Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Millennials and GenZ horribly misidentified
#41
(05-04-2019, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The 1997-2003 cohorts are NOW acting civically about guns, about climate change, and about inequality, college debt and low wages. Unlike you, they know these issues are civic and are on the ballot for a vote. They are just coming into their own as a civic generation, and we haven't seen anything yet from millennials, born from 1982 to 2003.

I think it's unfair to imply that earlier Millennials (1982-1996) are 'uncivic'. I mean there was the whole LGBT rights movement that sprang up as that group came of age, which had a huge impact on how differing sexualities and identities are perceived. The whole same-sex marriage movement would likely not have gotten off the ground if it wasn't for the earlier-wave Millennials, despite the Boomers and Gen Xers who later agreed that a law change was necessary to enfranchise a minority.

One of the reasons also why we see the later Millennials/Gen Zers making effective protest is due to the ideological groundwork laid out by the first wave. There are politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (b. 1989) and Sarah Hanson-Young (b. 1981) who are markedly more progressive than many others elected in their field, but both these women have had to endure being the devil of the conservative media and all the smears associated with it. Being a 1991 born Australian myself, if you are caught supporting Hanson-Young too loudly within a moderate-conservative audience of older people you are likely to be called an idiot and told to 'f*** off'. As a cohort of downtrodden, frustrated and quietly-progressive adults are formed, you have a lot higher chance of vocal youth movements not being shrugged off before they can gain traction - they'll have backing from some of the older crowd as well.

I think one of the frustrations that arose with the older wave of Millennials is that we were expected to be 'heroes' by the older generation, but within a framework we did not consent to, as if everyone was trying to write what we'd stand for, for us. When we stepped too far outside of those margins, there was hostility and closed communication and we couldn't reach anyone no matter how much we cared or thought about things, which led to many 'giving up'. It makes me wonder if maybe the older wave of Millennials should be considered a Nomad-Hero hybrid generation, in that we have Civic ideals, but we tend to get be treated as Reactives when we attempt to express them.
Reply
#42
(05-08-2019, 12:05 PM)michael_k Wrote:
(05-04-2019, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The 1997-2003 cohorts are NOW acting civically about guns, about climate change, and about inequality, college debt and low wages. Unlike you, they know these issues are civic and are on the ballot for a vote. They are just coming into their own as a civic generation, and we haven't seen anything yet from millennials, born from 1982 to 2003.

I think it's unfair to imply that earlier Millennials (1982-1996) are 'uncivic'. I mean there was the whole LGBT rights movement that sprang up as that group came of age, which had a huge impact on how differing sexualities and identities are perceived. The whole same-sex marriage movement would likely not have gotten off the ground if it wasn't for the earlier-wave Millennials, despite the Boomers and Gen Xers who later agreed that a law change was necessary to enfranchise a minority.

One of the reasons also why we see the later Millennials/Gen Zers making effective protest is due to the ideological groundwork laid out by the first wave. There are politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (b. 1989) and Sarah Hanson-Young (b. 1981) who are markedly more progressive than many others elected in their field, but both these women have had to endure being the devil of the conservative media and all the smears associated with it. Being a 1991 born Australian myself, if you are caught supporting Hanson-Young too loudly within a moderate-conservative audience of older people you are likely to be called an idiot and told to 'f*** off'. As a cohort of downtrodden, frustrated and quietly-progressive adults are formed, you have a lot higher chance of vocal youth movements not being shrugged off before they can gain traction - they'll have backing from some of the older crowd as well.

I think one of the frustrations that arose with the older wave of Millennials is that we were expected to be 'heroes' by the older generation, but within a framework we did not consent to, as if everyone was trying to write what we'd stand for, for us. When we stepped too far outside of those margins, there was hostility and closed communication and we couldn't reach anyone no matter how much we cared or thought about things, which led to many 'giving up'. It makes me wonder if maybe the older wave of Millennials should be considered a Nomad-Hero hybrid generation, in that we have Civic ideals, but we tend to get be treated as Reactives when we attempt to express them.

I'm a first wave Millennial but don't really have the ideals of any major generation. To me, progress is usually something negative. When someone starts talking about the word progress, say goodbye to anything that actually works right and say hello to a bunch of wars about privilege and stuff. Progress is the poor having a much lower living standard because of technology changes and because of climate change alarmism. Progress? Hah! The left tells us we genuinely need a low standard of living. So when they support no right to self defense or free speech, a low standard of living, and identity politics and privilege wars there's nothing it really offers me. The left thinks it's "progress" what things like a burkini are celebrated. The left thinks we need to have no borders and import everyone. The left wants to stop lots of gun use just because they're alarmed about school shootings. I see school shootings as a wedge issue to get rid of our freedoms on purpose. The mass media are a bunch of sensationalists that cause destruction for the money. Both sides of politics are obsessed with privilege and these idiotic wedge issues. It's sheer stupidity. All buzzwords, hiveminds, and no meaning other than to accuse others. I care about specific issues but I don't care about joining a side. Issues are important to me, not these political games.
Reply
#43
(05-08-2019, 12:05 PM)michael_k Wrote:
(05-04-2019, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The 1997-2003 cohorts are NOW acting civically about guns, about climate change, and about inequality, college debt and low wages. Unlike you, they know these issues are civic and are on the ballot for a vote. They are just coming into their own as a civic generation, and we haven't seen anything yet from millennials, born from 1982 to 2003.

I think it's unfair to imply that earlier Millennials (1982-1996) are 'uncivic'. I mean there was the whole LGBT rights movement that sprang up as that group came of age, which had a huge impact on how differing sexualities and identities are perceived. The whole same-sex marriage movement would likely not have gotten off the ground if it wasn't for the earlier-wave Millennials, despite the Boomers and Gen Xers who later agreed that a law change was necessary to enfranchise a minority.

One of the reasons also why we see the later Millennials/Gen Zers making effective protest is due to the ideological groundwork laid out by the first wave. There are politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (b. 1989) and Sarah Hanson-Young (b. 1981) who are markedly more progressive than many others elected in their field, but both these women have had to endure being the devil of the conservative media and all the smears associated with it. Being a 1991 born Australian myself, if you are caught supporting Hanson-Young too loudly within a moderate-conservative audience of older people you are likely to be called an idiot and told to 'f*** off'. As a cohort of downtrodden, frustrated and quietly-progressive adults are formed, you have a lot higher chance of vocal youth movements not being shrugged off before they can gain traction - they'll have backing from some of the older crowd as well.

I think one of the frustrations that arose with the older wave of Millennials is that we were expected to be 'heroes' by the older generation, but within a framework we did not consent to, as if everyone was trying to write what we'd stand for, for us. When we stepped too far outside of those margins, there was hostility and closed communication and we couldn't reach anyone no matter how much we cared or thought about things, which led to many 'giving up'. It makes me wonder if maybe the older wave of Millennials should be considered a Nomad-Hero hybrid generation, in that we have Civic ideals, but we tend to get be treated as Reactives when we attempt to express them.

I think older millennials are civic; I think more of them are starting to be more civic since more of them voted in the 2018 midterm. But I think millennials are a civic generation in many ways.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#44
(05-08-2019, 12:46 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-08-2019, 12:05 PM)michael_k Wrote:
(05-04-2019, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The 1997-2003 cohorts are NOW acting civically about guns, about climate change, and about inequality, college debt and low wages. Unlike you, they know these issues are civic and are on the ballot for a vote. They are just coming into their own as a civic generation, and we haven't seen anything yet from millennials, born from 1982 to 2003.

I think it's unfair to imply that earlier Millennials (1982-1996) are 'uncivic'. I mean there was the whole LGBT rights movement that sprang up as that group came of age, which had a huge impact on how differing sexualities and identities are perceived. The whole same-sex marriage movement would likely not have gotten off the ground if it wasn't for the earlier-wave Millennials, despite the Boomers and Gen Xers who later agreed that a law change was necessary to enfranchise a minority.

One of the reasons also why we see the later Millennials/Gen Zers making effective protest is due to the ideological groundwork laid out by the first wave. There are politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (b. 1989) and Sarah Hanson-Young (b. 1981) who are markedly more progressive than many others elected in their field, but both these women have had to endure being the devil of the conservative media and all the smears associated with it. Being a 1991 born Australian myself, if you are caught supporting Hanson-Young too loudly within a moderate-conservative audience of older people you are likely to be called an idiot and told to 'f*** off'. As a cohort of downtrodden, frustrated and quietly-progressive adults are formed, you have a lot higher chance of vocal youth movements not being shrugged off before they can gain traction - they'll have backing from some of the older crowd as well.

