Relationship versus friendship

[Judge]

That is in English though. Because in Russian its not "Sla-Vik" instead it is "Sla-Vyanskiy". While "viking" in Russian is the same exact word, "Viking".

Looks like we're both wrong. The word seems to have Polish origins. Maybe even older Latin roots than Polish.

 

[Polchinski]

Older people built and gave us everything we have and made sure we have food. So they are first. '

Did "all" older people do it, or just most of them?

If its all, then its not much of an accomplishment since that effectively means they were forced to do it. So why respect them for it? I mean, by that logic, every young person would also be forced to do it some time later, so why not respect a young person for their future forced-accomplishments?

On the other hand, if it is just "some", then why not just respect the ones that did it, and not the rest? Why should an older person that didn't do it, receive a "respect by association"?

Kids table' is just a normal thing, you gather the kids in one place and give the adults some peace so they can eat.

From where I am sitting now, it actually makes sense. In particular it might not be about the respect at all but instead about interests. Adults are not interested in the topics kids want to talk about, kids are not interested in the topics adults want to talk about, so it would be convenient for both to sit at separate tables.

I guess when I was a kid I didn't think of it that way. I assumed that it was about respect. Thats why I didn't like it.

Speaking of interests, it brings back to what I am currently complaining about: how I am being isolated from 20-somethings in the USA for being old. Are they simply assuming I am no longer interested in what they are interested in? Well, in my case I AM interested -- due to the simple fact that I never got to experience it back when I was their age due to my Asperger. So if I missed out the best years of my life, then OF COURSE I would rather do it later than not at all.

As far as other older people, I suspect they might be interested too. Nostalgia is a strong feeling. Although I imagine it would be easier for them to accept it since at least they haven't "missed out" on it when they were younger.

And people under 18 can't vote because they haven't learned enough yet.

Some 15 year olds can know more than some adults. It would have been more logical to look at education level rather than the age to judge those things. Although I imagine that judging things by education level would be perceived as "prejudice", while age discrimination flies under the radar simply because people are too used to it.

Speaking of US specifically, since US education is reputed to be left-wing, I imagine replacing age criteria with education criteria would be seen as pushing leftist agenda in US context. I don't think education in Russia has similar reputation though. So its a good question why nobody tried to replace age with education in Russia, or some other countries.

If the issue is that kids are emotionally unstable, then this same argument was probably used against women voting back in the day.

 

[Judge]

Speaking of interests, it brings back to what I am currently complaining about: how I am being isolated from 20-somethings in the USA for being old. Are they simply assuming I am no longer interested in what they are interested in? Well, in my case I AM interested -- due to the simple fact that I never got to experience it back when I was their age due to my Asperger. So if I missed out the best years of my life, then OF COURSE I would rather do it later than not at all.

Good observation. It's true that ageism is rife in American society. More so than class distinctions IMO. Though I also believe it goes both ways for the young and for the old. All compounded by net worth and a lack thereof. It can all certainly put a real "spin"- or barrier on friendships.

 

[Forest Cat]

Did "all" older people do it, or just most of them?

If its all, then its not much of an accomplishment since that effectively means they were forced to do it. So why respect them for it? I mean, by that logic, every young person would also be forced to do it some time later, so why not respect a young person for their future forced-accomplishments?

On the other hand, if it is just "some", then why not just respect the ones that did it, and not the rest? Why should an older person that didn't do it, receive a "respect by association"?

It's just the way it is I think, young people are standing on the sweat, blood and hard work of those who came before them. So naturally older people are first in line. And it takes time and work to discuss who did what and who deserves what, so the rules is that older people have seniority. And young people are more resilient, you don't want a 85 year old grandma having to wait for her dinner but a 5 year old can handle waiting a little.

 

[Polchinski]

Good observation. It's true that ageism is rife in American society.

How does American society justify ageism, and what are the underlying assumptions behind it?

More so than class distinctions IMO.

I agree. Younger people of all races and classes can find same age people to associate with. But older people such as myself can't get included anywhere in those age groups.

Though I also believe it goes both ways for the young and for the old.

What are you referring to by "going both ways"? Were you referring discrimination against the younger people that I talked about in the other post? Or were you referring to something else? I

All compounded by net worth and a lack thereof.

