There’s no mention of the fact that young people today have “much less money than Gen Xers and baby boomers had when they were young,” as a recent study from the Federal Reserve has found.
Although I’m sure we’ll be disagreeing later in your article, I applaud you bringing this fact to the forefront. The stereotype of the millenialls quickly shifted, one might note, from “disgruntled 20-somethings living in their parent’s basement” to “rich 30-ish person working for Google and Facebook.”
Amazing how quickly that happened. And how nobody really notices how assuming the affluence of the millenials by the ones working for Google is a lot like assuming the affluence of african-americans by the ones playing in the NBA.
The militants are more likely to believe that the system itself is rotten and needs to be torn down. We live in a rape culture, with systemic racism and systems of oppression inextricably tied to our institutions. We live in a capitalist society, a neoliberal system of exploitation. A person’s ideology is determined by his or her status in the power structure.
To this quote (which is not yours, but from David Brooks), my response is simply to note that what Brooks says is typical…..of Antifa. If most millenials are Antifa members or sympathizers, yes, we have trouble; but I doubt that’s the case.
As expected, although he claims older liberals are “alarmed” by global warming and “disgusted” by widening income inequality, Brooks doesn’t mention the growing public advocacy for policies that actually address those issues, like a “Green New Deal,” a $15 minimum wage, or “Medicare for All” — initiatives that are gaining wide support across all generations and Parties, not just “young militants.”
Well, ideas like this are always poll popularly…….as long as the poll doesn’t mention the price tag. This has all happened before, and will all happen again.
Such statements have no basis in reality, considering that trust in the U.S. government is at its lowest across all generations; not to mention that numerous credible studies have confirmed that the average U.S. citizen has little to no impact on public policy.
People needed a study to know that? :-)
These findings don’t concern Brooks, who is more interested in pursuing the narrative in his head.
Well, they don’t concern me either, since it is madness to assume that corporatism runs counter to public welfare. (Not that corporatism is aligned with public welfare, because it isn’t; but it is aligned much more often than it is not. One of the great dangers of “progressive economics” is that it often assumes that the same entities that pay for our economy (and our wages) are our enemies.
moral psychologists like Jonathan Haidt argue that students today are too sheltered in terms of the information to which they are exposed.
Well, they may indeed be. De-emphasis on civics (which builds institutional trust), history, and a complete absence of economics and economic history, replaced by a manic attention to STEM, does not bode well for a balanced student.
Haidt begins by reiterating that he is basing his observations on the research of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) which, as a simple search can show, has ties with the Koch brothers among other “friends” of direct democracy.
This is one of the oldest intellectual fallacies in the book — — disparage a person and an organization by their connections with another person or organization with a negative connotation.
You don’t like the Koch’s? Stop watching PBS and listening to NPR. Close the hospitals they sponsor. Shut down the arts organizations they sponsor. Don’t take their money and then savage them when you wish.
But, let’s not digress. Haidt is not wrong because he uses data from a Koch funded organization. He is wrong if he is wrong. If you can prove he is wrong, do so. If all you have is “well, he’s wrong because he used data from a Koch-backed organization” then you’ve proven nothing.
“Kids born after 1995 — they don’t get driver licenses as much, they don’t drink, they don’t go out on dates, what are they doing — they are sitting at home talking on their devices, talking with each other. And this seems to be changing social development…
(This is Haidt, talking, not you).
What he did was describe my daughter and her rather large and extremely diverse circle of friends to a T. I got my driver’s license the day I turned 16; she was in no hurry, waiting until she was nearly 19. Dates? Very few and far between; much more in the way of group activities.
Now, does that turn her, as Haidt and Maher seem to be suggesting, into a “snowflake”? Not at all. It’s just that this group of kids seems to be choosing a different path of social interaction than what we were used to.
But they do stress. A lot. And I’m not sure why. School stress them. Grades stress them. She’s already seen a professional for stress management, and she’s not alone. But I see the reason for it as different than Maher and Haidt, who seem to be in the camp of “hey, nothing has changed about society, so it must be THEM”, instead of wondering “what’s causing them to stress that wasn’t there when WE were growing up?”
“Isn’t another reason why they are sitting home, instead of doing all of those fun things, because the parents insist on watching them all of the time?,” enthusiastically asks Maher. “Exactly,” replies Haidt.
Well, there’s some truth in that. I think most parents view the world as much more dangerous than it was when we were growing up. If you’re an older parent like moi’, you remember how, even growing up in the suburbs, people didn’t bother to lock their doors at night. Now, we have monitored alarm systems and bars on our windows. That’s an example of change that brings stress. School shootings? Sure. Our kids watch that stuff on TV and wonder if they’re next. Stress.
Blaming young people and millennials (also known as adults under 40), who constitute the most diverse generation in U.S. history, for their literal need for protection in a culture shaped by extreme partisanship when it comes to race, social needs, and immigration, is the definition of self-importance and intellectual dishonesty.
Apparently we’re in agreement on this point. So, we’ve decided that the reasons why today’s student feels more stress is based on society.
However, the reason why some (not all) seem to fear to hear political views that disagree with theirs is left unexplained.
Peterson, who is a Canadian citizen, claimed such efforts would limit “free speech” and criminalize one’s failure to use preferred pronouns.
I don’t know the legality of all this, but yes, if a person could be criminally prosecuted for the failure to use a preferred pronoun, then that is intolerable.
As it turns out, C-16 wasn’t about “radical left-wing ideologues” limiting Peterson’s free speech (as he claimed), but about equality for trans and non-gender binary Canadians.
Well, those two things are not necessarily different. :-)