I think one of the frustrations that arose with the older wave of Millennials is that we were expected to be 'heroes' by the older generation, but within a framework we did not consent to, as if everyone was trying to write what we'd stand for, for us. When we stepped too far outside of those margins, there was hostility and closed communication and we couldn't reach anyone no matter how much we cared or thought about things, which led to many 'giving up'. It makes me wonder if maybe the older wave of Millennials should be considered a Nomad-Hero hybrid generation, in that we have Civic ideals, but we tend to get be treated as Reactives when we attempt to express them.

I'm a first wave Millennial but don't really have the ideals of any major generation. To me, progress is usually something negative. When someone starts talking about the word progress, say goodbye to anything that actually works right and say hello to a bunch of wars about privilege and stuff. Progress is the poor having a much lower living standard because of technology changes and because of climate change alarmism. Progress? Hah! The left tells us we genuinely need a low standard of living. So when they support no right to self defense or free speech, a low standard of living, and identity politics and privilege wars there's nothing it really offers me. The left thinks it's "progress" what things like a burkini are celebrated. The left thinks we need to have no borders and import everyone. The left wants to stop lots of gun use just because they're alarmed about school shootings. I see school shootings as a wedge issue to get rid of our freedoms on purpose. The mass media are a bunch of sensationalists that cause destruction for the money. Both sides of politics are obsessed with privilege and these idiotic wedge issues. It's sheer stupidity. All buzzwords, hiveminds, and no meaning other than to accuse others. I care about specific issues but I don't care about joining a side. Issues are important to me, not these political games.

You can't understand progress if based on the wrong ideas. 

Climate change concern has nothing to do with the poor getting a lower standard of living.

The immigration issue is just a scare tactic, and is not legitimate.

Free speech for whom? Racist hatemongers?

Owning and using guns has absolutely nothing to do with freedom.

Priviledge is a very major real issue when so few own so much in this country.

If you buy these conservative slogans, then you are not in a position to understand "progress," or know what issues are important. Conservatives today have nothing to offer at all. To oppose them is not to take a side. It is just common sense.

None of this has to do with any generation.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#45
(04-28-2019, 09:59 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote: I don't know whether it's because of the authors' scarce reliance on actually good data, or because they ... quite literally are out of touch boomers, but the brackets to put these generations into are nonsense.

Although you didn't phrase your critique politely, I think you make a valid point: the more recent generations, as defined by Strauss–Howe, don't seem to align with reality. To be fair, they wrote Generations back in 1991, so this was all projection (guesswork) at the time. The true definition of each generation can only be provided in retrospect.

That said, I think they made a fundamental error when they defined the Baby Boom Generation, and the consequences have cascaded down to our day. As you asserted Strauss and Howe are baby boomers themselves, and they seem to have fallen victim to the boomer trope that the Kennedy assassination marked the end of an era. Being a boomer myself, I can vouch for the huge shadow it cast for us. But society didn't change fundamentally as a result. Life went on more or less as before, and the demarcation between pre- and post-Kennedy assassination eras amounted to a distinction without a difference.

The defining characteristic Baby Boom Generation is in the name: baby boom. Looking at a birth rate chart (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers) you can see a very obvious spike in the years following WW-II that declines over time. Although the beginning of this period is fairly obvious, the end of this generation and the beginning of the next is far less so. The United States Census Bureau defines it as 1946-1964, but one could just as easily push the ending year out to 1970 or beyond. (The birth rate didn't bottom out until the mid-70s.) And once the trailing edge of the Baby Boomers are no longer classified as Generation X, the latter group absorbs most of what we've traditionally defined as Millennial.

Cutting to the chase: I think the generations from the Baby Boomers onward need to be redefined, and here's my stab at it:

Generation Strauss–Howe Alternative
Baby Boom 1943–1960 1946–1970
Generation X 1961–1981 1971–1995
Millennial 1982–2004 1996–?

I think this aligns more closely to what we've seen over the almost three decades since the original publication of Generations.
Reply
#46
(05-09-2019, 02:46 PM)fran22d Wrote:
(04-28-2019, 09:59 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote: I don't know whether it's because of the authors' scarce reliance on actually good data, or because they ... quite literally are out of touch boomers, but the brackets to put these generations into are nonsense.

Although you didn't phrase your critique politely, I think you make a valid point: the more recent generations, as defined by Strauss–Howe, don't seem to align with reality.  To be fair, they wrote Generations back in 1991, so this was all projection (guesswork) at the time.  The true definition of each generation can only be provided in retrospect.

That said, I think they made a fundamental error when they defined the Baby Boom Generation, and the consequences have cascaded down to our day.  As you asserted Strauss and Howe are baby boomers themselves, and they seem to have fallen victim to the boomer trope that the Kennedy assassination marked the end of an era.  Being a boomer myself, I can vouch for the huge shadow it cast for us.  But society didn't change fundamentally as a result.  Life went on more or less as before, and the demarcation between pre- and post-Kennedy assassination eras amounted to a distinction without a difference.

The defining characteristic Baby Boom Generation is in the name: baby boom.  Looking at a birth rate chart (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers) you can see a very obvious spike in the years following WW-II that declines over time.  Although the beginning of this period is fairly obvious, the end of this generation and the beginning of the next is far less so.  The United States Census Bureau defines it as 1946-1964, but one could just as easily push the ending year out to 1970 or beyond.  (The birth rate didn't bottom out until the mid-70s.)  And once the trailing edge of the Baby Boomers are no longer classified as Generation X, the latter group absorbs most of what we've traditionally defined as Millennial.  

Cutting to the chase: I think the generations from the Baby Boomers onward need to be redefined, and here's my stab at it:

Generation Strauss–Howe Alternative
Baby Boom 1943–1960 1946–1970
Generation X 1961–1981 1971–1995
Millennial 1982–2004 1996–?

I think this aligns more closely to what we've seen over the almost three decades since the original publication of Generations.

If you know Strauss and Howe, it's clear that they contend that generations are not defined by demographic factors like how many babies are born in which years. I agree with them. 1943-1960 is a good date, although I would extend the end perhaps up to a year.

1964 was definitely the start of the Awakening for all who were awake and aware, and in hindsight it's even more clear. And America fundamentally changed. 1966 was definitely the year when the consciousness revolution fully broke out, and 1967-68 were the years when it shook America to its core. No boomer could have failed to notice that an Awakening was in full force. So a nomad generation would have had to begin sometime before 1964, and from all the people I know born in the early 60s, it's clear that a nomad influence is strongly at work, even if some of them are cuspers and have some boomer traits.

PBS really nailed it with this doc




Millennials are typical civics, and there's no reason to question this, or to fiddle with dates. S&H nailed it. Let's just sit back and watch history unfold as we expect.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#47
Well broken clocks are right twice a day, and Eric stumbled on being correct here. The proposed alternative for X makes no sense. Being a 79 Xer I can tell you that there is a marked difference between my cousins ten years older than myself (I'm more civic leaning but not a civic for sure) and my 1984 Sister.

Demographic factors are not important to generation, what matters is the socio-historical context of a generation's childhood and their coming of age.

The demarcation line between Boom and X certainly is if one was old enough to find the Hippy Movement and etc to be "exciting" "new" and "fun" or "OMG my older siblings/cousins (adults generally) are all going crazy". I'd argue that the demarcation line between X and Millies is around the Challenger disaster. Xers viewed it as proof the world really was going to shit. Millies shouldn't really remember it at all.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#48
(05-09-2019, 02:46 PM)fran22d Wrote:
(04-28-2019, 09:59 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote: I don't know whether it's because of the authors' scarce reliance on actually good data, or because they ... quite literally are out of touch boomers, but the brackets to put these generations into are nonsense.

Although you didn't phrase your critique politely, I think you make a valid point: the more recent generations, as defined by Strauss–Howe, don't seem to align with reality.  To be fair, they wrote Generations back in 1991, so this was all projection (guesswork) at the time.  The true definition of each generation can only be provided in retrospect.

