) . Too many good things to list. For a black person the 60's were a decade of hope and despair. JFK, MLK, RFK, all murdered because they sought Equal Rights for all. Ali jailed because he refused to fight for a country that denied him the inalienable rights that whites had. Everything these men accomplished came with tremendous sacrifice. This country should be ashamed. But still the 60's had to happen because the bigots NEVER gave up anything without killing somebody first.

MOST Americans are liberal. That is, most Americans don't want to impose their values on other Americans, we want to live and let live.What you're describing is the libertarian philosophy, which used to be the "classic liberal" political wing until the American left-liberals co-opted the name. American liberals most certainly do not believe in letting everyone live by their own values. They tend to go through that phase when they're young, but then they become just as tyrannical about their leftist program as the "conservatives" are about their rightist program. Liberals just can't help believing that they are smarter, better informed, and more noble than everyone else, and therefore they know what's best for everyone else. Wear a helmet on your bicycle. Drive a low-fuel-consumption car that weighs about 2,000 pounds, won't withstand much of a collision, and rides like a roller skate. Stop smoking. Give up french fries. The longer they stay in power the more they resemble the conservatives because they're reaching the same goal from different directions: total control of the population by a massively powerful government, and total control of the economy by nouveau aristocrats that are either corporate executives or central bankers.Yeah, I know everything wasn't rosy about the 60's - it had its own problems. But I think that it also made America stronger. We need another 60's.The sixties -- which was really a fourteen-year period from about 1962 through about 1976 -- was merely the far end of a pendulum swing that characterizes American culture. Unlike the (modern) Europeans, who try out an idea, extract what they like from it and then try something else, Americans run everything out to the most absurd extremes and then swing back as far as they can go in the other direction.

From the neo-Victorian sexual morality of the 1940s and 50s, the Sexual Revolution swung the pendulum all the way over to the other side, to the point that people were having sex on the floors of casinos. (And I'm not exaggerating, people I trust reported seeing it live -- and the gamblers just went about their gambling oblivious to it all since they'd already seen it on pay TV.) From the victory of the temperance movement and Prohibition in the 1920s, the pendulum swung all the way over to the other side, to the point that you could smoke a reefer on a bus in some cities. From the "pow, right in the kisser" gutter humor of Jackie Gleason in the 1950s, we went to highbrow art, poetry, novels, and music. "Good golly Miss Molly" turned into Yes playing in an 11/4 time signature and the entire audience being able to tap their feet to it. Holy rollers were out, transcendental meditation was in.

Cato (a fellow libertarian, perhaps?) Yes, there was a war on, but we actually got the government to halt it before they achieved their goal of destroying an entire continent in order to save it. We achieved the same thing in the civil rights movement. The Cold War you refer to was not a sixties' thing, it was set in motion in the 1940s and it took fifty years to reverse that pendulum. During which time, even counting Korea and Vietnam, it did not take as many lives as past wars, and the brinkmanship that had us clenching our teeth actually delivered on its promise of keeping us on the proper side of the brink.

Peace, brotherhood, sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. That was the sixties (my definition). Then the various pendulums began to swing back. Not in complete synchronization, but back they turned. AIDS kind of put a crimp in the free love thing. Disco buried progressive rock. D.A.R.E. spread the lies of "Reefer Madness" to a whole new generation of children. Militant racism sprang back up -- although at least this time it was fairly evenly represented in all demographic groups, not just white people, a Pyrrhic victory for civil liberties.

As for peace. Well despite the horrors of the current war, which is even more idiotic than Vietnam if only because we've already been through Vietnam and should have frelling known better this time, the happy truth is that a smaller percentage of the world population is being killed by government violence than at almost any time since the Pax Romana. Even if you count terrorism as warfare, which sadly we probably have to, war is not as big a statistical threat to the average human being's life as it was in prior generations. (Yes I know about Somalia et al. and I still stand by my statement.) So either the war/peace cycle is on a much longer pendulum swing than the other vectors of civilization, or else Toffler and the other futurists were correct in predicting that war would not be good for the business of the Post-Industrial Era and therefore the people who are in charge of such things would see to it that we had less war to endure.

XerxesThere was lots of good stuff in the sixties. As I said, in addition to the rock and roll there was sex, drugs, peace (Vietnam ended during the fourteen years that I call "the sixties"), and brotherhood. I just can't describe how wonderful it was for the racial barriers to come down. The rest of our culture fluorished as well. There was some really great abstract art, fabulous experimental theater, and some terrific movies. Go to your video store and get the original Peter Cook-Dudley Moore British production of "Bedazzled" and compare it to the pale Brendan Fraser-Elizabeth Hurley imitation. Or "The Ruling Class" with Peter O'Toole.

