I should mention, misinterperetation is every bit as dangerous as misinformation. You concluded, “go ahead and praise the unlamented golden age, but make sure you fit the criteria (rich, white, WASP…).” First of all, I don’t think anyone was overly focused on the “good old days” here. In the article, Paul specifically states, “it strikes me that the web just lets us do the same things we’ve always done, just faster and more anonymously.” So, you must be talking about Nancy’s reference to cultural changes in the Sixties. Probably, the increased availabilty of information that occured with the advent of television was largely responsible for those changes. These days, I feel like television is ~95% worthless. However, the internet is potentially doing for our generations what television did in the Sixties. Thus, we can have a relevant discussion of parallels from those times. A discussion of parallels between the past and present is inherently not “praising the so called good old days,” because that phrase implies a relatively deteriorated present. Anyway, I shouldn’t get too techinical, cuz I still have some things to say.

You mentioned the necessarry criterea for praising the movements of the 60s, “(rich, white, WASP…).” I realize that you said this out of some emotion and not reason, but I’m still going to point out what’s wrong with your reasoning. I don’t agree that one must have the same economic, racial or religious background that comprised the majority of a movement in order to appreciate it. We wouldn’t say, sure, the Rennaisance is cool… if your an Italian Catholic! Or go ahead and praise the Civil Rights Movement. Just make sure you’re an African American! Aside from that, you’re asserting that the only people changing in the 60s were WASPs. The Black Panthers, Caesar Chavez, and Catholic President John F Kennedy, were, in fact, not rich, white, Protestants.

I’m not trying to be mean spirited, but your post is a perfect example of what Paul is talking about in his article, with one important difference: you are a single person, probably unaffiliated with any organization that would benefit from the opinions you’ve posted here. The statements that you’ve made probably do serve some purpose for someone, but not for you. The obfuscation of truth occurs on the individual level, as people reiterate special interest slogans without even really knowing why. That’s a problem.

If yes, then of course go ahead and praise the unlamented golden age, but make sure you fit the criteria (rich, white, WASP…)