That said, I think they made a fundamental error when they defined the Baby Boom Generation, and the consequences have cascaded down to our day.  As you asserted Strauss and Howe are baby boomers themselves, and they seem to have fallen victim to the boomer trope that the Kennedy assassination marked the end of an era.  Being a boomer myself, I can vouch for the huge shadow it cast for us.  But society didn't change fundamentally as a result.  Life went on more or less as before, and the demarcation between pre- and post-Kennedy assassination eras amounted to a distinction without a difference.

The defining characteristic Baby Boom Generation is in the name: baby boom.  Looking at a birth rate chart (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers) you can see a very obvious spike in the years following WW-II that declines over time.  Although the beginning of this period is fairly obvious, the end of this generation and the beginning of the next is far less so.  The United States Census Bureau defines it as 1946-1964, but one could just as easily push the ending year out to 1970 or beyond.  (The birth rate didn't bottom out until the mid-70s.)  And once the trailing edge of the Baby Boomers are no longer classified as Generation X, the latter group absorbs most of what we've traditionally defined as Millennial.  

Cutting to the chase: I think the generations from the Baby Boomers onward need to be redefined, and here's my stab at it:

Generation Strauss–Howe Alternative
Baby Boom 1943–1960 1946–1970
Generation X 1961–1981 1971–1995
Millennial 1982–2004 1996–?

I think this aligns more closely to what we've seen over the almost three decades since the original publication of Generations.
Dunno how it is in USA for sure but when seeing this from a New Zealanders eyes I have to laugh as I know a guy born in 1970 and he exudes xer and hes proud of it and he is such a different type of creature from my mothers generation of which I have noted there are many similarities between my mother and her cohorts. That xer is totally different and far more down to earth which I do like, but far more negative from my mothers boomer cohorts. He is far less entertained by boomers when they wanted to preach to us during class time. He would storm right out of class and would go on and on about the system till I would snap as I couldn't stand listening to the negativity. Like I get it, but whining solves nothing. I rather think what do we DO about it instead of whining? That xer is no boomer and if you are proposing I am an xer I have to laugh so hard at that. I have looked at their system. My way of being raised as a child fits to the T of a millennial upbringing. Apparently even more so in some ways than millennials in America who are of a similar age as I am.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#49
(05-02-2019, 08:02 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote: If you showed someone from the 90s the way we are living right now the most shocking thing would be the absolute loss of any sort of privacy. The NSA violating the constitution, the CIA violating human rights, the army committing warcrimes, this all came after 2001, and was never an issue like this. In fact the most animosity towards the political elite from both sides of the political aisle is exclusively due to what sort of liberties were taken after that point in time. Businesses are allowed to do a lot more compared to private persons after this, because they did not have their rights curtailed because they are needed for the economy but regular people had. The economic crash might have made things more dire, but the "screw regular folk, what matters is state and economic interests" which causes the current anti system climate, started exactly after 9/11.
Screwing regular folks had been well in place long before 911. When were you born?

Quote:And the policy of "if someone tries to put US personnel on trial for warcrimes the standing order is to invade denHaag" is i would say a pretty fucking huge policy change along with torture now being a totally fine thing to do, and constitutional violations in spying on your own citizens directly and with the help of corporations being commonplace. It's exactly the sort of thing that leads to the old system showing that it is unfit to function at least as much as the new generations are concerned.

Quote:The Vietnam war happened because there was a clear opponent.

WTF?  Just how old are you?


Quote:Iraq had not much directly to do with 9/11 which prompted it since it was the war on terror.
Quote:As a matter of fact from a more historical and less sociological point of view the "war on terror" is considered a new historical epoch on earth as a whole.

That said, I can see your point about the difference between the mid-1990's cohorts and those after. But again. you are confusing cultural generations with historical generations. They are different things!
Reply
#50
(05-08-2019, 12:05 PM)michael_k Wrote:
(05-04-2019, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The 1997-2003 cohorts are NOW acting civically about guns, about climate change, and about inequality, college debt and low wages. Unlike you, they know these issues are civic and are on the ballot for a vote. They are just coming into their own as a civic generation, and we haven't seen anything yet from millennials, born from 1982 to 2003.

I think it's unfair to imply that earlier Millennials (1982-1996) are 'uncivic'. I mean there was the whole LGBT rights movement that sprang up as that group came of age, which had a huge impact on how differing sexualities and identities are perceived. The whole same-sex marriage movement would likely not have gotten off the ground if it wasn't for the earlier-wave Millennials, despite the Boomers and Gen Xers who later agreed that a law change was necessary to enfranchise a minority.

The Millennial Generation has yet to become war heroes in large numbers of even face a war in which such is likely. But that may not define a Civic generation. A Civic generation reverses the atomization, the inequality, the corruption, the cynicism, the anti-intellectualism, and the mindless hedonism that prior generations let happen. Note well that the Millennial Generation is now the most liberal generation on the scene in its politics. Not until it starts seeing coming-of-age rebellion (which will probably not happen until about 2040) will it start to trend conservative as 'their' world comes under challenge. A Civic Generation is willing to do physical toil, if necessary, to create the material basis of prosperity instead of seeking over-paid white-collar work.

The Millennial struggle may focus on a President who seems the diametric opposite of their agenda as one who believes in every man for himself in a race to the bottom, who exudes contempt for both thinkers and toilers, and who thinks of extravagance as evidence of success instead of as its dissipation, and who seeks to impose in a pay-to-pay system in which people must compete to be exploited.

Millennials are also the least racist generation and the one least prone to religious bigotry. Every generation reacts against what it sees contemptible in public life as it is young, and the Millennial Generation exemplifies such. Trump may have co-opted the Silent, silenced broken the Boomers who recognize everything wrong with him, and broken Generation X, but he has done none of that to the Millennial Generation.


Quote:One of the reasons also why we see the later Millennials/Gen Zers making effective protest is due to the ideological groundwork laid out by the first wave. There are politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (b. 1989) and Sarah Hanson-Young (b. 1981) who are markedly more progressive than many others elected in their field, but both these women have had to endure being the devil of the conservative media and all the smears associated with it. Being a 1991 born Australian myself, if you are caught supporting Hanson-Young too loudly within a moderate-conservative audience of older people you are likely to be called an idiot and told to 'f*** off'. As a cohort of downtrodden, frustrated and quietly-progressive adults are formed, you have a lot higher chance of vocal youth movements not being shrugged off before they can gain traction - they'll have backing from some of the older crowd as well.

Anyone who expects the Millennial Generation to be weak, complacent, corrupt, and inegalitarian as the result of the culture in which they reach maturity will be disappointed. They are showing how they vote in elections, and their voters are much more liberal than any other adults by age group. The oldest are just entering the age in which some of the earliest-bloomers start winning high offices. They will be replacing not only the people that we can most obviously expect to leave the political scene soon (late-wave Silent and early-wave Boomers) but also those of Generation X who fail to get the message. Maybe for now the Millennial Generation would tolerate a Silent who suggests the GI generation, a Boomer who isn't so narcissistic and ruthless, or a mature X who is cautious and pragmatic even in his moral choices (look at the overlay of the electoral maps involving Eisenhower and Obama, pols of opposite parties but similar in integrity and temperament).

The reptilian soul that has flourished in American politics has just about played itself. People of all ages want politics worthy of faith.

Quote:I think one of the frustrations that arose with the older wave of Millennials is that we were expected to be 'heroes' by the older generation, but within a framework we did not consent to, as if everyone was trying to write what we'd stand for, for us. When we stepped too far outside of those margins, there was hostility and closed communication and we couldn't reach anyone no matter how much we cared or thought about things, which led to many 'giving up'. It makes me wonder if maybe the older wave of Millennials should be considered a Nomad-Hero hybrid generation, in that we have Civic ideals, but we tend to get be treated as Reactives when we attempt to express them.

