Is there anything more frustrating than Calguns??

[tedster]

Not broad at all. I’m just describing CGN. My assessment is spot on.

I did forget to add…no self awareness to that assessment.

You call this an "assessment"? Lol!

 

[SLORNR]

You call this an "assessment"? Lol!

Yep, and it is SPOT ON.

What is your counter regarding CGN. You think they are “dialed in” over there?!

“Two weeks!”

 

[ikeo1]

Yep, and it is SPOT ON.

What is your counter regarding CGN.

“Two weeks!”

It's not all of them, only a few who don't represent the majority. Some guys are really stuck in the past, but you can see here with all the little ghost icons there's a lot of them who are here (many have requested it too). I can empathize with how you feel about the older gen, I wouldn't paint a broad brush though. Let's not get too carried away.

 

[GoldensRule]

In his 70’s. He still rides a HD and spends all his time and $ at Bingo Halls with the rest of the gambling degenerates. I pay his Part B Medicare because he is cheap AF. And I pay the penalty rate because he didn’t have it for almost a decade. He would never be able to see a medical professional without it, unless it was in an ambulance ride to the ER. He doesn’t see the value of medical insurance but he will blow his whole SS at a bingo hall.

Every generation has its degenerates, but if your in your 70’s you’d think some wisdom would apply. NOPE.

His father was a WW2 Veteran. Lived to almost 100. He didn’t take on any of those degenerate behaviors, his life was not dominated by vice. Complete opposite of his boomer son.

/R.

Well, it sounds like you didn't hit the lottery with your Dad. I guess I was lucky with my folks.

 

[GoldensRule]

That's a broad-brush, single minded way of looking at it and describing it. Terribly flawed.

What's the old joke? "Generalizations are always wrong."

 

[tedster]

Yep, and it is SPOT ON.

What is your counter regarding CGN. You think they are “dialed in” over there?!

“Two weeks!”

It's an observation paired with your opinion. At best.

The fact that your PoV stretches from CNG to your dad and on to an entire generation (and back) is the very definition of "broad-brush".
"They are dialed in" to what? What is that supposed to mean?
I am not concerned with people who are patronizing CNG. By that, I mean the trolls in the "off topic segment".
The marketplace is still alive, if you are able to make a connection. In the 17 years I used this segment, I was able to buy, sell and trade a good amount of items.
I never cared for anything else on CNG.
Imo, the full framework of the platform was probably blown out of proportion, an endless amount of sub-forums with nobody really behind it.
The migration it underwent damaged the functionality, it hasn't been fixed until today.
To date it's a dysfunctional platform. To find the reason for this lack of functionality in what you call "boomer mentality", is ludicrous.

 

[SLORNR]

Well, it sounds like you didn't hit the lottery with your Dad. I guess I was lucky with my folks.

It’s hilariously ironic because I have achieved a great deal of wealth and success in my life, which he attributes to “luck.”

 

[ezam75]

Could not agree more with all of yall
I been a CALGUNS supported since 2010 and absolutely love d the site.
But I can't tell you how disappointed I am
I tried for well over three months to creat a new log in just to never receive the link!!!!
Even opened a new account PM one of the admins and never received a response !
Such a shame met a lot of fine 2A supporters there and had some amazing deals

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

Could not agree more with all of yall
I been a CALGUNS supported since 2010 and absolutely love d the site.
But I can't tell you how disappointed I am
I tried for well over three months to creat a new log in just to never receive the link!!!!
Even opened a new account PM one of the admins and never received a response !
Such a shame met a lot of fine 2A supporters there and had some amazing deals

2007, in it’s heydays. Was such a friendly, knowledgeable sight. Great deals to be had, good conversations, and comradery.

People were always willing to help and share knowledge. Some of them are still there, most have moved on or passed away. I miss what it once was, and later, what it could have been.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Generalizations by-definition should be generally true, but not absolutely true. This is what makes them useful as a baseline. Generalizations often describe a predictable and demonstrable pattern.

Exceptions prove the rule, but basing an understanding of the world on exceptionalism isn't useful.

 

[tedster]

The term "boomer mentality" is overwhelmingly derogatory. I object that.
I don't know the people who run CGN today. I don't have the slightest idea what their mindset might be.
Besides, I am a late-boomer myself. I do not match the derogatory framing by generalization.
I fought hard to brake from what is perceived "boomer mentality". At a time when new ideas where scarce or did not exist at all.
At the end of the day, members of the boomer generation fought the "Rock n Roll War", and won.
I don't limit this to Vietnam. This war was fought in every facet of Western Society.
A huge accomplishment up to a certain point in time.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Generalizations don't have to be bad per se; they're just recognized patterns as a baseline.

