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.
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.