I see it. Many expected the Millennial generation to accept an America better serving institutional power and entrenched wealth in an economy demanding cheap labor but imposing monopolized prices. To be sure, the highest profits come not from meeting needs and shortages but instead from creating and exploiting shortages. That will fail as Millennial adults who have less stake in the vileness of American life that already exists than people who might get something out of it in return for acquiescence. But note well that X has its role to play in creating a safer world, or at least one less depraved. One late-4T trend to watch is the tendency to an omnibus culture. Sure, the technology of our time allows people to live in their own virtual worlds; a nuclear family with two adults and two kids might have the television or the radio on four different sources of entertainment. I expect mass entertainment to become civic ritual, and one way to achieve that is to provide entertainment that offends no sensibilities but operates at multiple levels of esthetic appeal. Think of Big Band music -- witty enough for smart people but accessible to children, and with nothing to scare off what then were the elderly who often had prudish values. Think also of the movie theater -- one got some newsreels (everyone watched the same newsreels), some cartoons, and a feature. Shared experiences will be precious, and even necessary for creating solidarity across lines of age, religion, region, and ethnicity.


Note well that late-wave Lost musicians sanitized their music if they wanted to keep performing or getting commissions. Note also that late-wave Lost cleaned up their act and fit the new civic strictures. Bud Abbott and Lou Costello figured out the wisdom of not saying filthy words for a cheap joke. The Marx brothers? Likewise.  Mae West learned to tease the limits only to retreat -- and that somehow worked. People marching off to the beat of a different drum? There are now too many drummers for that.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#51
None of these things matter.
I'm sorry to say.

a) The concrete issues at hand are irrelevant, and the fact that millennials are ideologically blind towards the issues on the right side of the political spectrum means that they ensure that they will further play out the roles of the "impotent heroes" because society at large does not live in their progressive filterbubble where immigration is not an issue and always good, and global warming can be solved by making fanciful posts and "policy directives" or whatever the GND was framed as.

b) As someone born in the mid 90s i heavily object to being grouped with any genXers, as all of those seem to be firmly of the opinion that 'your generation will resolve these conflicts, we can only try and show you the way'. I almost object just as heavily to the people i mostly grew up with (born after 98) being lumped in with the traditional 'progressive' millennial because as the statistics show genZ(which i think those people are) is already not like the millennials in a lot of ways. THEY are the actual hero generation, being more fiscally conservative, and rational and pragmatic about things, instead of just dreaming without any actual chance of being able to change anything.

c) No matter how you put it GenZ will start entering adulthood any day now, and for them to be the ones AFTER the 4th turning they would need to enter adulthood during a time of stability, and unless every global problem suddenly resolves itself tomorrow that is not going to happen. Every single place on the face of our planet is in upheaval with no clear resolution in sight, and if there was one it would not be coming from the millennial generation. Again, i challenge you to prove me wrong, but this is pointless because these are the facts and everyone knows it. We're not seeing the end of crisis, we're merely seeing the beginning and the average millennial, no matter when you do the cutoff is now long past their 'coming of age'.

d) It is a known historical fact that the USSR attempted precisely to highjack generations into politically delusional fights for justice. We are seeing the millennials play out exactly this, which goes halfway to explaining their detachment from reality and thus their absolute uselessness when it comes to doing anything.

e) The other half of it is, that the population is controlled now more than ever before by special interest groups, through parties and the media and whatnot. With this much control having an actual turning is more difficult than ever before.

f) And the cherry on top that firmly bolts the whole thing into place so that no matter how powerful the millennials would be nothing would happen, is that there is no desire to actually *do* the turning in the majority of the populace. Everyone can see that things are going wrong, but the population, or at least the power to do anything around the world is split right down the middle, with one side wanting to turn things in one direction and the other side wanting to turn things in the opposite direction.

e) This is because the two sides have taken ownership of different issues. It is insufficient for one side to prove themselves completely fucking inept, or even actively malicious, (bush with the wars and civil rights and privacy rights, obama with continuing them and being useless economically and internationally, the left with their complete insanity around censorship, multiculti, and social justice, the right with their complete insanity around global warming, social policy, and social progress) they will still command a huge part of the voterbase, but never all, because the issues have OWNERSHIP now, and people caring for some will always vote for that side, because 'at least they care'.
Who on the left would actually go and tackle mass migration as a serious and potentially devastating issue and expect any votes from the "refugees welcome" progressive lunatic voterbase?
Who on the right would actually go and tackle social policy issues and welfare as a serious and potentially devastating issue and expect any votes from the "healthcare is communism" conservative lunatic voterbase?
So issues are becoming hyperpartisan with both sides refusing to even acklowledge the issues the other side fights for, because that would somehow make them bad by their own moral compass.
This means that there *cannot* even hypothetically be a single sweeping turning, because this is the same or similar all around the world.

f) So the millennials are failed heroes. No matter what people in this thread might say no one born after 80 has achieved any significant political change recently. Just extending the birthyears until maaaaaybe someone some day does will not help. It's not the millennials fault, they were fucked over more than possibly any generation before them, but these are the facts. AOC has been brought up as a shining example. She and her ideas have been laughed out of congress by both sides and no one but a tiny band of radicals even cares about her. She really *is* a shining example... of millennials, not of millennials accomplishing anything.
Cut it off and count it as a failed hero generation and see what the new generation brings.

g) Still one thing that no one acknowledged is that the *only* event that could be reminescent of anything like a turning despite an active live GLOBAL CRISIS affecting everyone, is the yellow vests and even they have people other than millennials in large numbers, even they didn't achieve much, and even they are just a tiny tiny movement on a global scale. They are the only movement largely made by young people and *unifying* people in search of change. Others are *divisive*.

h) For a 4th turning to actually happen by what i could gain from this theory, a key component is a grand sweeping change how politics is being done, a massive change, if not in the political order then in how people deal with civic and social issues.
These days the political systems and parties are *bound* to a way of dealing with things. The only thing that could actually bring about change is things like the goals of the political upheaval in britain and france - the abandonment of the EUs way of dealing with things.
In the US this could only happen by the democrats reinventing themselves and actually taking into account the issues of the broader unwashed masses otherwise, no matter how much indoctrination academia and the media projects, the populace actually feeling things on their skin will whoop them in elections.

i) All in all millennials are too idealistic to be heroes. They are disconnected from reality and pragmatic thinking. Sure global warming is going to fuck us over, but that's not the same as people being fucked over right now by jobs being exported or given to imported labor. Sure, having more cultures meld together is a beautiful thing, but that's not the same importance as people being fucked over by enclaves of non-assimilating immigrants springing up everywhere. Sure the EU is a great idea, and absolutely awesome and the only way to long term survive on the global stage, but that doesn't help everyone currently actively feeling like the others are fucking them over in the union because the whole thing is a bureaucratic morass controlled by corporate interest groups. Sure banning guns would provably solve a lot of gun crime, but that wouldn't solve the current issue of people needing to defend themselves with an incapable and way too small police force in a huge continent. Sure having everything censored so that no ones feelings get hurt would be great for some, but that also means censoring anything that corporate interests controlling those platforms do not like, and effectively preventing people from speaking about real things. Conversely, because millennials are on both sides of the issue here, sure having total and sacrosanct free speech would be great for idea exchange, but mere words do provably cause actions and can change people.
The perfect example for it all: Sure, having a "policy guideline" for banning airtravel and cows and whatnot might save the environment but without ANY REALISTIC CONTEMPLATION, IT IS NOT A GUIDELINE BUT AN INSTRUCTION TO JUST TAKE A STEP INTO THE DARK.
This is the main problem of the millennial cohort.
Too idealistic to actually live up to their supposed role as heroes. And i do not see this changing.

The issues at hand will be resolved one way or another, and tempers will probably cool off, either simply because people get tired after a while and there is no other option, or because gradual small steps into the right direction will be taken, or because a few things like the EU and the democrats will collapse and reinvent themselves into something better.
This will not be a turning. Only after this will it be possible to maybe have a turning, where more and more people adopt the new and improved versions of the collapsed entities. Or the gradually changed entities. Whichever it is it will not be done by millennials. Whether that happens with the next generation or after 4 more, i don't know.
Reply
#52
(05-08-2019, 12:05 PM)michael_k Wrote:
(05-04-2019, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The 1997-2003 cohorts are NOW acting civically about guns, about climate change, and about inequality, college debt and low wages. Unlike you, they know these issues are civic and are on the ballot for a vote. They are just coming into their own as a civic generation, and we haven't seen anything yet from millennials, born from 1982 to 2003.