My parents were Boomers. They worked hard and knew how to save a dollar. They understood discipline and suffered no fools or crybabies.

 

[eaglemike]

Heck, Boomers are great. Trump is a Boomer. I'm a Boomer, still working at 70 plus, surviving triple hit lymphoma, other cancers, and a bone marrow transplant. I planned to work until 90, but I don't think I'm going to make it. My wife is turning 81 next month, goes to work with me every day. She picked cotton, hoed cotton and corn, etc when young, still works in her yard. Anyone that says Boomers have/had it easy really doesn't know. I started working at 12. Just no need for any of that. We are all in it, just gotta keep plugging. Hang together, or hang separately.

Back on topic, 504'd again.

 

[KingRansom]

I don’t bother anymore tbh. I can’t read my PMs, site would hardly work, much less let me log in.

It’s a shame really, but when one door closes, another opens.

After being on cal guns for so long it took a bit of an adjustment. To get used to this. But CA guns has grown pretty damn quickly and unlike kestryll, it seems like the admins here really care about making this a very user friendly and useful site. Hope they keep it up

 

[tedster]

Generalizations don't have to be bad per se; they're just recognized patterns as a baseline.

My parents were Boomers. They worked hard and knew how to save a dollar. They understood discipline and suffered no fools or crybabies.

Generalizations are useful when creating statistics, less so when identifying individual values.
The majority of context in conjunction with the word “mentality” is usually negative in projection.

I was meant to be a poster child “boomer”. I grew up to become the complete opposite.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Generalizations are useful when creating statistics, less so when identifying individual values.
The majority of context in conjunction with the word “mentality” is usually negative in projection.

I was meant to be a poster child “boomer”. I grew up to become the complete opposite.

There is no universe in which a "generalization" informs us about individual values, and it's right in the root word, "general". Generalizations are just recognized patterns (human or other animal behavior, in this case) which can be good or bad, and this varies by interpretation. People often use generalizations to mean something "bad" but that's not the case.

Men are generally stronger than women, but there are exceptions. If you hold a general view that men are stronger than women, you will be correct nearly all of the time. Someone who holds an ideological position that there's no difference in male/female strength is going to be wrong most of the time. If they build other ideologies based on that incorrect data they're going to have a bad time.

Generalizations are only useful if they're true, and it's just a starting point.

Humans use intellectual shortcuts because it's expedient and pragmatic, especially in an emergent situation where a correct and decisive response matters and can mean the difference between life and death. Heck, even real estate prices are based on a constellation of generalizations which are true, and directly affect housing prices. There are other factors too, but value is determined by buyers which establishes comps, and comps establish pricing trends which are vetted by banks and appraisers. In essence, the value of a home is based on *perception*, which is based on generalizations. Is the area "safe"? Will it appreciate? Are the schools good? What is a "good school" anyway? Even that is a matter of demonstrable performance, the quality of teachers the school can attract, which is tied to whether those teachers want to live in that area.

In reality, humans have survived and flourished because of how they interact with the natural world, which necessarily includes accurate threat-assessment based on an understanding of patterns (generalizations). Think of how you would categorize someone who's breaking the window of your home at 4a. Every conclusion you will have based on the data available is generalized based on what you know of threatening human behavior; the cover of night, 4am being a time where defenses are assumed to be down, the element of surprise by the perp, etc.

Obviously one should always allow the exception which proves the rule. That roaring lion could be friendly if you approach it, but it's best not to test reality for exceptions to the rule. This position makes more sense when people correct the erroneous idea that generalizations can only be bad. Nothing about the word implies bad, just a general recognition of a pattern.

Without generalizations, we wouldn't even be able to tell a man from a woman, and this is in direct contrast to some modern ideologies which attempt to undermine the very nature of biological reality. Yet, few of us struggle to make the distinction, even if we're occasionally wrong. Generalizations in large part are a fundamental part of intelligence and the ability to use what one has learned (and what others have learned) to survive and thrive in the real world.

 

[tedster]

The first question resulting from your presentation: what is the real world?
The second note refers to “intelligence”. In recent decades such intelligence has been replaced in large part by ideologies describing a collective trend while abandoning individual awareness and self sufficiency.
Ironically, this collective trend of ideologies has been assumed by many, as the “real world”.

Yes, it is generally correct to say “everybody is stuck on the 405 fwy at 8am in the morning”. Yet, this generalization will only apply to those who choose to drive there.

It is not the question whether generalization is “good or bad”. The question is to what extent is it applicable.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

The first question resulting from your presentation: what is the real world?
The second note refers to “intelligence”. In recent decades such intelligence has been replaced in large part by ideologies describing a collective trend while abandoning individual awareness and self sufficiency.
Ironically, this collective trend of ideologies has been assumed by many, as the “real world”.

