The 2000s

[Rubin Farr]

 

Some of you grew up in the 2000s, but for liberals in the United states, it was a decade from Hell. Poisoned by 9/11, it just went downhill from there: one of the worst Presidents in US history elected by the US Supreme Court; two never ending wars that have seriously damaged our national morale, a deregulated housing market that almost caused a global recession; the Great Recession that cost millions of people their jobs and homes, no accountability from the banking industry, which just continues to plod along like business as usual, after the Feds bailed them out; the deterioration of our civil rights under the Patriot Act, etc etc. The art from that time is one of the only things I can look back on and smile.

 

What was it like outside the US, was it this bleak? I've heard it dubbed The Decade From Hell. opinions?

I feel like Eastern Europe and the Balkans got better. I can't really think of other examples though.

 

The irony is it wasn't just bad for liberals, it was bad for all the angry lower and middle class conservatives, particularly the tea party bunch, though all the things they complain about they blame on Obama and/or falsely on liberals. It's incredible and absurd that so many sincerely discouraged and angry at the federal government and wall street keep voting for the GOP.

The Republican base consistently votes against their own interests, a combination of lack of education, racial bias, and religious fundamentalism.

[chenGOD]

Hundreds of millions of people improved their economic standing worldwide, violence and deaths from it declined, educational opportunities improved, food security became better for tens of millions, there is an increased awareness of the global issues we face (climate change, energy production, etc.) and we got the Soundcloud dumps of probably my two of my top three musicians.

[YEK]

can you imagine, what it will be like, in the year 2000?

 

[usagi]

certainly didn't seem like violent death was on the decline when all you saw on the news for a good portion of the mid-00s were the horror stories coming out of the Iraqi civil war. seemed like hundreds of people were dying every day in bombings.

 

of course you can say that on average and on a global scale, violence is on the decline as people become more educated and less inclined to bashing each others' heads in. but I think that's missing the point.

[Guest cult fiction]

certainly didn't seem like violent death was on the decline when all you saw on the news for a good portion of the mid-00s were the horror stories coming out of the Iraqi civil war. seemed like hundreds of people were dying every day in bombings.

 

of course you can say that on average and on a global scale, violence is on the decline as people become more educated and less inclined to bashing each others' heads in. but I think that's missing the point.

It's almost as if... TV is not a good representation of real life.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Iraq

[chenGOD]

Compared to the first half of the last century, the second half of the 1900s and the first 15 years of the 2000s are dramatically more peaceful.

Battle deaths per year has dropped from approximately 240 per million people in 1950 to less than 10 per million in 2007.

The number of international wars has seen a large decline, and while the number of civil wars (or low-intensity conflicts as the terminology goes) rose until the 1980s, from 1990 onwards we see a dramatic decrease in those as well.

Homicide is down everywhere, as is violent crime in general.

 

The point is the news distorts the events to make it seem like the world is teetering on the brink of collapse. It's not.

[ambermonk]

It was the decade of emo, MySpace, Crysis, Tay Zonday, and Chris Crocker. Actually a bunch of that shiz was in 2007 wunnit. Also the year I first embarked overseas.

And it doesn't matter whether your political views are more left or right wing in Mburmbica. Shit still sucks if you're not a cop, banker, or CEO.

[usagi]

 

certainly didn't seem like violent death was on the decline when all you saw on the news for a good portion of the mid-00s were the horror stories coming out of the Iraqi civil war. seemed like hundreds of people were dying every day in bombings.

 

of course you can say that on average and on a global scale, violence is on the decline as people become more educated and less inclined to bashing each others' heads in. but I think that's missing the point.

It's almost as if... TV is not a good representation of real life.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Iraq

 

 

well, yeah, it isn't, but that article doesn't put a number to the civilian deaths in Iraq from 2003 onwards at all, so I'm not sure how it helps.

 

Compared to the first half of the last century, the second half of the 1900s and the first 15 years of the 2000s are dramatically more peaceful.

Battle deaths per year has dropped from approximately 240 per million people in 1950 to less than 10 per million in 2007.

The number of international wars has seen a large decline, and while the number of civil wars (or low-intensity conflicts as the terminology goes) rose until the 1980s, from 1990 onwards we see a dramatic decrease in those as well.

Homicide is down everywhere, as is violent crime in general.

 

The point is the news distorts the events to make it seem like the world is teetering on the brink of collapse. It's not.

 

I think people miss the significance of events happening right under their nose and what that bodes for them in their little bubble, as well as the broader human psyche, when they look at things on a super-long timescale across a huge area of focus. of course the number of battle deaths has dropped since 1950, we had two massive world wars prior to that, which are outliers as far as patterns of global conflict go. arguing that the world is less prone to war and killing because we haven't had a major world war lately is disingenuous imo. I don't dispute that homicide is down and we have fewer wars now than we did in the past. but I don't believe that mankind is more peaceful as a result. I'd like to be convinced otherwise, but numbers alone won't do it.

 

also as far as world collapse goes, sure, the media loves to sell that story, they always have. but it's a mistake to forget how fragile this whole scenario is, us being here right now. collapse could be right around the corner, just because you don't see it coming doesn't mean it isn't possible. again, I would like to be convinced otherwise and have some kind of security in a positive future, but I just don't.

[Hugh Mughnus]

The 2000s is actually a millenium Rubin.

[Rubin Farr]

the 80s-90s seemed to embrace the new found global news networks, started by CNN and the 24-hour news cycle, we wanted to know what was going on everywhere. Then, the internet supplanted that with aggregated news, only for-ad profit and that changed. The US media began to isolate us from the rest of the world, only telling America about America, similar to the isolationism we felt before WWI, before the League of Nations was founded. We were xenophobic, blatantly racist (check out any of the newsreels from WWI, WWII. Hell, even the Disney propaganda cartoons showed Germans & Japanese as racist caricatures), we interned our own Japanese citizens in camps for fuck's sake.