I think it's unfair to imply that earlier Millennials (1982-1996) are 'uncivic'. I mean there was the whole LGBT rights movement that sprang up as that group came of age, which had a huge impact on how differing sexualities and identities are perceived. The whole same-sex marriage movement would likely not have gotten off the ground if it wasn't for the earlier-wave Millennials, despite the Boomers and Gen Xers who later agreed that a law change was necessary to enfranchise a minority.

One of the reasons also why we see the later Millennials/Gen Zers making effective protest is due to the ideological groundwork laid out by the first wave. There are politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (b. 1989) and Sarah Hanson-Young (b. 1981) who are markedly more progressive than many others elected in their field, but both these women have had to endure being the devil of the conservative media and all the smears associated with it. Being a 1991 born Australian myself, if you are caught supporting Hanson-Young too loudly within a moderate-conservative audience of older people you are likely to be called an idiot and told to 'f*** off'. As a cohort of downtrodden, frustrated and quietly-progressive adults are formed, you have a lot higher chance of vocal youth movements not being shrugged off before they can gain traction - they'll have backing from some of the older crowd as well.

I think one of the frustrations that arose with the older wave of Millennials is that we were expected to be 'heroes' by the older generation, but within a framework we did not consent to, as if everyone was trying to write what we'd stand for, for us. When we stepped too far outside of those margins, there was hostility and closed communication and we couldn't reach anyone no matter how much we cared or thought about things, which led to many 'giving up'. It makes me wonder if maybe the older wave of Millennials should be considered a Nomad-Hero hybrid generation, in that we have Civic ideals, but we tend to get be treated as Reactives when we attempt to express them.

I think I answered before that I don't think earlier millennials are uncivic. They have been typical of civics in many ways. They are late, unfortunately, in learning to participate in the civic process. But they are learning. The cynicism of recent years made it harder for our new civics to go against the grain, and not look upon our civic process as an inherent failure.

Protests are always resisted. If millennials continue to protest and take civic action to make a difference in society, despite the opposition of those who naturally don't want to listen and don't want to change, then that is heroic and typical of a civic generation. Lots of protests in the 1930s and 1850s were resisted by those upholding the status quo. It doesn't mean there's any hybrid developing. Everything is on schedule, and if the current time seems to stalemated and not changing like a 4T should seem, that's because it's a repeat of the 1850s, which really was part of the civil war 4T. It's a tougher job to change the society from within, than to face an external enemy from without.

We haven't seen anything yet from millennials. I hope it's clear that what I mean is that I predict a lot more activism from them in the next decade or more.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#53
As for Mr. Nobody Important, 4Ts are never resolved in favor of conservatives. Being a conservative, you do not have the right frame of mind to interpret the 4T or today's generations. What conservatives of today such as yourself think are "something better," are something worse.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#54
(05-21-2019, 08:55 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote: None of these things matter.
I'm sorry to say.

a) The concrete issues at hand are irrelevant, and the fact that millennials are ideologically blind towards the issues on the right side of the political spectrum means that they ensure that they will further play out the roles of the "impotent heroes" because society at large does not live in their progressive filterbubble where immigration is not an issue and always good, and global warming can be solved by making fanciful posts and "policy directives" or whatever the GND was framed as.

b) As someone born in the mid 90s i heavily object to being grouped with any genXers, as all of those seem to be firmly of the opinion that 'your generation will resolve these conflicts, we can only try and show you the way'. I almost object just as heavily to the people i mostly grew up with (born after 98) being lumped in with the traditional 'progressive' millennial because as the statistics show genZ(which i think those people are) is already not like the millennials in a lot of ways. THEY are the actual hero generation, being more fiscally conservative, and rational and pragmatic about things, instead of just dreaming without any actual chance of being able to change anything.

c) No matter how you put it GenZ will start entering adulthood any day now, and for them to be the ones AFTER the 4th turning they would need to enter adulthood during a time of stability, and unless every global problem suddenly resolves itself tomorrow that is not going to happen. Every single place on the face of our planet is in upheaval with no clear resolution in sight, and if there was one it would not be coming from the millennial generation. Again, i challenge you to prove me wrong, but this is pointless because these are the facts and everyone knows it. We're not seeing the end of crisis, we're merely seeing the beginning and the average millennial, no matter when you do the cutoff is now long past their 'coming of age'.

d) It is a known historical fact that the USSR attempted precisely to highjack generations into politically delusional fights for justice. We are seeing the millennials play out exactly this, which goes halfway to explaining their detachment from reality and thus their absolute uselessness when it comes to doing anything.

e) The other half of it is, that the population is controlled now more than ever before by special interest groups, through parties and the media and whatnot. With this much control having an actual turning is more difficult than ever before.

f) And the cherry on top that firmly bolts the whole thing into place so that no matter how powerful the millennials would be nothing would happen, is that there is no desire to actually *do* the turning in the majority of the populace. Everyone can see that things are going wrong, but the population, or at least the power to do anything around the world is split right down the middle, with one side wanting to turn things in one direction and the other side wanting to turn things in the opposite direction.

e) This is because the two sides have taken ownership of different issues. It is insufficient for one side to prove themselves completely fucking inept, or even actively malicious, (bush with the wars and civil rights and privacy rights, obama with continuing them and being useless economically and internationally, the left with their complete insanity around censorship, multiculti, and social justice, the right with their complete insanity around global warming, social policy, and social progress) they will still command a huge part of the voterbase, but never all, because the issues have OWNERSHIP now, and people caring for some will always vote for that side, because 'at least they care'.
Who on the left would actually go and tackle mass migration as a serious and potentially devastating issue and expect any votes from the "refugees welcome" progressive lunatic voterbase?
Who on the right would actually go and tackle social policy issues and welfare as a serious and potentially devastating issue and expect any votes from the "healthcare is communism" conservative lunatic voterbase?
So issues are becoming hyperpartisan with both sides refusing to even acklowledge the issues the other side fights for, because that would somehow make them bad by their own moral compass.
This means that there *cannot* even hypothetically be a single sweeping turning, because this is the same or similar all around the world.

f) So the millennials are failed heroes. No matter what people in this thread might say no one born after 80 has achieved any significant political change recently. Just extending the birthyears until maaaaaybe someone some day does will not help. It's not the millennials fault, they were fucked over more than possibly any generation before them, but these are the facts. AOC has been brought up as a shining example. She and her ideas have been laughed out of congress by both sides and no one but a tiny band of radicals even cares about her. She really *is* a shining example... of millennials, not of millennials accomplishing anything.
Cut it off and count it as a failed hero generation and see what the new generation brings.

g) Still one thing that no one acknowledged is that the *only* event that could be reminescent of anything like a turning despite an active live GLOBAL CRISIS affecting everyone, is the yellow vests and even they have people other than millennials in large numbers, even they didn't achieve much, and even they are just a tiny tiny movement on a global scale. They are the only movement largely made by young people and *unifying* people in search of change. Others are *divisive*.

h) For a 4th turning to actually happen by what i could gain from this theory, a key component is a grand sweeping change how politics is being done, a massive change, if not in the political order then in how people deal with civic and social issues.
These days the political systems and parties are *bound* to a way of dealing with things. The only thing that could actually bring about change is things like the goals of the political upheaval in britain and france - the abandonment of the EUs way of dealing with things.
In the US this could only happen by the democrats reinventing themselves and actually taking into account the issues of the broader unwashed masses otherwise, no matter how much indoctrination academia and the media projects, the populace actually feeling things on their skin will whoop them in elections.

i) All in all millennials are too idealistic to be heroes. They are disconnected from reality and pragmatic thinking. Sure global warming is going to fuck us over, but that's not the same as people being fucked over right now by jobs being exported or given to imported labor. Sure, having more cultures meld together is a beautiful thing, but that's not the same importance as people being fucked over by enclaves of non-assimilating immigrants springing up everywhere. Sure the EU is a great idea, and absolutely awesome and the only way to long term survive on the global stage, but that doesn't help everyone currently actively feeling like the others are fucking them over in the union because the whole thing is a bureaucratic morass controlled by corporate interest groups. Sure banning guns would provably solve a lot of gun crime, but that wouldn't solve the current issue of people needing to defend themselves with an incapable and way too small police force in a huge continent. Sure having everything censored so that no ones feelings get hurt would be great for some, but that also means censoring anything that corporate interests controlling those platforms do not like, and effectively preventing people from speaking about real things. Conversely, because millennials are on both sides of the issue here, sure having total and sacrosanct free speech would be great for idea exchange, but mere words do provably cause actions and can change people.
The perfect example for it all: Sure, having a "policy guideline" for banning airtravel and cows and whatnot might save the environment but without ANY REALISTIC CONTEMPLATION, IT IS NOT A GUIDELINE BUT AN INSTRUCTION TO JUST TAKE A STEP INTO THE DARK.
This is the main problem of the millennial cohort.
Too idealistic to actually live up to their supposed role as heroes. And i do not see this changing.