But yes, I agree with you in spirit that the most wonderful part of the era was the music, from Judy Collins and the Beatles to David Bowie and Tangerine Dream.

Regardless of what form it takes, a social/political uprising must happen soon in this country - for all of our sakes. On a larger scale, Nation-States come and go in history - and there is nothing wrong with that. But we are a *very* heavily armed and internally divided country and we won't go down without throwing a temper-tantrum and taking a bunch of the world with us I fear (and they fear!).

perhaps it "must" happen but you can't force this kind of thing. It will happen or it won't.

Regardless of what form it takes, a social/political uprising must happen soon in this country - for all of our sakes. On a larger scale, Nation-States come and go in history - and there is nothing wrong with that. But we are a *very* heavily armed and internally divided country and we won't go down without throwing a temper-tantrum and taking a bunch of the world with us I fear (and they fear!).The uprising could be like the one that occurred in the late 1960s and early 70s. End the frelling war, bring the boys (and girls this time) home NOW, regardless of whether it looks like we're surrendering and regardless of what will happen after we leave. That would confine the temper tantrum within our borders.

Nations (they haven't always been nation-states, the most well remembered were empires) do indeed come and go. We have a choice of going out in a genteel decline like the Greeks, a barely functioning muddle like the Ottomans, or a disaster like the Japanese, to be rebuilt in somebody else's image, with, as a Japanese commentator recently put it, "absolutely no values of our own."

Things like the failure in vietnam and civil rights were just part of why "the sixties" happened. As far as the music goes? jesus, get a grip. Though I agree it was/is great and was certainly a powerful byproduct of the times, lets not get silly. It was not the cause of the changes, just a happy bonus.

This kind of change is beyond petty political whining or good art (music/paint/etc.). It has to be because it requires a large majority acting together to accomplish anything. Since political beliefs (and artistic tastes) are wildly fragmented and personal and partisan bitching remains the strongest force nothing will change.

Since political beliefs (and artistic tastes) are wildly fragmented and personal and partisan bitching remains the strongest force nothing will change.

We should be so lucky that nothing would change, I'm pretty happy with my life - but oh, I think things will certainly change . . . but the question is whether we take the reins and try and steer it towards good change. Or kick back, let the TV and preachers keep lulling our brains into silence, get drunk and just the bad change keep on coming.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 18-29, 1962. That was the height of the cold war, and lets not forget that Vietnam was the cold war, as was Korea (only in Korea you could not really call it "cold" because US forces directly engaged soviet forces)<--they kept that a secret at the time. (I know it was the fifties)

I think what set the sixties apart from the forties is that everyone was united in a social change (women doing jobs that men had only done before) during WWII so some of the major changes to our nation just didn’t ruffle very many feathers. Also many of the changes that took place in the 60’s have their roots in the 40’s. I mean we basically told everyone that we were fighting for freedom and racial equality, so its not very surprising that many of the black people who fought in WWII also fought for their freedom in the 60’s.

I do agree that too many young people are stamped out of high schools like a cookie cutter and never really learn to think for them selves. I mean 1 person can change the world but it requires dedication and patients, which is something most people in my generation (I am 21) lack. I wish I could have my voice heard, I have some really good ideas, but don’t worry when I don’t have to study all nigh and go to school all day I will make changes.
(here is one idea (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40874), I know it is out there a bit, but I have more)

The hippies were digusting failures. Look at what their culture led to. Directly led to. Us. Our age. They pretended to care about "issues" so that they could march around with signs and smoke pot and feel all self-righteous and shit. Some of them really meant it I'm sure. Probably about the same number as still really mean it today. But, the point is that most of these "hippies" became the yuppies and yippies. They became corporate sharks and turned on their former 'idealism' with a vengeance. The children that grew up after this time rebelled from their parents constant reminiscinces of "how great it was in the 60's when people cared and they were out on the streets sticking it to the man." The kids rebelled because a straight "peace at all cost" mentality is just as wrong as "victory at any cost" mentality. As Fraggle says, extremes and swings of the pendulum.

What we need is not another 60's. What we need is a now. Screw the past. Put it in the history books where it should be. Not in your mind as a desire to reshape the present. The 60's have been both idealized and demonized so much that little truth from the time can be known. Even from those who lived it.

Like the saying goes, "If you remember the 60's then you weren't there."

