If you're just axiomatically committed to bullshit, there's nothing I can do about that, but I'm a young person and, uh, no, zoomers aren't special. They've got just the latest iteration on time-honored brainworms, and the disparities between them and their elders can be explained by difference in social position, both the traditional "young people are poorer and less institutionally entrenched" bit plus the more unique problem of median downward mobility, but that pushes radicalization both ways and it doesn't push them evenly in an uneven environment. Going just by the odds, what stands out about Gen Z is that they are the most likely generation in the last several decades to be at the helm of a successful fascist uprising, which is much more likely than them doing socialist revolution (though them just finding some new way to be neo-neoliberals is still more likely than a socialist revolution in the US).
I'm on a communist board, it's not like I don't want the Zoomer Vanguard of Marxist revolutionaries to be a real thing -- and I aspire to help instigate it -- but hope and love are not enough to make it so, and we cannot hope to contribute to making the world better without a solid understanding of how the world can [and may] be worse.
You have an agenda and you’re angry about it. I frankly stopped reading your responses about three back. Why not devote your efforts to someone who is interested and take a persuasive instead of hostile tone?
People shouldn't badger, and that was what I took exception with. I'm happy to engage in a good faith disagreement, but person was being a douche nozzle about it and it wasn't worth that level of drama, which is why I backed out.
No he wasn't, he gave you a reasonable, if slightly rude response to your argument and you didn't respond back but instead just started bitching about "agendas". You're the douche nozzle tbh, if you can't handle people on an anonymous forum being slightly snarky at you maybe just log off.
Not really, though. Person took great exception to my opinion and was determined to make me accept defeat instead of just accepting that people can hold different beliefs. There is absolutely no point in engaging with someone like that any more than there is engaging with an angry person on Facebook. His agenda was the need to win the argument at all costs rather than assume that someone can have a different belief set.
His agenda was the need to win the argument at all costs rather than assume that someone can have a different belief set.
Yeah that's how Internet discussions work genius, not every discussion needs to end with "ah man it's all so complicated it's ok to have different beliefs", you're allowed to have a strong opinion on things.
Your agenda is to hide behind some vague concept of civility instead of actually engaging in the discussion. Literally nobody forced you to respond to his comment at all if you found it so grating, you consciously chose to be loudly pissy about it.
No, my agenda is that I am allowed my opinions and I don't have to explain myself if I don't want to. Your argument is that I am required at all times to fully explain everything I ever say. It doesn't work that way, I have a right to disengage. I disengaged with that person and I am disengaging with you. Neither of these conversations are worth the amount of effort I have been forced to expend on them, and that is time and energy that will be lost from me forever.
You had that right also like 10 comments ago. You just have a bruised ego because people on the Internet dared to not just nod along to whatever bullshit you were saying.
From recent observation, world governments are following the Israel line—basically universal and unceasing support.
Reading around places like here or reddit, however, I’ve noticed that people are for the first time putting blame on Israel for this happening and are demanding better treatment for Palestinians.
I’m not convinced that this would have happened ten years ago, but maybe it would have. It also seems that polls are finding greater support among older populations than among younger ones.
My point? I suspect that the next generation of politicians will view this as apartheid and not protection from terrorism.
Wait I thought we were gonna push him left what happened
This is definitely a generational issue. Younger people are over it and older people are doing what they know.
This is not a generational issue. Israel was an Apartheid state 50 years ago, too.
If you look at polling it absolutely is. 27% of young people support Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip compared to over 80% of older people.
Right now, but what about those older people 50 years ago compared to their seniors?
And 50 years ago nobody outside of the Arab world cared. That’s the change — people care now.
The wh8tewashed historical impression you are operating off of is incorrect:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379
Removed by mod
No comment in the substance? Just going to keep on hoping we can age into a just world?
You’re underselling today’s youth. We’re all dinosaurs and they see the world in a completely different light.
If you're just axiomatically committed to bullshit, there's nothing I can do about that, but I'm a young person and, uh, no, zoomers aren't special. They've got just the latest iteration on time-honored brainworms, and the disparities between them and their elders can be explained by difference in social position, both the traditional "young people are poorer and less institutionally entrenched" bit plus the more unique problem of median downward mobility, but that pushes radicalization both ways and it doesn't push them evenly in an uneven environment. Going just by the odds, what stands out about Gen Z is that they are the most likely generation in the last several decades to be at the helm of a successful fascist uprising, which is much more likely than them doing socialist revolution (though them just finding some new way to be neo-neoliberals is still more likely than a socialist revolution in the US).
I'm on a communist board, it's not like I don't want the Zoomer Vanguard of Marxist revolutionaries to be a real thing -- and I aspire to help instigate it -- but hope and love are not enough to make it so, and we cannot hope to contribute to making the world better without a solid understanding of how the world can [and may] be worse.
You have an agenda and you’re angry about it. I frankly stopped reading your responses about three back. Why not devote your efforts to someone who is interested and take a persuasive instead of hostile tone?
What is my agenda that it would slant me against your thesis?
You’re being tedious. /out
"People who disagree with me have an agenda. People who ask me to explain what the agenda is are tedious."
Congrats. You get to be my first block on Lemmy!
deleted by creator
All this effort instead of just explaining what my agenda is doing
You're really being a baby about this. You don't get to be pissy because people aren't impressed by your puddle-deep analysis.
People shouldn't badger, and that was what I took exception with. I'm happy to engage in a good faith disagreement, but person was being a douche nozzle about it and it wasn't worth that level of drama, which is why I backed out.
No he wasn't, he gave you a reasonable, if slightly rude response to your argument and you didn't respond back but instead just started bitching about "agendas". You're the douche nozzle tbh, if you can't handle people on an anonymous forum being slightly snarky at you maybe just log off.
Not really, though. Person took great exception to my opinion and was determined to make me accept defeat instead of just accepting that people can hold different beliefs. There is absolutely no point in engaging with someone like that any more than there is engaging with an angry person on Facebook. His agenda was the need to win the argument at all costs rather than assume that someone can have a different belief set.
Yeah that's how Internet discussions work genius, not every discussion needs to end with "ah man it's all so complicated it's ok to have different beliefs", you're allowed to have a strong opinion on things.
Your agenda is to hide behind some vague concept of civility instead of actually engaging in the discussion. Literally nobody forced you to respond to his comment at all if you found it so grating, you consciously chose to be loudly pissy about it.
No, my agenda is that I am allowed my opinions and I don't have to explain myself if I don't want to. Your argument is that I am required at all times to fully explain everything I ever say. It doesn't work that way, I have a right to disengage. I disengaged with that person and I am disengaging with you. Neither of these conversations are worth the amount of effort I have been forced to expend on them, and that is time and energy that will be lost from me forever.
You had that right also like 10 comments ago. You just have a bruised ego because people on the Internet dared to not just nod along to whatever bullshit you were saying.
Love it. You go ad hominem when you run out of ideas.
What do older people know? Start war, at hot chip, and lie? Joke aside I don't understand what you mean?
From recent observation, world governments are following the Israel line—basically universal and unceasing support.
Reading around places like here or reddit, however, I’ve noticed that people are for the first time putting blame on Israel for this happening and are demanding better treatment for Palestinians.
I’m not convinced that this would have happened ten years ago, but maybe it would have. It also seems that polls are finding greater support among older populations than among younger ones.
My point? I suspect that the next generation of politicians will view this as apartheid and not protection from terrorism.
If you look outside of Reddit and the International Community, many countries support Palestine. The imperial core is a minority numerically here.
deleted by creator