The issues at hand will be resolved one way or another, and tempers will probably cool off, either simply because people get tired after a while and there is no other option, or because gradual small steps into the right direction will be taken, or because a few things like the EU and the democrats will collapse and reinvent themselves into something better.
This will not be a turning. Only after this will it be possible to maybe have a turning, where more and more people adopt the new and improved versions of the collapsed entities. Or the gradually changed entities. Whichever it is it will not be done by millennials. Whether that happens with the next generation or after 4 more, i don't know.

A lot of the solutions being offered such as gun bans seem to be dystopian to me and I'm a Millennial American. So I'd rather just sit back and let these issues fade so I don't have to suffer from a badly changed political system. Violent crime levels are decreasing so despite media fears I'm not scared at all. Crime was far higher 30 years ago yet people act like it's the same world. None of the predictions in an Inconvenient Truth came true so I'm not scared of the global warming fear mongering either. All these projections about billions of deaths seems so ridiculous and remote I just ignore it. I'm not scared of Sharia law ruling the US either because that fear is also too remote because they don't have the demographics at all. All I see is a bunch of shrieking and fear mongering so I just ignore it and go into escapism. I don't want to censor things because I believe in the first Amendment and there's too many social rules for me to follow as an autistic. I see that too as media induced and someone will always be offended by everything so why bother trying? I just do what I want to be happy and laugh at the people thinking the world is gonna end. What faults do you see in the way I think? I'm Millennial but not progressive.

I see people as too paranoid and too scared of threats that don't exist. I don't understand the fear levels and the shrieking going on in the 4T. It's like people want to be nervous for no reason. I'm not scared of mass shootings at all because the chances I'd be in one are so remote. I don't think the measles is that big of a deal either. People's paranoia and negativity are what's ruining the world more than any issue we actually have to be scared of. What archetype do I fit with my outlook and personality? I see people as too paranoid and too scared of threats that don't exist. The biggest threats I see are losing our standard of living and our freedom because of news induced paranoia.

Also your view of Millennial is socially constructed. If someone born in 1998 isn't Millennial because they don't follow the progressive views, then what would you call someone born in 1991 who doesn't follow the progressive views? Saying a generation must have the same set of views is pure stupidity. You have the power to choose your own opinions.
Reply
#55
(05-21-2019, 11:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As for Mr. Nobody Important, 4Ts are never resolved in favor of conservatives. Being a conservative, you do not have the right frame of mind to interpret the 4T or today's generations. What conservatives of today such as yourself think are "something better," are something worse.

Bullshit.

What is considered to be progressive is determined after the fact in the 1T.  The side that wins automatically proclaims itself to be progress because history is written by the victors.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#56
(05-22-2019, 01:31 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-21-2019, 08:55 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote: None of these things matter.
I'm sorry to say.

a) The concrete issues at hand are irrelevant, and the fact that millennials are ideologically blind towards the issues on the right side of the political spectrum means that they ensure that they will further play out the roles of the "impotent heroes" because society at large does not live in their progressive filterbubble where immigration is not an issue and always good, and global warming can be solved by making fanciful posts and "policy directives" or whatever the GND was framed as.

b) As someone born in the mid 90s i heavily object to being grouped with any genXers, as all of those seem to be firmly of the opinion that 'your generation will resolve these conflicts, we can only try and show you the way'. I almost object just as heavily to the people i mostly grew up with (born after 98) being lumped in with the traditional 'progressive' millennial because as the statistics show genZ(which i think those people are) is already not like the millennials in a lot of ways. THEY are the actual hero generation, being more fiscally conservative, and rational and pragmatic about things, instead of just dreaming without any actual chance of being able to change anything.

c) No matter how you put it GenZ will start entering adulthood any day now, and for them to be the ones AFTER the 4th turning they would need to enter adulthood during a time of stability, and unless every global problem suddenly resolves itself tomorrow that is not going to happen. Every single place on the face of our planet is in upheaval with no clear resolution in sight, and if there was one it would not be coming from the millennial generation. Again, i challenge you to prove me wrong, but this is pointless because these are the facts and everyone knows it. We're not seeing the end of crisis, we're merely seeing the beginning and the average millennial, no matter when you do the cutoff is now long past their 'coming of age'.

d) It is a known historical fact that the USSR attempted precisely to highjack generations into politically delusional fights for justice. We are seeing the millennials play out exactly this, which goes halfway to explaining their detachment from reality and thus their absolute uselessness when it comes to doing anything.

e) The other half of it is, that the population is controlled now more than ever before by special interest groups, through parties and the media and whatnot. With this much control having an actual turning is more difficult than ever before.

f) And the cherry on top that firmly bolts the whole thing into place so that no matter how powerful the millennials would be nothing would happen, is that there is no desire to actually *do* the turning in the majority of the populace. Everyone can see that things are going wrong, but the population, or at least the power to do anything around the world is split right down the middle, with one side wanting to turn things in one direction and the other side wanting to turn things in the opposite direction.

e) This is because the two sides have taken ownership of different issues. It is insufficient for one side to prove themselves completely fucking inept, or even actively malicious, (bush with the wars and civil rights and privacy rights, obama with continuing them and being useless economically and internationally, the left with their complete insanity around censorship, multiculti, and social justice, the right with their complete insanity around global warming, social policy, and social progress) they will still command a huge part of the voterbase, but never all, because the issues have OWNERSHIP now, and people caring for some will always vote for that side, because 'at least they care'.
Who on the left would actually go and tackle mass migration as a serious and potentially devastating issue and expect any votes from the "refugees welcome" progressive lunatic voterbase?
Who on the right would actually go and tackle social policy issues and welfare as a serious and potentially devastating issue and expect any votes from the "healthcare is communism" conservative lunatic voterbase?
So issues are becoming hyperpartisan with both sides refusing to even acklowledge the issues the other side fights for, because that would somehow make them bad by their own moral compass.
This means that there *cannot* even hypothetically be a single sweeping turning, because this is the same or similar all around the world.

f) So the millennials are failed heroes. No matter what people in this thread might say no one born after 80 has achieved any significant political change recently. Just extending the birthyears until maaaaaybe someone some day does will not help. It's not the millennials fault, they were fucked over more than possibly any generation before them, but these are the facts. AOC has been brought up as a shining example. She and her ideas have been laughed out of congress by both sides and no one but a tiny band of radicals even cares about her. She really *is* a shining example... of millennials, not of millennials accomplishing anything.
Cut it off and count it as a failed hero generation and see what the new generation brings.

g) Still one thing that no one acknowledged is that the *only* event that could be reminescent of anything like a turning despite an active live GLOBAL CRISIS affecting everyone, is the yellow vests and even they have people other than millennials in large numbers, even they didn't achieve much, and even they are just a tiny tiny movement on a global scale. They are the only movement largely made by young people and *unifying* people in search of change. Others are *divisive*.

h) For a 4th turning to actually happen by what i could gain from this theory, a key component is a grand sweeping change how politics is being done, a massive change, if not in the political order then in how people deal with civic and social issues.
These days the political systems and parties are *bound* to a way of dealing with things. The only thing that could actually bring about change is things like the goals of the political upheaval in britain and france - the abandonment of the EUs way of dealing with things.
In the US this could only happen by the democrats reinventing themselves and actually taking into account the issues of the broader unwashed masses otherwise, no matter how much indoctrination academia and the media projects, the populace actually feeling things on their skin will whoop them in elections.

i) All in all millennials are too idealistic to be heroes. They are disconnected from reality and pragmatic thinking. Sure global warming is going to fuck us over, but that's not the same as people being fucked over right now by jobs being exported or given to imported labor. Sure, having more cultures meld together is a beautiful thing, but that's not the same importance as people being fucked over by enclaves of non-assimilating immigrants springing up everywhere. Sure the EU is a great idea, and absolutely awesome and the only way to long term survive on the global stage, but that doesn't help everyone currently actively feeling like the others are fucking them over in the union because the whole thing is a bureaucratic morass controlled by corporate interest groups. Sure banning guns would provably solve a lot of gun crime, but that wouldn't solve the current issue of people needing to defend themselves with an incapable and way too small police force in a huge continent. Sure having everything censored so that no ones feelings get hurt would be great for some, but that also means censoring anything that corporate interests controlling those platforms do not like, and effectively preventing people from speaking about real things. Conversely, because millennials are on both sides of the issue here, sure having total and sacrosanct free speech would be great for idea exchange, but mere words do provably cause actions and can change people.
The perfect example for it all: Sure, having a "policy guideline" for banning airtravel and cows and whatnot might save the environment but without ANY REALISTIC CONTEMPLATION, IT IS NOT A GUIDELINE BUT AN INSTRUCTION TO JUST TAKE A STEP INTO THE DARK.
This is the main problem of the millennial cohort.
Too idealistic to actually live up to their supposed role as heroes. And i do not see this changing.