That's another problem with the 60's. The rampant "feel good" mentality. Hedonism. The hedonism is still the most active aspect that the 60's left us with. All the ideals about world peace and equal rights and yadda yadda went right out the fucking window, but guess what stuck? Party!! Woohoo!! Let's get fucked up, man!!! I'm so fucking wasted!!!

If I had a time machine I'd love to go back and kill every fucking hippie that ever lived.

Failures. Miserable stinking lousy failures. Traitors and turncoats.

I hate them. I hate them with a hate beyond mere words.

Why do I hate them so much you ask? Because as a younger man (not really that old now but I was younger once) I fell for their stupid bullshit. Oh, yeah, the 60's were so great. Groovy. Peace (well, I always knew the value of hate and war as well, more of an amalgam than a follower). But regardless. I've seen too many of my former friends and neighbors destroy themselves on hippie values.

Fuck them.




But, as to a "cultural revolution". What would be the focus of this revolution? Would there be a point other than a vague "Hey, let's be like the 60's. Wouldn't that be cool. Stick it to the man, man."

If you want to do it, then do it. Don't talk about it. There's organizations right now that are doing what you are talking about. Get out there and fucking do it. Do it on your own terms. Don't be a pussy hippie. Be a human being of the 21st century instead. Don't bury your head in the sand.


Anyway, as to revolutions, "Meet the new boss same as the old boss." Beat that. "All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others." Beat that. Revolution? Bah!

What we need is not another 60's. What we need is a now. Screw the past. Put it in the history books where it should be.

I can't speak for the thread starter but when I'm speaking of a sixties-like movement I only mean that in a "large cultural shift" sense. I'm not talking about some attempt to redo the sixties, it couldn't happen anyway and even if it were possible I wouldn't want that.

I think the "cultural revolution" part was the point, the sixties are just the most recent example. If there is another revolution to come it will be defined by this generation and, like your points about the sixties, they'll get all the credit/blame that comes with it.

The hippies were digusting failures.The hippies weren't responsible for any of the things that happened in "the 1960s", that fourteen year period I defined earlier, they were one of the things that happened, just like skateboarding and op art. They were a phenomenon. As a demographic group they accomplished virtually nothing, except perhaps supporting some of the vectors that had consumer components like the clothes and the music. Even that impact was severely limited because they were always broke and sponging.

The hippies lent their body mass to some of the demonstrations, but even that impact was severely limited because they were often too stoned to stand up straight, much less hold a picket sign right-side up. To the extent that hippies were the victims of the unenlightened police practices of the time it was more for the dirty, disheveled appearance that all street people have and the disorderly conduct that people high on any drug display, rather than for any coherent challenge to "the system."

Furthermore, the hippies weren't really a solid demographic group. The only thing they had in common was a reluctance to work and passive support for two of the movements: civil rights and anti-war. I met hippies who didn't like rock music any more than my parents did. As for their penchant for sex and drugs, they were just lost youths guided by their hormones and the desire for an easy escape from reality, doing what the lost youths of every generation do.

The cultural changes of the era were catalyzed by the youths who weren't hippies. University students and ostensibly ordinary guys like me: married, college graduate, and employed. We were only rebellious enough to grow our hair long or burn our bras, depending on our gender, and some of us rode the motorcycles which were rapidly becoming respectable. We all tried to evade the draft, but they managed to grab enough of us who couldn't swing a deferment and weren't willing to emigrate to staff the Vietnam war machine. Most of us wore the fashions of the day, who doesn't? It was we who dumped Sinatra for the Byrds, Monet for Warhol, Hemingway for Hunter Thompson, Jesus for the Maharishi, and bowling for yoga.

It was we who elected Lyndon Johnson and damn were we fooled. If there was anything in America that we thought of when we heard Roger Daltry sing, "Won't get fooled again," it was Johnson's campaign promise to be the Peace President. And it was we who many years later finally developed enough political savvy to elect politicians who actually worked to end the war (many for purely political reasons that had nothing to do with morality) instead of promising to do it.

The end of the Vietnam War coincided pretty closely with the end of the era that I defined as "the sixties." Everything started to unravel right about then. Disco, the reascendence of Christianity, all of it.

I remember an episode of "Roseanne" when she was trying to explain to a younger person why people were so different in the sixties. "There was so much more energy, so much more fun, so much more togetherness. There was... there was... uh actually there was a war going on." I suspect that the anxiety over the Vietnam war that everyone felt, regardless of whether they disapproved of it, was the energy that fueled that intellectual renaissance.

