Yep, I'm starting another generational thread

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Y's vs. Z's

https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-zs-habits-different-from-millennials-2018-6#gen-zs-are-exploring-new-gender-norms-or-discarding-gender-all-together-14


Z's are going to kick ass as they enter the workforce

[mu_hilltopper]

Y's vs. Z's

Z's are going to kick ass as they enter the workforce

I will believe that when I see it.  I didn't see much in that article that would suggest one generation over another will be amazingly different in the workforce.   

That Gen Z has never known a world without a cell phone in their hand means they've logged more hours of Youtube than any other generation.  Super.  I'm sure Gen Z's penchant for social justice and desire to show off their individuality will totally help them in the workforce too.

[WarriorDad]

Y's vs. Z's

https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-zs-habits-different-from-millennials-2018-6#gen-zs-are-exploring-new-gender-norms-or-discarding-gender-all-together-14


Z's are going to kick ass as they enter the workforce

This is going to help, how? 

[Benny B]

I will believe that when I see it.  I didn't see much in that article that would suggest one generation over another will be amazingly different in the workforce.   

That Gen Z has never known a world without a cell phone in their hand means they've logged more hours of Youtube than any other generation.  Super.  I'm sure Gen Z's penchant for social justice and desire to show off their individuality will totally help them in the workforce too.

Failing to see the difference between Y and Z on this one... the Y's seem to be working out ok despite their penchant for social justice and desire to show off their individuality.  Hell, Mark Zuckerberg would be just another little man working for the Canadian marijuana industry today if it wasn't for the Millennial's unprecedented desire to show off their individuality.

As far as the social justice part... in a dichotomous political society, social justice can only be cyclical.  Unfortunately, it is pushed to one extreme and then the other extreme will push back, and back and forth and back and forth, all the while Zuckerberg gets richer and richer but nobody cares because he's on the side of the pushers, not the pullers, or vice versa (depending on where you are in the cycle and/or who's side the media happens to be on) so the pullers (or the pushers) will pull (or push) and the pushers (or the pullers) will push (or pull), and all of those who are truly in need continue to suffer in the middle irrespective of the match between the pushers and pullers because neither the pushers nor the pullers honestly give a rat's ass about the victims so long as they are (or think they are) winning.  That's social justice in a society that is increasingly adhering to a "with us or against us" mentality.

Just another of our society's ills that could be solved by compulsory voting.  But hey, let's silence half of America not because we don't know if they're on the side of the pushers or pullers but because we lack the courage (or intellect) to have to decided among more than two choices.



[WTF kind of tangent was that?  Must be a game day.]

[WarriorDad]

That's social justice in a society that is increasingly adhering to a "with us or against us" mentality.

Just another of our society's ills that could be solved by compulsory voting.  But hey, let's silence half of America not because we don't know if they're on the side of the pushers or pullers but because we lack the courage (or intellect) to have to decided among more than two choices.

This is my greatest concern and some of the things and actions coming out of people, especially in the last month should be alarming.  Civility no longer allowed unless one side wins a chamber(s)?  People are going to get killed, and that is going to lead to some escalations that could get very ugly.  Social media has polarized more than ever because people only read and play in their echo chambers.  And now if they don't get their way, they are taking it to extremes that are dangerous.  Both sides better wake up to this because both sides are guilty of it.

[MU82]

This is my greatest concern and some of the things and actions coming out of people, especially in the last month should be alarming.  Civility no longer allowed unless one side wins a chamber(s)?  People are going to get killed, and that is going to lead to some escalations that could get very ugly.  Social media has polarized more than ever because people only read and play in their echo chambers.  And now if they don't get their way, they are taking it to extremes that are dangerous.  Both sides better wake up to this because both sides are guilty of it.

Very fine people on both sides.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't buy that social justice is cyclical. There is some back and forth on some social justice areas, but not all. Take gay marriage for example, while there were small setbacks along the way eventually it was passed by the Supreme Court and I don't ever see it going back (Jay Bee your anti-marriage viewpoint is noted). I think it's pretty unarguable that life has gotten better, more equal, and safer for LGBQ+ individuals in this country. Not perfect, more work to be done, but better than even 5 years ago.

[mu_hilltopper]

This is my greatest concern and some of the things and actions coming out of people, especially in the last month should be alarming.  Civility no longer allowed unless one side wins a chamber(s)?  People are going to get killed, and that is going to lead to some escalations that could get very ugly.  Social media has polarized more than ever because people only read and play in their echo chambers.  And now if they don't get their way, they are taking it to extremes that are dangerous.  Both sides better wake up to this because both sides are guilty of it.