The issues at hand will be resolved one way or another, and tempers will probably cool off, either simply because people get tired after a while and there is no other option, or because gradual small steps into the right direction will be taken, or because a few things like the EU and the democrats will collapse and reinvent themselves into something better.
This will not be a turning. Only after this will it be possible to maybe have a turning, where more and more people adopt the new and improved versions of the collapsed entities. Or the gradually changed entities. Whichever it is it will not be done by millennials. Whether that happens with the next generation or after 4 more, i don't know.

A lot of the solutions being offered such as gun bans seem to be dystopian to me and I'm a Millennial American. So I'd rather just sit back and let these issues fade so I don't have to suffer from a badly changed political system. Violent crime levels are decreasing so despite media fears I'm not scared at all. Crime was far higher 30 years ago yet people act like it's the same world. None of the predictions in an Inconvenient Truth came true so I'm not scared of the global warming fear mongering either. All these projections about billions of deaths seems so ridiculous and remote I just ignore it. I'm not scared of Sharia law ruling the US either because that fear is also too remote because they don't have the demographics at all. All I see is a bunch of shrieking and fear mongering so I just ignore it and go into escapism. I don't want to censor things because I believe in the first Amendment and there's too many social rules for me to follow as an autistic. I see that too as media induced and someone will always be offended by everything so why bother trying? I just do what I want to be happy and laugh at the people thinking the world is gonna end. What faults do you see in the way I think? I'm Millennial but not progressive.

I see people as too paranoid and too scared of threats that don't exist. I don't understand the fear levels and the shrieking going on in the 4T. It's like people want to be nervous for no reason. I'm not scared of mass shootings at all because the chances I'd be in one are so remote. I don't think the measles is that big of a deal either. People's paranoia and negativity are what's ruining the world more than any issue we actually have to be scared of. What archetype do I fit with my outlook and personality? I see people as too paranoid and too scared of threats that don't exist. The biggest threats I see are losing our standard of living and our freedom because of news induced paranoia.

Also your view of Millennial is socially constructed. If someone born in 1998 isn't Millennial because they don't follow the progressive views, then what would you call someone born in 1991 who doesn't follow the progressive views? Saying a generation must have the same set of views is pure stupidity. You have the power to choose your own opinions.

Violent crime and gun crime in particular are non-issues provide that one isn't involved with criminal gangs.  It is criminal gangs that drive the majority of gun crime, the rest is suicide and access to guns has no bearing on suicide rate as Japan and South Korea (both countries with some of the most restrictive gun access laws in the world) clearly bear out.

Climate Change is a bug bear.  In the 1990s it was global warming in the 1970s it was global cooling.  Ultimately the climate is changing, it is driven by natural processes over which humans have little control.  Al Gore is a fraudster of the first rate.

As for persons born in the late 1990s being Millies...I can say that those born in the 98-99 area are clearly not Millies.  My 1999 cohort son is not, in fact he's almost a classic Zed.  That being said, the expectation that the civic generation must become some sort of hero generation is misguided at best.  The Glorious Generation certainly did not.  Civic generations set the tone for the social and political order of the next saeculum.  The Millies are doing that--poorly.  I think because they are still quite young they are still in their natural liberal phase.

Supposedly Winston Churchill Wrote:A man of 20 who is not  liberal has no heart.  A man of 30 who is not conservative has no brain.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#57
(05-22-2019, 04:29 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(05-22-2019, 01:31 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-21-2019, 08:55 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote: None of these things matter.
I'm sorry to say.

a) The concrete issues at hand are irrelevant, and the fact that millennials are ideologically blind towards the issues on the right side of the political spectrum means that they ensure that they will further play out the roles of the "impotent heroes" because society at large does not live in their progressive filterbubble where immigration is not an issue and always good, and global warming can be solved by making fanciful posts and "policy directives" or whatever the GND was framed as.

b) As someone born in the mid 90s i heavily object to being grouped with any genXers, as all of those seem to be firmly of the opinion that 'your generation will resolve these conflicts, we can only try and show you the way'. I almost object just as heavily to the people i mostly grew up with (born after 98) being lumped in with the traditional 'progressive' millennial because as the statistics show genZ(which i think those people are) is already not like the millennials in a lot of ways. THEY are the actual hero generation, being more fiscally conservative, and rational and pragmatic about things, instead of just dreaming without any actual chance of being able to change anything.

c) No matter how you put it GenZ will start entering adulthood any day now, and for them to be the ones AFTER the 4th turning they would need to enter adulthood during a time of stability, and unless every global problem suddenly resolves itself tomorrow that is not going to happen. Every single place on the face of our planet is in upheaval with no clear resolution in sight, and if there was one it would not be coming from the millennial generation. Again, i challenge you to prove me wrong, but this is pointless because these are the facts and everyone knows it. We're not seeing the end of crisis, we're merely seeing the beginning and the average millennial, no matter when you do the cutoff is now long past their 'coming of age'.

d) It is a known historical fact that the USSR attempted precisely to highjack generations into politically delusional fights for justice. We are seeing the millennials play out exactly this, which goes halfway to explaining their detachment from reality and thus their absolute uselessness when it comes to doing anything.

e) The other half of it is, that the population is controlled now more than ever before by special interest groups, through parties and the media and whatnot. With this much control having an actual turning is more difficult than ever before.

f) And the cherry on top that firmly bolts the whole thing into place so that no matter how powerful the millennials would be nothing would happen, is that there is no desire to actually *do* the turning in the majority of the populace. Everyone can see that things are going wrong, but the population, or at least the power to do anything around the world is split right down the middle, with one side wanting to turn things in one direction and the other side wanting to turn things in the opposite direction.

e) This is because the two sides have taken ownership of different issues. It is insufficient for one side to prove themselves completely fucking inept, or even actively malicious, (bush with the wars and civil rights and privacy rights, obama with continuing them and being useless economically and internationally, the left with their complete insanity around censorship, multiculti, and social justice, the right with their complete insanity around global warming, social policy, and social progress) they will still command a huge part of the voterbase, but never all, because the issues have OWNERSHIP now, and people caring for some will always vote for that side, because 'at least they care'.
Who on the left would actually go and tackle mass migration as a serious and potentially devastating issue and expect any votes from the "refugees welcome" progressive lunatic voterbase?
Who on the right would actually go and tackle social policy issues and welfare as a serious and potentially devastating issue and expect any votes from the "healthcare is communism" conservative lunatic voterbase?
So issues are becoming hyperpartisan with both sides refusing to even acklowledge the issues the other side fights for, because that would somehow make them bad by their own moral compass.
This means that there *cannot* even hypothetically be a single sweeping turning, because this is the same or similar all around the world.

f) So the millennials are failed heroes. No matter what people in this thread might say no one born after 80 has achieved any significant political change recently. Just extending the birthyears until maaaaaybe someone some day does will not help. It's not the millennials fault, they were fucked over more than possibly any generation before them, but these are the facts. AOC has been brought up as a shining example. She and her ideas have been laughed out of congress by both sides and no one but a tiny band of radicals even cares about her. She really *is* a shining example... of millennials, not of millennials accomplishing anything.
Cut it off and count it as a failed hero generation and see what the new generation brings.

