Generation Z is on-track to become more liberal and progressive than Millennials - Polidicks

Not here, definitely not here

God and suffering are all they care about so they're just peachy.

it is true i want to liberate myself from life

Sorry to go so far back in the thread to quote you both but I absolutely agree with you guys. I was a dumb kid born in 2000 and I feel there is a pretty big divide in how people were raised in the 2000's as compared to the 2010s. In my opinion, this is due to the rapid growth of the internet and smartphone technology that occurred in the 2000's. When I was younger I was not really allowed to have a cell-phone until 6th or 7th grade, now there are many kids that are practically raised on advanced smartphones as they are shown kids videos on YouTube to keep them quiet. It was also much harder to browse the internet and play mobile games on the go until the iPhone, as you guys probably know, and now smartphones are practically pseudo-PCs with how much they are able to do; online and offline. I say all this as someone who fell in love with the internet and computers at the nice and early age of 5, which means I was exposed pretty early too. While I know the upbringings may sound similar when I bring that into the equation, I would like to point out the massive "business" that's arisen by making outlandish and inappropriate kids videos to farm clicks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9EKV2nSU8w (This TED talk does a good job summing up what these are like.) Comparing this to the 2000's where the content me and many others were raised on was inappropriate (Early YouTube; including YouTube Poops, Newgrounds Flashes, YTMND, 2007-2008 Memes/Fads, NicoNico reuploads, OG 4chan) but at least made for entertainment I would say these kids are worse off and will grow up a lot differently because of how the system is against them from the start; immediately trying to take advantage of them and waste their time with auto-generated nonsense rhymes.

Well maybe you should reconsider the content of the book now that you have more information. How solid were his sources, how often does he use evidence etc. I remember skimming through this book made by a dutch politician for this new right wing party that we have (FvD) and just starting to laugh when I actually started looking at his bibliography. You'd have stuff like him making it look like there was actual evidence for it but the source is actually a book that he already wrote so to get the real source you would need to get a different the book which would probably have some other vague nonsense or no source whatsoever. I'm not saying everything he has ever said is immediately false (broken clocks,etc) but the issues brought up do raise some serious red flags for me in any case. To such an extent that I will never bother with that book since even if I was interested in the subject I think its highly probable that somebody else has done a better job. You are correct that it doesn't invalidate everything he has ever said. However there is a decent probability that it might invalidate at least some of the things that he has said.

Depends on how the kids are raised. Not all of them have zero supervision. My parents have kept a close eye on my youngest brother as they did with me and other brother before him. But I've also helped cultivate my brother's tastes to an extent, so they don't have worry about him getting into trash like the Paul brothers. Thanks to he, he's now the biggest Vinesauce fan in the family. (Yeah, that's another thing our family has done differently than many evangelical families. While my parents don't permit us saying profanity in the house, they accept that, given that it's fucking everywhere, they're not going to ban us from consuming entertainment that has those words, because we all learned them by elementary school anyway. And my dad - yeah, my former pastor dad - has tons of quality R rated movies on his shelf, including a massive collection of war films and other classics like the Godfather trilogy.)

That's wonderful to hear! I do hope that cases like yours are more frequent then I think they are, the fact that there is so much trash out there now is what worries me the most. It's not like it wasn't out there before the growth of the internet but most of the stuff that manipulated kids before was on TV and magazines, which are at least regulated on some level. I don't believe in restricting the internet and I don't really think anyone else wants it to be restricted either, so parents should probably be more like ours and have at least an idea of what's going on with their kids if we want to prevent them from being duped by the Pauls, RiceGum, or random kids nursery rhyme channel #556.

Okay, so I've literally never heard of this guy before, but I think you're being ridiculous to call him a fucking fascist for expressing what are, at most, moderately conservative viewpoints. One of his twitter quotes is from The New York Times. The other one is on mediabiascheck as a left wing source. Funny, because the way you use "right-winger' as if it was some kind of an insult, does make me think that whatever point he is making about people being increasingly more sheltered from opposing views has clear and demonstrable merit. Genuinely curious, do you think there is something inherently suspicious with being a religious christian and/or christian organisations? This one in particular doesn't even seem very radical. From a quick glance at their front page the worst I've seen was a display of an anti-abortion sentiment in one headline, and that is about as mild as you can get in this business. I'm sure that a fragment of an essay from a widely respected liberal philosopher was just "conspiratorial nonsense". Besides, if you were not so quick to pick apart the wall of text looking for juicy bits that you can use to this guy a fascist, the literally point of the quote (as well as the essay himself) is that this is a description of how the french right sees EU and why they oppose it. Haidt even literally wrote that it is "a guide to moral faultlines" of Europe and its for "people interested in EU and its challenges". The only way you could have missed that part is if the very idea of trying to understand people with opposing beliefs is alien to you. I would very much like you to keep digging further, because so far literally nothing you showed so far gives any evidence that this guy is a fascist. Hell, I would say you haven't even sufficiently proven hes right enough from center to be called a right winger.

Moderately conservative from the your standpoint, perhaps, but this puts him solidly in the right wing from an American standpoint.

So holding views that are "right" what so ever makes you a fascist? See, this is inflammatory crap that hurts you more than it helps.

What. You were literally accusing HA of "pushing" right-wing opinions on facepunch... While at the same time you say this? Don't you feel like what you're saying is a little hypocritical? Out of curiosity, if you actually believe that republican party is literally fascist (presumably along with the half of your country that supports them) and all dialogue along with everyone who even vaguely interpreted to support them should discouraged, what exactly are you planning to do with that fact? It seem at this point nothing short of physical extermination of your opponents would resolve this situation.