[psn]

So far the 2000s is the shortest century in history.

[usagi]

pfft, the 200s were way shorter. there's a whole zero missing, come on! what are you smoking?

[chenGOD]

 

 

certainly didn't seem like violent death was on the decline when all you saw on the news for a good portion of the mid-00s were the horror stories coming out of the Iraqi civil war. seemed like hundreds of people were dying every day in bombings.

 

of course you can say that on average and on a global scale, violence is on the decline as people become more educated and less inclined to bashing each others' heads in. but I think that's missing the point.

It's almost as if... TV is not a good representation of real life.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Iraq

 

 

well, yeah, it isn't, but that article doesn't put a number to the civilian deaths in Iraq from 2003 onwards at all, so I'm not sure how it helps.

 

Compared to the first half of the last century, the second half of the 1900s and the first 15 years of the 2000s are dramatically more peaceful.

Battle deaths per year has dropped from approximately 240 per million people in 1950 to less than 10 per million in 2007.

The number of international wars has seen a large decline, and while the number of civil wars (or low-intensity conflicts as the terminology goes) rose until the 1980s, from 1990 onwards we see a dramatic decrease in those as well.

Homicide is down everywhere, as is violent crime in general.

 

The point is the news distorts the events to make it seem like the world is teetering on the brink of collapse. It's not.

 

I think people miss the significance of events happening right under their nose and what that bodes for them in their little bubble, as well as the broader human psyche, when they look at things on a super-long timescale across a huge area of focus. of course the number of battle deaths has dropped since 1950, we had two massive world wars prior to that, which are outliers as far as patterns of global conflict go. arguing that the world is less prone to war and killing because we haven't had a major world war lately is disingenuous imo. I don't dispute that homicide is down and we have fewer wars now than we did in the past. but I don't believe that mankind is more peaceful as a result. I'd like to be convinced otherwise, but numbers alone won't do it.

 

also as far as world collapse goes, sure, the media loves to sell that story, they always have. but it's a mistake to forget how fragile this whole scenario is, us being here right now. collapse could be right around the corner, just because you don't see it coming doesn't mean it isn't possible. again, I would like to be convinced otherwise and have some kind of security in a positive future, but I just don't.

 

 

Read "the Better Nature of Our Angels", by Steven Pinker

[usagi]

it's been on my radar a while, I will do at some point.

[The Wumbo Man]

I had my first wank in the 00s

[Hugh Mughnus]

So far the 2000s is the shortest century in history.

Millenium

[KovalainenFanBoy]

early/mid 00s where the last years of the normie-free internet

[awepittance]

early/mid 00s where the last years of the normie-free internet

very true. not enough people remember how exclusive the internet was to a more than average obsessive personality type, especially things like pre-napster MP3 sharing/collecting

 

unfortunately because of the normies the corporations saw $$ and turned most of the internet pretty normal as a result, oh well you can still find cool shit luckily

[chenGOD]

What's a normie? Is it a bro? Is it a jock? A slut? a valley girl? a nerd? Someone who drinks natty ice exclusively?

And more importantly, what's wrong with them?

[awepittance]

What's a normie? Is it a bro? Is it a jock? A slut? a valley girl? a nerd? Someone who drinks natty ice exclusively?

And more importantly, what's wrong with them?

you genuinely can't infer what that means? Don't you remember the internet late 90s/early 00s? i sense a slightly disingenuous vibe by your question (dont worry i wasn't calling you a normie)

 

here's a little checklist

 

- did you run your own FTP server before filesharing services like Napster?

- did you frequent Usenet?

- did you have more than one IRC handle?

- did cable/high speed internet change your life?

 

if you can answer 'yes' to any of these questions you're probably not a post normie internet user

 

[spratters]

There were no minions throughout that decade so yeah, great.

 

However rave music was a lot better imo.

[chenGOD]

 

What's a normie? Is it a bro? Is it a jock? A slut? a valley girl? a nerd? Someone who drinks natty ice exclusively?

And more importantly, what's wrong with them?

you genuinely can't infer what that means? Don't you remember the internet late 90s/early 00s? i sense a slightly disingenuous vibe by your question (dont worry i wasn't calling you a normie)

 

here's a little checklist

 

- did you run your own FTP server before filesharing services like Napster?

- did you frequent Usenet?

- did you have more than one IRC handle?

- did cable/high speed internet change your life?

 

if you can answer 'yes' to any of these questions you're probably not a post normie internet user

 

 

 

I can answer yes to all of those questions (though I wasn't a heavy Usenet user). I'm just wondering how having normies (personally I prefer many of the normies to the racist/sexist bullshit that gets spawned on /b and numerous subreddits, but hey that's just me) on the internet has affected your usage of the internet. No one forces you to communicate with any of them. I don't imagine you're a heavy poster in youtube comments sections or yahoo answers.

This whole "normies" thing is like saying "yeah I was into band X before they got mainstream".

[zkom]

I got a direct 10Mbit connection from a university to my student apartment in 1999 and it ruined my life for the 2000s. Static public IPs and domain names for every student. No port restrictions in or out. You can only dream of that stuff now.

[Hugh Mughnus]

Sometimes I forget about the age gap between some of the members on watmm.

 

And then I come into a thread like this and remember.

[chenGOD]

I got a direct 10Mbit connection from a university to my student apartment in 1999 and it ruined my life for the 2000s. Static public IPs and domain names for every student. No port restrictions in or out. You can only dream of that stuff now.

 

Not if they implemented IPv6.