What are you referring to by "net worth"? Do you mean financial worth? Or were you referring to some other kind of worth? Can you be more specific?

If you are referring to financial worth, didn't you say yourself in the previous paragraph that class distinctions are less important?

Or are you saying "its okay to be poor if you are young, but not if you are old"?

 

[Judge]

How does American society justify ageism, and what are the underlying assumptions behind it?



I agree. Younger people of all races and classes can find same age people to associate with. But older people such as myself can't get included anywhere in those age groups.



What are you referring to by "going both ways"? Were you referring discrimination against the younger people that I talked about in the other post? Or were you referring to something else? I


What are you referring to by "net worth"? Do you mean financial worth? Or were you referring to some other kind of worth? Can you be more specific?

If you are referring to financial worth, didn't you say yourself in the previous paragraph that class distinctions are less important?

Or are you saying "its okay to be poor if you are young, but not if you are old"?

Ageism just happens here-without justification. But then culture evolves at a much faster rate here. Where "respect for your elders" has fallen on deaf ears by both the young and the middle-aged.

"Going both ways"- meaning age differences and cultural prejudices can be cited by both the young and the old.

Net worth- strictly in a financial sense. With older people having far more disposable income and better financial resources. Often based on older values shared by parents who survived the Great Depression. The difference between having possessions and actual monetary wealth. With too many people floating their lives and property on credit.

 

[Polchinski]

It's just the way it is I think, young people are standing on the sweat, blood and hard work of those who came before them. So naturally older people are first in line. And it takes time and work to discuss who did what and who deserves what, so the rules is that older people have seniority. For example, my grandparents and those before them worked hard and gave my family everything we have. And my parents also worked hard to ensure we had what we needed. So if all those people were still around now, they would be first in all lines, before me. I would be at the back of the line and I think that's fair. But my nephew and the kids, the younger generations, they are behind me in line.

Here is the thing though. The logic behind the reward is, "if I do X, I get Y, so I better do X, since I want to get Y". But in case of older people, they are getting Y anyway. So if you know you are going to get Y anyway when you are old, you have no insentive to do X while young. After all, they aren't going to make distinction as to "which" older person did what.

Now, I realize that when older people were sweating, they weren't doing it "so that they can be first in line later on". Okay fine. But this brings back the question: so what is the purpose of reward then?

I guess the speculation I am thinking of at the moment is that its not about the reward but more about celebration. As an older person you want to celebrate that "those hard days are over and it paid off". Or, alternatively, as a young person you have "something to look forward to". Not so much in terms of reward, but more in a sense that your suffering won't be forever and you will have some light at the end of the tunnel.

Now, thats just my own speculation that I am thinking of right now as I am typing. Is this what it is about, or does it have some other rationale?

In any case, as a kid, I weren't thinking of the celebration aspect of it. I was more thinking of reward aspect of it. Thats why I found it unfair.

 

[Polchinski]

Ageism just happens here-without justification.

Everything happens for a reason. Its just that sometimes reasons are subconscious rather than conscous. So what are subconscious assumptions that people make, that leads to ageism?

But then culture evolves at a much faster rate here. Where "respect for your elders" has fallen on deaf ears by both the young and the middle-aged.

As far as "forgetting" the older concepts, such as "respect for elders", it makes sense.

But as far as "creating new concepts", such as "prejudice against the elders", that is a lot more interesting. So how did said "new concept" come into place?

"Going both ways"- meaning age differences and cultural prejudices can be cited by both the young and the old.

Are you saying that the old actually agree with the young, in saying the young is superior?

Or are you saying that the old oppose the young and view themselves, as old, as superior?

Net worth- strictly in a financial sense. With older people having far more disposable income and better financial resources.

So are you saying discrimination against the old is a result of discrimination against the rich (kind of like blacks can be anti-white due to a resentment that the white are rich)?

Often based on older values shared by parents who survived the Great Depression.

I thought the outcome of great depression would be poverty rather than riches?

Or are you saying that during the great depression they learned some skills that allowed them to be rich nowdays?

By the way, as someone from Russia, the whole great depression thing won't apply to me. Or did they just made broad-brush assumptions about great depression affection ALL older people and didn't stop to think that it won't apply to older people from other countries?