Not going to disagree, but will say the media promotes the messages of the extremes.   To wit, a decent study (https://hiddentribes.us/) .. shows 8% are "Progressive Activists" with their counterpart "Devoted Conservatives" having 6%.   

That 14% represents, what, 95% of the heated messages on the planet?  There's a reason the study shows most people are in the "exhausted majority."

Now .. that being said, I think there is a 0% chance that there WON'T be large-scale violent "civil" action in the US in the next ~25 years. 

[GGGG]

This is my greatest concern and some of the things and actions coming out of people, especially in the last month should be alarming.  Civility no longer allowed unless one side wins a chamber(s)?  People are going to get killed, and that is going to lead to some escalations that could get very ugly.  Social media has polarized more than ever because people only read and play in their echo chambers.  And now if they don't get their way, they are taking it to extremes that are dangerous.  Both sides better wake up to this because both sides are guilty of it.

You lack historical context.  This isn't really all that new.

[Babybluejeans]

Very fine people on both sides.

Lol.

[WarriorDad]

Very fine people on both sides.

Yes, and some terrible human beings on both sides, too.

[WarriorDad]

Not going to disagree, but will say the media promotes the messages of the extremes.   To wit, a decent study (https://hiddentribes.us/) .. shows 8% are "Progressive Activists" with their counterpart "Devoted Conservatives" having 6%.   

That 14% represents, what, 95% of the heated messages on the planet?  There's a reason the study shows most people are in the "exhausted majority."

Now .. that being said, I think there is a 0% chance that there WON'T be large-scale violent "civil" action in the US in the next ~25 years.

Define large scale violent civil action.  Social media makes news and events travel in seconds.  All it is going to take is someone crazy to light up the wrong people in a public way, captured on video to get the other side's wrong people to take the wrong actions. When we are encouraging people with this behavior, which is what I hear from the Cheeto and from leaders in my party, that is not good.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Define large scale violent civil action.  Social media makes news and events travel in seconds.  All it is going to take is someone crazy to light up the wrong people in a public way, captured on video to get the other side's wrong people to take the wrong actions. When we are encouraging people with this behavior, which is what I hear from the Cheeto and from leaders in my party, that is not good.

What leaders in "your party" have encouraged violence from their supporters? I could see an argument for that they aren't doing enough to condemn violence but I personally can't think of an example where any have encouraged violence.

[Babybluejeans]

What leaders in "your party" have encouraged violence from their supporters? I could see an argument for that they aren't doing enough to condemn violence but I personally can't think of an example where any have encouraged violence.

Ha, dude don't even engage. Cheekz loves him some false equivalence.

[MUBurrow]

Not going to disagree, but will say the media promotes the messages of the extremes.   To wit, a decent study (https://hiddentribes.us/) .. shows 8% are "Progressive Activists" with their counterpart "Devoted Conservatives" having 6%.   

That 14% represents, what, 95% of the heated messages on the planet?  There's a reason the study shows most people are in the "exhausted majority."

And to pile on here, magnifying the most extreme message *works*.  Whether that's tact by "mainstream/moderate" political leaders, an unintentional consequence of the media promoting the extremes, or a savvy combo of both, highlighting extremes casts otherwise controversial positions as moderate and gives cover to "moderate" politicians fearing blowback.  The right's success over the last couple of decades (I don't think there's a plausible argument that the moderate left has been more successful than the moderate right) is owed to their ability to force advantageous compromise by framing their extreme wing as a tacit threat of what will happen when the political winds shift.

[4everwarriors]

Free BeeJay 2018, aina?

[mu03eng]

Folks, this is a prime example of the internet is not real life. Social Media/The Internet amplifies the extremes either intentionally (political purpose, media clicks, etc) or accidentally based on who you follow, etc. This is also proving the concept of data without content being worse than no data.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Just another of our society's ills that could be solved by compulsory voting.  But hey, let's silence half of America not because we don't know if they're on the side of the pushers or pullers but because we lack the courage (or intellect) to have to decided among more than two choices.

Had a discussion with a couple of Millennials on one of my teams yesterday, neither of them ever vote.  These are otherwise very intelligent professionals, but one can't be bothered and the other "doesn't trust politicians".

Exasperating.

[muwarrior69]

I don't buy that social justice is cyclical. There is some back and forth on some social justice areas, but not all. Take gay marriage for example, while there were small setbacks along the way eventually it was passed by the Supreme Court and I don't ever see it going back (Jay Bee your anti-marriage viewpoint is noted). I think it's pretty unarguable that life has gotten better, more equal, and safer for LGBQ+ individuals in this country. Not perfect, more work to be done, but better than even 5 years ago.

I did not realize SCOTUS passes legislation. I thought they decide cases.