My, my "invert_nexus" -- Angry, angry little boy! Well, don't get your panties in a wad - I wasn't referring to specifically a 60's. As was said:

I can't speak for the thread starter but when I'm speaking of a sixties-like movement I only mean that in a "large cultural shift" sense. I'm not talking about some attempt to redo the sixties, it couldn't happen anyway and even if it were possible I wouldn't want that.

This is exactly what I meant as well, I don't refer to any of the specifics of the 60's. I meant a large shift in political & social emphasis and awareness.

I thought this was obvious, but I suppose as someone said "its impossible to underestimate most folks" :)

I think the "cultural revolution" part was the point, the sixties are just the most recent example. If there is another revolution to come it will be defined by this generation and, like your points about the sixties, they'll get all the credit/blame that comes with it.

So, define it. But remember, meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Nothing really changes. Revolution only helps those who end up on top at the change of power. The new boss.

I used to think in terms of revolutions. "Forward the Revolution!" and yadda yadda. But, over time I've come to see that revolution is only an accident waiting to happen. Look at all the little South American countries that have a revolution every couple of weeks. Ask them how happy they are with revolution.

If you really want a "cultural revolution" go out and be a political activist. Vote. Convince others to vote. Hell, run for office. Work from inside the system.

The hippies weren't responsible for any of the things that happened in "the 1960s", that fourteen year period I defined earlier, they were one of the things that happened, just like skateboarding and op art. They were a phenomenon. As a demographic group they accomplished virtually nothing, except perhaps supporting some of the vectors that had consumer components like the clothes and the music. Even that impact was severely limited because they were always broke and sponging.


This is undoubtably true and I fall victim to the "nostalgia" movement by ascribing such importance to the hippie movement. Much more happened in the 60's than the hippies.

The hippies lent their body mass to some of the demonstrations, but even that impact was severely limited because they were often too stoned to stand up straight, much less hold a picket sign right-side up.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a tee-totaler and intoxicants have their purpose and usefulness, it's just the attitude of total partydom that pervades the majority of the modern generation that disgusts me. I was once caught up in it myself. It is also this attitude that prevents these party animals from caring enough about issues to be part of any revolution other than a "let's get fucked up" revolution of mass vomitings and mosh pits.

"There was so much more energy, so much more fun, so much more togetherness. There was... there was... uh actually there was a war going on." I suspect that the anxiety over the Vietnam war that everyone felt, regardless of whether they disapproved of it, was the energy that fueled that intellectual renaissance.

It's not surprising. In times of peace and plenty the common man sleeps in his self-satisfied haze. It takes discomfort and the possibility of having your brains blown out of your skull by an assault rifle to really get those anti-establishment juices flowing.

This is what the democrats are trying to inspire by reinstating the draft. Give everyone an example of a death for a cause they don't believe in and see if people start voting. See if we can do better than Mtv's Rock the Vote.

My, my "invert_nexus" -- Angry, angry little boy! Well, don't get your panties in a wad - I wasn't referring to specifically a 60's.

Heh. I realize that. But, there were many examples of what took place in the 60's in particular in this thread. I think that you and others were trying to reinvest the 60's even though at the same time you're not.

The thing is that there doesn't need to be a revolution. All you need to do is go out and vote. Go out and campaign for causes you believe in. Write your congressman. Boycott products. Act.

The revolution will be televised. It will also be mass-marketed and sold to the highest bidder. Spend your energies in more useful ways. That's all I'm saying.

Well, that and hippies suck. Can't blame me for pushing the hippies suck argument. Cartman said it best when he said, "Hippies. They say they want to save the Earth but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad." Truer words were never spoken, young Cartman. And look at the hippie organizations that still exist. If they were brought into power you can bet your ass you'd see them turn into nazi's real quick. There is no one more narrow minded than a green peace activist, or a peta nazi, or a vegetarian, or a vegan, or an anti-smoking activist, yadda yadda.

I hate hippies.

There is no one more narrow minded than a green peace activist, or a peta nazi, or a vegetarian, or a vegan, or an anti-smoking activist, yadda yadda.

There is . . . a religious fundamentalist of any stripe - Muslim, Jewish, Christian.

There is . . . a religious fundamentalist of any stripe - Muslim, Jewish, Christian.

I'd bet that it would be a close contest. I think the two groups are almost identical. Give the green peace guys a few more centuries and I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference.

All the groups are practically just terrorist organizations. Only the targets are different.