g) Still one thing that no one acknowledged is that the *only* event that could be reminescent of anything like a turning despite an active live GLOBAL CRISIS affecting everyone, is the yellow vests and even they have people other than millennials in large numbers, even they didn't achieve much, and even they are just a tiny tiny movement on a global scale. They are the only movement largely made by young people and *unifying* people in search of change. Others are *divisive*.

h) For a 4th turning to actually happen by what i could gain from this theory, a key component is a grand sweeping change how politics is being done, a massive change, if not in the political order then in how people deal with civic and social issues.
These days the political systems and parties are *bound* to a way of dealing with things. The only thing that could actually bring about change is things like the goals of the political upheaval in britain and france - the abandonment of the EUs way of dealing with things.
In the US this could only happen by the democrats reinventing themselves and actually taking into account the issues of the broader unwashed masses otherwise, no matter how much indoctrination academia and the media projects, the populace actually feeling things on their skin will whoop them in elections.

i) All in all millennials are too idealistic to be heroes. They are disconnected from reality and pragmatic thinking. Sure global warming is going to fuck us over, but that's not the same as people being fucked over right now by jobs being exported or given to imported labor. Sure, having more cultures meld together is a beautiful thing, but that's not the same importance as people being fucked over by enclaves of non-assimilating immigrants springing up everywhere. Sure the EU is a great idea, and absolutely awesome and the only way to long term survive on the global stage, but that doesn't help everyone currently actively feeling like the others are fucking them over in the union because the whole thing is a bureaucratic morass controlled by corporate interest groups. Sure banning guns would provably solve a lot of gun crime, but that wouldn't solve the current issue of people needing to defend themselves with an incapable and way too small police force in a huge continent. Sure having everything censored so that no ones feelings get hurt would be great for some, but that also means censoring anything that corporate interests controlling those platforms do not like, and effectively preventing people from speaking about real things. Conversely, because millennials are on both sides of the issue here, sure having total and sacrosanct free speech would be great for idea exchange, but mere words do provably cause actions and can change people.
The perfect example for it all: Sure, having a "policy guideline" for banning airtravel and cows and whatnot might save the environment but without ANY REALISTIC CONTEMPLATION, IT IS NOT A GUIDELINE BUT AN INSTRUCTION TO JUST TAKE A STEP INTO THE DARK.
This is the main problem of the millennial cohort.
Too idealistic to actually live up to their supposed role as heroes. And i do not see this changing.

The issues at hand will be resolved one way or another, and tempers will probably cool off, either simply because people get tired after a while and there is no other option, or because gradual small steps into the right direction will be taken, or because a few things like the EU and the democrats will collapse and reinvent themselves into something better.
This will not be a turning. Only after this will it be possible to maybe have a turning, where more and more people adopt the new and improved versions of the collapsed entities. Or the gradually changed entities. Whichever it is it will not be done by millennials. Whether that happens with the next generation or after 4 more, i don't know.

A lot of the solutions being offered such as gun bans seem to be dystopian to me and I'm a Millennial American. So I'd rather just sit back and let these issues fade so I don't have to suffer from a badly changed political system. Violent crime levels are decreasing so despite media fears I'm not scared at all. Crime was far higher 30 years ago yet people act like it's the same world. None of the predictions in an Inconvenient Truth came true so I'm not scared of the global warming fear mongering either. All these projections about billions of deaths seems so ridiculous and remote I just ignore it. I'm not scared of Sharia law ruling the US either because that fear is also too remote because they don't have the demographics at all. All I see is a bunch of shrieking and fear mongering so I just ignore it and go into escapism. I don't want to censor things because I believe in the first Amendment and there's too many social rules for me to follow as an autistic. I see that too as media induced and someone will always be offended by everything so why bother trying? I just do what I want to be happy and laugh at the people thinking the world is gonna end. What faults do you see in the way I think? I'm Millennial but not progressive.

I see people as too paranoid and too scared of threats that don't exist. I don't understand the fear levels and the shrieking going on in the 4T. It's like people want to be nervous for no reason. I'm not scared of mass shootings at all because the chances I'd be in one are so remote. I don't think the measles is that big of a deal either. People's paranoia and negativity are what's ruining the world more than any issue we actually have to be scared of. What archetype do I fit with my outlook and personality? I see people as too paranoid and too scared of threats that don't exist. The biggest threats I see are losing our standard of living and our freedom because of news induced paranoia.

Also your view of Millennial is socially constructed. If someone born in 1998 isn't Millennial because they don't follow the progressive views, then what would you call someone born in 1991 who doesn't follow the progressive views? Saying a generation must have the same set of views is pure stupidity. You have the power to choose your own opinions.

Violent crime and gun crime in particular are non-issues provide that one isn't involved with criminal gangs.  It is criminal gangs that drive the majority of gun crime, the rest is suicide and access to guns has no bearing on suicide rate as Japan and South Korea (both countries with some of the most restrictive gun access laws in the world) clearly bear out.

Climate Change is a bug bear.  In the 1990s it was global warming in the 1970s it was global cooling.  Ultimately the climate is changing, it is driven by natural processes over which humans have little control.  Al Gore is a fraudster of the first rate.

As for persons born in the late 1990s being Millies...I can say that those born in the 98-99 area are clearly not Millies.  My 1999 cohort son is not, in fact he's almost a classic Zed.  That being said, the expectation that the civic generation must become some sort of hero generation is misguided at best.  The Glorious Generation certainly did not.  Civic generations set the tone for the social and political order of the next saeculum.  The Millies are doing that--poorly.  I think because they are still quite young they are still in their natural liberal phase.

Supposedly Winston Churchill Wrote:A man of 20 who is not  liberal has no heart.  A man of 30 who is not conservative has no brain.

Since you have a Zed son, how similar am I to the Zeds? I see liberalism as stupid and non practical. I also resent the nanny state.
Reply
#58
He is quite conservative for his age, at least on fiscal and diplomatic matters. He's more socially liberal. As for the nanny state, he sees it as unsustainable and undesirable.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#59
(05-21-2019, 11:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As for Mr. Nobody Important, 4Ts are never resolved in favor of conservatives. Being a conservative, you do not have the right frame of mind to interpret the 4T or today's generations. What conservatives of today such as yourself think are "something better," are something worse.

That is complete nonsense.
And the issue is precisely that people like you are trying to make things a partisan issue.
This is one of the reasons, as i said, why millennials fail to command any real public support. You cannot ignore the issues the majority of society face and just say that they are not valid issues and "bad" and your side will always win anyways, and expect things to actually go your way. This is why your postergirl AOC became the laughingstock of the nation.

Browbeating and getting on a high horse and telling others their concerns don't matter because only *your* issues matter, and you don't have to actually be pragmatic about those either, because your idealism will solve anything..... And the opposition is conservative/white/male/cis/straight, anyway so they can't possibly understand, and they'll just have to accept that you know better.... That does not work.
And that is exactly what a lot of millennials including you are doing (on both sides of the aisle mind you).

You decry me as conservative and bound to fail, because i address things that you don't like, and the conservative millennials would quite possibly decry me a liberal and etc, because i address things that they don't like.
This is the reason the generation is going nowhere and it will also not go anywhere.
Hero generations cannot be blindly idealistic. Which is why i say that GenZ is much more likely to actually be the heroes.
Reply
#60
(05-22-2019, 01:31 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: Also your view of Millennial is socially constructed. If someone born in 1998 isn't Millennial because they don't follow the progressive views, then what would you call someone born in 1991 who doesn't follow the progressive views? Saying a generation must have the same set of views is pure stupidity. You have the power to choose your own opinions.

Your other points had the problem that you do not see this in comparison to other times. We *are* in an unprecedentedly global crisis time. Every objective metric will show you the same. Nor caring is certainly an option, but that is always an option even if you're about to be shot.

I heavily disagree that my view of millennials is socially constructed. If you reread what i wrote i precisely did not base the distinctions on political views, but on personal attitudes. And there is a clear difference between the classic millennials 80-96 and what is called genZ 97-03. Not in politics, but in how they address issues: in other words the exact distinction the generations according to the theorem should have.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Biggest share of whites in U.S. are Boomers, but for minority groups it’s Millennials Dan '82 2 1,886 07-08-2016, 11:17 AM
Last Post: The Wonkette

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)