Yes, it is generally correct to say “everybody is stuck on the 405 fwy at 8am in the morning”. Yet, this generalization will only apply to those who choose to drive there.

It is not the question whether generalization is “good or bad”. The question is to what extent is it applicable.

Ideologies aren't fact-based by-definition, which is why they're called ideologies. First principles observations are key, including the scientific method or the method by which we vet and test truth-claims. We've seen a major collision in recent years between ideological narratives and cold, harsh reality, and any claim that is testable can and will be tested. How else do we divest ourselves of false and/or harmful ideologies? We test them, and often all we need is logic. Thought experiments are super useful in this regard.

This is at the crux of a few questions where ideology meets reality. What is a woman, and should trans-identified males be allowed to compete against women in their sports? Some people cannot get the first question right, but if pressed they will almost never fail to understand what a woman is.

Now, think of all the hysterical people who scream about "dangerous guns", and consider that their foundational data (if any) is basically fear, hysteria, half-truths, sensationalist headlines, FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), deliberate misinformation, amplification of bad news and omissions of good news (good guy with a gun stopping a mass murderer), etc.

These "hot button" topics are basic acid tests for how one curates reality vs. trending ideologies. It's SO powerful that it guides how people vote, and can shape one's entire worldview. That worldview is evident in how one dresses and behaves, and that is reliably ascertained through generalizations based on prior patterns.

Generalizations allow us to make an accurate guess about the content of one's mind, even if outliers occasionally surprise us. *Everyone* employs this shorthand, even if they don't realize it. This is why you're aware of your surroundings at an ATM, more so at 3a than 3p, and more so in a sketchy neighborhood vs. one that's "safe". It's just a starting point, not an end-all-be-all. In fact, I would say smart people do this well and with fewer obvious errors or improper foundations. E.g., the person who erroneously believes the Earth is flat will make other incorrect interferences based on this bad foundation. The committed ideologue who refuses to admit or cannot understand the differences between men and women will spend inordinate time and energy trying to convince people of something that nearly everyone can see, with first principles, for themselves. This is why the ideologues scream, because they cannot pass muster with logic alone.

For your 405 traffic jam example, of course the sample size only consists of the people on the freeway during peak morning traffic. That sample size requires another metric; "How many people still commute to work?" "Is freeway traffic density worse now with a higher population in a given city where everyone who can drive and wants to drive can own an automobile?" When will peak traffic be behind us, and will ride-sharing (Uber/Lyft) and Robotaxis affect this? There will be a time in the future when people won't even need to own a car, and for some that's reality now. I would say that traffic has improved overall because COVID forced the world to work-from-home or at least isolate for a while, and that stuck for a lot of us. As more people work-from-home (like me), traffic will continue to lessen. When nearly everyone who can work from home does, there will be less traffic still.

Meta Moment; accurately predicting the future relies upon true generalizations about technological trends and human behavior. Doing well in the stock market benefits from this assessment.

So, the sample size of drivers on the 405 is dense or perceived as-such, but it's less than it will be in 5-10 years with ubiquitous Robotaxis, ride-sharing, self-driving vehicles, and far fewer reasons to own a vehicle. If there's ever some kind of dramatic reduction of jobs due to automation and UBI (Universal Basic Income) becomes reality, there will be fewer people on the road at the same time to create commuter traffic. A lot of these ideas are based on generalizations of human behavior. How do people behave if they don't need to work, commute, compete in traffic, aren't all on the freeway at the same time, and are able to get sufficient sleep and a nice mug of joe before going about their day?

Reality is objective, and we test truth-claims with the scientific method.

I was only drilling down on the fact that a generalized fact is indeed general (non-specific) and should be generally true to be useful. Generalizations are not inherently bad or good, but are simply a shorthand for established patterns. Generalizations which aren't based on reality or patterns in reality are not useful, and that's left to the domain of ideology and religion.

 

[tedster]

As I already mentioned, generalizations can be useful when creating statistics.
Reality should be objective, yet it is mostly perceived, generally speaking.
You are trying to turn an abstract into reality. Or worse, manipulate masses by way of generalizations.

 

[bbp00]

I was only drilling down on the fact that a generalized fact is indeed general (non-specific) and should be generally true to be useful. Generalizations are not inherently bad or good, but are simply a shorthand for established patterns. Generalizations which aren't based on reality or patterns in reality are not useful, and that's left to the domain of ideology and religion.

Not disagreeing. Just pointing out, for sake of accuracy, that what was posted by some about 'Baby Boomers' in this thread, is example of negative stereotyping.