All fascists must be de-platformed, whether violently or otherwise, to preserve both American democracy and the sanctity of human rights.

Whos a fascist though and what’s the bar for that? Does positing any right wing thinking equate to fascism?

And what on earth does "de-platforming" means, when you're talking about half of a country, with just the same voting rights as you do? Do you mean physical extermination, putting them in camps? I am not trying to assign any bad will here, I legitimately don't understand how do you plan getting rid of all of american conservatives at the same time from the public talking space. The jump from "conservative" to "fascist" was enough of a ridiculous stretch, but you don't even seem to understand it's implications. How left do you have to be to not qualify as a fascist? Are centrists okay? Is it just specifically the republican party, or are libertarians fascists too? How do you plan to launch a violent "deplatforming" against a group of gun-loving people living in very sparsely populated areas spread over a large portion of a country? Would doing that be even remotely democratic, or in any way respectful of human rights?

There's a clear issue with dismissing someone wholesale because of something they said or posted on social media. In that regard, Heidt's work is verified and has been on many accredited publications. He thoroughly examines interesting developments on Generation Z, and I believe its worth reading.

I feel like this is just the Jordan Peterson arguments all over again. Just because someone has accredited publications in a scientific field doesn't mean that everything they say in a non-scientific context is scientific and justified (especially when their scientific work and the subject of their book are completely unrelated to each other, as was the case with Peterson). The whole purpose of the peer-review process is to screen for potential biases, it by definition assumes that the original writer of a publication has biases (which we all do). A book written by a conservative ideologue to support their political opinion is not a scientific source. They may use scientific sources to support their opinion, but what you're saying here (that his 'work', in this case his opinion about Gen Z being liberal snowflakes) is disingenous.

I recall something saying they are more financially conservative, which doesn't mean "Politically conservative", just "More careful with money"

There's a clear issue with dismissing someone over the shit they say? Uh... What?

Jonathan Haidt is a Jewish registered Democrat who studied social psychology specifically to help the Democratic Party win elections. Since 2009 he has been using his research to seek a bridge to the partisan divide. The man has an arsenal of accredited books widely featured in mainstream outlets. His 2012 book The Righteous Mind was on the NYT bestsellers list, and the guy's social psychology work has been frequently cited in scientific literature. In fact, the article that formed the basis for the book that HumanAbyss is suggesting was directly referenced by Obama during a speech. You've concluded that he's a 'racist right-wing bigot' because you found some trigger words through a five minute Google search. If you're going to base your opinion on random quotes, well, here's one: “I would agree with that, there’s no question that Trump is the bigger problem,” said Haidt, who is professor of ethical leadership at New York University and describes himself as a centrist Democrat. “But this is one of the two major objections I get to my work: how can you be talking about universities when Trump is president? My answer is I love universities, it’s where I live, the fact that Trump is a bigger problem doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address other issues.” Haidt also acknowledged that the matter is not one of untrammelled free expression – no speaker has an inalienable right to a platform. “I almost never talk about free speech but the conditions necessary for a community of free inquiry. It doesn’t mean people can say whatever they want, it doesn’t mean we need Milo Yiannopoulos [the alt-right provocateur]. What we need is a community in which people feel free to say what they’re thinking and to question those who make statements.” Wow, get a load of that pure Nazi rhetoric right here. I know the intellectual bar for SH/PD has dropped massively in the last couple of years, but this is fucking stupid. He's not a 'racist right-wing bigot pushing all the same talking points that the rest of the right wingers on the internet push', and if you insist that your low-effort Google search has given you a complete picture, you're an idiot.

Thanks for this. Sometimes i just run out of fucks to give about proving these narratives wrong because of how steadfastly they hold to obvious fictions. The book ive been referencing specifically speaks about the kind of behaviour iamgoofball has been demonstrating. Literally the EXACT behavioural traits as what he describes.

Thanks, I didn't look very much into this and was misled by some of the posts here. It's clear that I made a misassumption based on my biases from prior experiences with internet personalities. Now that I understand where Haidt is coming from, I see that his social media postings are well intentioned, being critical or provocative rather than dogwhistles. I still think my criticism of not believing whatever people say just because they have a degree is sound, but it's clear that this guy has the scruples to say what he's saying and have it come from a place of genuine criticism rather than hypocritical moralising.

When the fascists start moving in, the centrists very quickly become their pawns. It's not responsible to be a centrist in this day and age.

I wish you could hear yourself literally deny the agency of anyone who doesn't submit to you.

I occasionally agree with you on stuff but you should really sift through what you're saying here and reexamine your point and approach, you're coming off as satirical at best.

So I guess those of us who like stuff from every decade are just oddballs, then? 'Cause I could rattle off songs from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s that I genuinely enjoy...

You know being far left makes you look as crazy as someone who is far right.

Not really, no. That's "both sides are just as bad" bullshit.

Lmao lamgoofball is losing it. Learn what facism means, mate before you start throwing words around. You're literally no different to far-right nutjobs who call anyone even slightly progressive a "damn commie"

It's really little wonder that you have so many fascist alt-righters if one believes that anyone who's mildly supportive of the status-quo or even Trump himself is an alt-righter, even if you think that race-based politics are absolutely disgusting. Horseshoe theory strikes again I guess