The difference between having possessions and monetary wealth.

Can you elaborate on this one? As well as its relation to age and prejudice against the age?

 

[Judge]

Everything happens for a reason. Its just that sometimes reasons are subconscious rather than conscous. So what are subconscious assumptions that people make, that leads to ageism?



As far as "forgetting" the older concepts, such as "respect for elders", it makes sense.

But as far as "creating new concepts", such as "prejudice against the elders", that is a lot more interesting. So how did said "new concept" come into place?



Are you saying that the old actually agree with the young, in saying the young is superior?

Or are you saying that the old oppose the young and view themselves, as old, as superior?


So are you saying discrimination against the old is a result of discrimination against the rich (kind of like blacks can be anti-white due to a resentment that the white are rich)?



I thought the outcome of great depression would be poverty rather than riches?

Or are you saying that during the great depression they learned some skills that allowed them to be rich nowdays?

By the way, as someone from Russia, the whole great depression thing won't apply to me. Or did they just made broad-brush assumptions about great depression affection ALL older people and didn't stop to think that it won't apply to older people from other countries?



Can you elaborate on this one? As well as its relation to age and prejudice against the age?

You're asking a loaded question for which I already stated that I have no absolute answer for. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the objective "whys" of it all. Though I suppose I could speculate in citing the past decades in which the further back one goes in time, the more dynamic- and turbulent those past times were. Where older people can relate to them while younger people cannot. Which might explain part of the reason for ageism. Being a "Baby-Boomer", I lived through some amazing times that younger people cannot easily relate to. Though in the present, it seems more and more that society in general is headed towards all the divisiveness of the 60s. Perhaps even something worse. Nothing "subconscious" about it.

No age group is inherently "superior to another. I'm just pointing out that net worth gives people a very different
perspective, which likely exacerbates age differences apart from a growing gap in the distribution of wealth.

If one's parents went through the Great Depression and the Second World War, there's always a possibility of them passing on their values to their children relative to the extremes of poverty and prosperity. Values that have eroded with successive generations, apart from a reality that for most of us, any concept of an "American Dream" is just a myth and little else. Though the rigors of extreme poverty remain very real. Even more so when your own parents can describe such things in great detail.

Much like the gap between NT and ND, it all boils down to a similar common denominator- basic differences which can promote scorn more often than respect. All exacerbated through a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation which is anything but homogeneous or what some refer to as a "melting pot".

 

[Forest Cat]

Here is the thing though. The logic behind the reward is, "if I do X, I get Y, so I better do X, since I want to get Y". But in case of older people, they are getting Y anyway. So if you know you are going to get Y anyway when you are old, you have no insentive to do X while young. After all, they aren't going to make distinction as to "which" older person did what.

Now, I realize that when older people were sweating, they weren't doing it "so that they can be first in line later on". Okay fine. But this brings back the question: so what is the purpose of reward then?

I wouldn't call it a reward, it's just life. People do what they can, then you get older and people treat you with a little respect because you are older. When I'm 90 I'll tell people to get me food and wash my car and all sorts of things. "Bring me my dinner and then get out there and mow my lawn!". And they'll better do it. I'll do and say whatever I want. What can they do about it, they can't stop me, I'm 90.

 

[Judge]

I wouldn't call it a reward, it's just life. People do what they can, then you get older and people treat you with a little respect because you are older. When I'm 90 I'll tell people to get me food and wash my car and all sorts of things. "Bring me my dinner and then get out there and mow my lawn!". And they'll better do it. I'll do and say whatever I want. What can they do about it, they can't stop me, I'm 90.

Let's hope it stays that way in Norway, whether you make it to 90 or not. But then your culture doesn't move at the pace of America, so you just might have that chance.

 

[Polchinski]

I wouldn't call it a reward, it's just life. People do what they can, then you get older and people treat you with a little respect because you are older. When I'm 90 I'll tell people to get me food and wash my car and all sorts of things. "Bring me my dinner and then get out there and mow my lawn!". And they'll better do it. I'll do and say whatever I want. What can they do about it, they can't stop me, I'm 90.

Thats different: it has to do with them physically not being able to do it. But the things I talked about earlier weren't related to it since I weren't talking about 90 year olds.