[GB Warrior]

Damn activist judges

[Benny B]

Had a discussion with a couple of Millennials on one of my teams yesterday, neither of them ever vote.  These are otherwise very intelligent professionals, but one can't be bothered and the other "doesn't trust politicians".

Exasperating.

FIFY.

And yet... all y'all feel like their votes should be suppressed.  Why is that?  Because someone who doesn't trust politicians is deemed less intelligent?

Seems like someone who doesn't trust politicians would be someone of above-average intelligence.

[MUBurrow]

FIFY.

And yet... all y'all feel like their votes should be suppressed.  Why is that?  Because someone who doesn't trust politicians is deemed less intelligent?

Seems like someone who doesn't trust politicians would be someone of above-average intelligence.

That's being obtuse.  There's a pretty big jump between not trusting politicians and opting out of the system that allows you to elect the politician you distrust the least. 

If the argument is that not voting is a more impactful statement than voting for either of the distrustful politicians, okay, but I have a hard time getting on board with that translating to the rest of us bending over backwards to hear more about what that person has to say through compulsory voting.

*Edited to mention that I'm also in favor of anything that makes voting easier and more straightforward for people who want to do it. But I'm unimpressed with the person who doesn't vote because they don't "trust politicians."

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I did not realize SCOTUS passes legislation. I thought they decide cases.

Never said they did. Passed is a synonym for approved,  decided,  supported,  chose, backed,  etc.

[Babybluejeans]

FIFY.

And yet... all y'all feel like their votes should be suppressed.  Why is that?  Because someone who doesn't trust politicians is deemed less intelligent?

Seems like someone who doesn't trust politicians would be someone of above-average intelligence.

Absolutely true. This is precisely what David Foster Wallace homes in on in his excellent 2000 Rolling Stone article about McCain. (It becomes even more prescient considering the current occupant is a serial liar on an previously-unknown scale.) https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/david-foster-wallace-on-john-mccain-the-weasel-twelve-monkeys-and-the-shrub-194272/

Worth reading the whole thing, but here's a clip:

"...Because we’ve been lied to and lied to, and it hurts to be lied to. It’s ultimately just about that complicated: it hurts. We learn this at like age four – it’s grownups’ first explanation to us of why it’s bad to lie (“How would you like it if … ?”). And we keep learning for years, from hard experience, that getting lied to sucks – that it diminishes you, denies you respect for yourself, for the liar, for the world. Especially if the lies are chronic, systemic, if experience seems to teach that everything you’re supposed to believe in’s really just a game based on lies. Young Voters have been taught well and thoroughly. You may not personally remember Vietnam or Watergate, but it’s a good bet you remember “No new taxes” and “Out of the loop” and “No direct knowledge of any impropriety at this time” and “Did not inhale” and “Did not have sex with that Ms. Lewinsky” and etc. etc. It’s painful to believe that the would-be “public servants” you’re forced to choose between are all phonies whose only real concern is their own care and feeding and who will lie so outrageously and with such a straight face that you know they’ve just got to believe you’re an idiot. So who wouldn’t yawn and turn away, trade apathy and cynicism for the hurt of getting treated with contempt?

[Benny B]

That's being obtuse.  There's a pretty big jump between not trusting politicians and opting out of the system that allows you to elect the politician you distrust the least. 

If the argument is that not voting is a more impactful statement than voting for either of the distrustful politicians, okay, but I have a hard time getting on board with that translating to the rest of us bending over backwards to hear more about what that person has to say through compulsory voting.

*Edited to mention that I'm also in favor of anything that makes voting easier and more straightforward for people who want to do it. But I'm unimpressed with the person who doesn't vote because they don't "trust politicians."

There are many reasons people don't vote.  Many people consider their vote an endorsement of a candidate and take issue - moral or otherwise - with helping to elect a representative that isn't representative of who they are or what they stand for.  Other people have no problem with electing a sociopath* as long as it puts a few more dollars in their own pockets.  The latter is where the danger exists... most people vote because they feel a duty or obligation to vote.  So why is it "bending over backwards" to have someone else cast their vote who otherwise would not?  Sure, it's a little more work for the machines that count the ballots, and I guess someone has to spend 45 minutes watching a printing press than the usual 20 minutes.  Maybe the poll workers have to stay a little later, or more volunteers will be needed to run the polling sites.  But your implication that compulsory voting would be this great burden levied upon the people is simply untrue.

Political campaigns spend BILLIONS of dollars, $6.5B in 2016 alone according to the Washington Post, for one reason: get people to show up to the polls.  "With that much money you could fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for 15 years, fix the Flint, Mich., lead pipe problem 30 times over or give every public school teacher a $2,000 raise."