Hahahahahahahaha!!! My irrational hatred of hippies has killed this thread! All fear and tremble before my mighty hatred of the dirty hippie!!

Aside: Anyone see South Park last night? It was the veal episode. The guys kidnapped all the veal calfs from Rancher What's-his-nuts ranch and holed up in Stan's house. The hippies came out of the woodwork to cheer the boys on much to all of their disgust at being lumped in with the dirty hippie menace. Stan stopped eating meat and started breaking out in vagina's. Luckily they caught it before he became one big vagina and pumped some pure beef blood into his veins through an iv to cure of his vaginitis. "Now that's what I call a sticky situation."

I did see something very funny once, at a club in Denver - some moronic preppy boy's start poking fun at this long haired kind of scruffy looking guy. Calling him a ''dirty hippy'' and a bunch of other cliche's. He listens for a bit - quietly puts down his beer, walks over - knocks them both down, one punch each, and says ''actually, I'm a biker".

He listens for a bit - quietly puts down his beer, walks over - knocks them both down, one punch each, and says ''actually, I'm a biker".

You know what's ironic? I have long hair and a beard. Yet, I am not a hippie.

I still hate hippies.

The idiot in the bar obviously had no common sense if he couldn't tell the difference between a biker and a hippie. The two have only superficial traits in common.

You know shats ironic? That you are a stunning moron! :) One can be a stealth hippie - not looking at all the part but in behavior fitting exactly their patterns. Or a stealth yuppie and look just like a hippie even though your behavior fits that of yuppies.

Stereotypes usually make the stereotyper look stupid.

The idiot in the bar obviously had no common sense if he couldn't tell the difference between a biker and a hippie. The two have only superficial traits in common.

a very wise point, when discussing beliefs/values of any kind. The length of someone's beard or hair is meaningless if you really want to know about their views.

So the fact that you continue to wrap "hippies" in a ridiculously oversimplified blanket shows fairly clearly that you don't even pay attention to your own words let alone those of others. You're an idiot if you think "hippies" are only long haired vagabonds or "the man" is only a white, short-haired and conservative male.

That you are a stunning moron!

Oh my! You really told me. Why I feel now that I have been shat upon so severely that I shall never recover.

Stealth hippie?

So? Have I ever once said that it is the appearance of the person that means anything? It's their fucking attitude that is abhorent. And if you can't see the hippie attitude a mile-off then you're an idiot. If the hippie is hiding his attitude then fine. Let him think his hippie thoughts in secret and he'll never bother me. It's only when he steps forth to push his vegan lifestyle in my face that I will attack him. It's only when he comes up and say "Make love not war, man!" that I'll punch him in the eye. It's only when he introduces me to his daughter Moonunit that I'll ridicule him to his pussy face.

I still hate hippies.

Been to a grateful dead concert lately? Do you know what I'd like to do with those tribal drums? I bet you can guess.

So the fact that you continue to wrap "hippies" in a ridiculously oversimplified blanket shows fairly clearly that you don't even pay attention to your own words let alone those of others. You're an idiot if you think "hippies" are only long haired vagabonds or "the man" is only a white, short-haired and conservative male.

And once again. When did I ever describe the physical appearance of the pussy hippie? When did I ever describe the physical appearance of "the man"?

Ironic that you discuss paying attention to words...

It has nothing to do with their appearance. It is their views that I have a problem with. Rather it is the fact that their views are false. The 60's are over. The hippies failed. They failed horribly. There are still some nostalgic folk about who stayed true to their cause and I suppose these I might offer some grudging respect in individual cases, but for the most part I find their oversimplification of the politics of the world to be disgusting.



Why are you all so pissed that I don't like hippies? This thread isn't about hippies. Or so you claimed once. It's about revolution, man!!! Let's get out there and do something, man!! Let's stick it to the man, man!!

Seriously. That's what it's about right?

Are you pissed off that I'm down on hippies or that you know I'm right about this revolution idea?

If you want to change the world then fucking do it. Vote. Campaign. Petition. March. Protest. Do it.

But then you'd have to stop being upset because someone doesn't like hippies and remember that the point is not nostalgia but fixing the present.

Actually, most modern vegan-liberal types might qualify as 'hippies' in your viewpoint, but they are not nostalgic at all. For them its something new not something old.

And incidentally, I'm not anywhere near a ''hippie'' -- I just think you are sounding like a member of one of the groups that is even far more silly than them: The Nascar worshipping, monster truck and/or Riced out Honda driving, Walmart shopping, TV lobotomized moron crowd.