 

[Forest Cat]

Thats different: it has to do with them physically not being able to do it. But the things I talked about earlier weren't related to it since I weren't talking about 90 year olds.

Yeah I was just joking a little. But anyway, I don't see it as a reward, when I was a kid we learned to "respect our elders". Getting older automatically gives you something. Just surviving on this planet long enough to get old deserves some respect I think. So I don't see it as a reward for what people did when they were younger or how much they have worked. It's just the decent thing to do I think, respect the elders. And many of them built everything we have now, that's important to not forget.

 

[Polchinski]

Though I suppose I could speculate in citing the past decades in which the further back one goes in time, the more dynamic- and turbulent those past times were. Where older people can relate to them while younger people cannot.

So why would "being able to relate" to something be a negative? I would have assume it should be neutral to positive.

Besides, there are plenty of things some younger people can relate to that other same age people can't: such as favorite movies or what not. So why doens't THIS promote nearly the same gap?

I mean I realize that life experience is more than just a movie. But here is the thing: its not part of the current life, is it? So who cares what it is from several decades ago I can relate to? Yes I can relate to some stories about WW2 that my grandma told me about. So what? Its not relevant to my life.

 

[Judge]

So why would "being able to relate" to something be a negative?

Quite the opposite. It's not being able to relate to one from a different time that can and is sometimes demonized.

 

[Polchinski]

Just surviving on this planet long enough to get old deserves some respect I think.

Okay, so this is "slightly" more logical. At least it is up to you: you have a choice: to try to survive, or not to. If you do succeed in surviving, you get a reward by being treated better once you get older.

The problem with this, though, is that fear of death is enough of a motivation to try to survive. You don't need any "extra" rewards on top of it.

So I don't see it as a reward for what people did when they were younger or how much they have worked. It's just the decent thing to do I think, respect the elders.

Thats what is unfair: to respect (or otherwise) someone for something that is out of their control.

And many of them built everything we have now, that's important to not forget.

Again, many is not all. Yet others get "rewarded by association", which is unfair.

 

[Polchinski]

Quite the opposite. It's not being able to relate to one from a different time that can and is sometimes demonized.

If so, then older should be looking down on the younger. But here in America we see younger looking down on the older.

 

[Judge]

If so, then older should be looking down on the younger. But here in America we see younger looking down on the older.

Personally I don't think anyone should be "looking down" on anyone else. All generations potentially have something to contribute to collective society.

I just find it sad that only selective cultures here seem to maintain values indicative of respect for one's elders. But it's not all that surprising given the pace our particular society moves at.

At my age places like Scandinavia look pretty decent.

 

[Ella Spell]

I love and value my friends just as much as my romantic loves, if not more. My bond and loyalty to friends can't be broken because these relationships are based wholly on respect, shared values, and emotional vulnerability. There's nothing else to muck it up.

In friendship I'm free from the volatility of sexuality, physical chemistry, financial commitment, or (to put it bluntly) legal obligation, like we have in marriage or monogamous partnerships. I don't idealise friends to fit them into my life goals or a specific script, like having children together or retiring at the coast. There isn't a social expectation that my friendships might implode by divorce, betrayal, or loss of physical attraction.

I can have more than one friend and love each one for who they are and our shared interests, faults and all. I don't have to commit to just one friend. It's liberating because I know that I've chosen my friends freely even though our entire lives don't need to gel. Simultaneous friendships fulfil different needs in my life, or different parts of my personality. I don't rely on one friend to be my everything at the exclusion of other friends, and I don't get jealous or feel threatened if they do the same. This shows a level of trust and maturity we don't always find in romantic or sexual relationships. It makes forgiveness much easier too, because our entire lives aren't on the line.

I love my friends with my whole heart, in an almost selfless way because my body isn't required. Friendship is based on our hearts, minds and deeds, rather than our bodies, and in my opinion that makes the connection more lasting.

I'm fiercely loyal to my friends, and I'd fight for their trust through thick and thin.
I hope they know how much they're loved.

 

[Judge]

I can easily identify what a lover is- or should be IMO.

However what constitutes "a friend" eludes me much of the time. And as time marches on, the less importance "friendship" has given its apparent fleeting nature.