And incidentally, I'm not anywhere near a ''hippie'' -- I just think you are sounding like a member of one of the groups that is even far more silly than them: The Nascar worshipping, monster truck and/or Riced out Honda driving, Walmart shopping, TV lobotomized moron crowd.

Never called you a hippie. You seem to have taken offense to that all on your own without any help from me.

As you your guess about me... Wrong. And I know that's what you've been trying to do. Place me in a category. First you tried to make me fundamentalist. Then a stupid preppy college boy kinda thing. Now you're trying the "trailer trash" market. What next?

You seem pretty intent on labelling. Why?

Is that what your revolution is about? Labeling? I guess you don't want any of the above groups in your new "cultural revolution"? Just which group should be part of your revolution?

As to Vegans. They may not be hippies at all, but they are often militant in their anti-meat stance. They are narrow-minded and not above rather disgusting tactics to attempt to prove themselves righteous and others pigs.


Edit: By the way, I'm against the war. I bet you think I'm pro-Bush. Nope. Just anti-hippie,

Wait a second . . . who started the labeling game here? Huh? Stud? :)

You.

I only mentioned that I hate hippies.

*Yawn* - uh, ok. So you didn't use any labels here when you started talking about hippies? Here:

Well, that and hippies suck. Can't blame me for pushing the hippies suck argument. Cartman said it best when he said, "Hippies. They say they want to save the Earth but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad." Truer words were never spoken, young Cartman. And look at the hippie organizations that still exist. If they were brought into power you can bet your ass you'd see them turn into nazi's real quick. There is no one more narrow minded than a green peace activist, or a peta nazi, or a vegetarian, or a vegan, or an anti-smoking activist, yadda yadda.

"Peta Nazi", and etc. . . .

No labels? Whatever. As our great Vice President said, "Go . . . . . . . . "


:cool:

Peta are nazi's. It's not labelling when I am just calling a spade a spade. ;)

Seriously. You do know they advocate terrorist activities don't you? They promote firebombing labs and other institutions.

But, I never called you a hippie, vegan, nazi, or redneck. It seems to be you who is intent upon labelling *me*.

Well, invert nexus, will you accept the label, "human"?

Hmmm. I don't know. Sometimes I wish I weren't but I suppose I will on a conditional basis. Subject to change at the slightest notice.

But, human is not hippie. Human is not redneck. Human is not christian fundamentalist. Human might be a bit of a limiting label but not as much as these others.

Aww, you just rubbed me wrong earlier - but I'm over it. Fact is I pretty much agree with everything you've said. (Though I don't hate hippies! For all their shortcomings I'll take hippies over rednecks or suit wearing drones any day!)

You'll notice perhaps that I earlier mentioned my "irrational hatred of hippies." I was once more idealistic and I believed the hippie spiel for a minute or two. I've since become more cynical and I realized that the hippie love led directly to the modern hate.

And, yeah, even though I hate hippies, I don't mind them that much. I'd prefer them over rednecks and drones myself.

But, I'd still like to shove those tribal drums right up their asses.

You ''hate them'' but ''don't mind them that much''? Huh?

"Tribal drums"? Those don't sound like the hippies I knew as a kid (parents, aunts, uncles, parents friends). Those sound like proto-hippies. The folks I consider true hippies . . . none of them are younger now then mid 50's.

It seems that its easier to label people the more general the label is.

As for hippies, I dont not like them for a couple of reasons:
1) i'm in the uK, and we didnt have that many anyway, or they grew up and went away.
2) they dont have any power, therefore are not a threat.
Which is what right wingers and rednecks are.

Anywayyyyy,
I would like to see a new cultural evolution, a good bit of open minded stuff, etc, new movements, etc, but dont hold out any hope for such a thing. If you look at the ideals being promulgated these days, theyre all old.
Eg- militant religion- maybe 5 or 6,000 years old at least.
free market fundamentalism and right wing weirdism- most of it is drawing on ideals over 30 years old (and that were kind of tried in the 80's. Doesnt anyone ever learn?)
Left wing fundamentalism- over a century old.
Environmentalism- over 30 years old.
technophilia- in its modern guise, only about 10 years old, what with these peopel who burble on about nanotech and uploading their brains etc. But ultimately directly linked to the 1950's, just with a different coat.

So, I would like something like the 60's again, but dont think there will be anything like it for 20 years maybe.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. I'd unfortunately be less suprised to see a 1330's style (Black Death) time hit us or if we are lucky just a 1890's style depression.