Im not going to argue that against most politicians are in bed with big corporations because that is clearly true. In regards to divestment, having read the fine print of the bill it's possible although incredibly unlikely that the end goal is something akin to GDPR in Europe where all your TikTok data has to reside in the US at all times and is under each persons control.
The TikTok thing is a bit of a nightmare. It probably should be banned or separated from the PRC on its own merits, but the U.S. record in this space is horrible and hypocritical. Too many unaddressed problems with our own government when it comes to data privacy, mass surveillance, accountability, government secrecy, and human rights poison the well when it comes to selling this action publicly.
I don't think anyone is really doing that. The polling data in the article is interesting but the people they interviewed don't come across very well. I don't believe for a second the interviewees are representative of Gen Z as a whole.
The last graph is impressive. I'd be from the part of the curve that has the least pessimism. I feel for the kids... I get it though, my pessimism is also way worse now than when I was finishing high school, it's certainly is something that impacts all ages
I think a looooot of people are doing exactly that
Remember before the election when Biden and Harris were fueling vaccine skepticism?
The first page is full of people being flippant or disagreeing with the notion that the world feels like it's actively trying to kill the next handful of generations--especially since doom scrolling inevitably leads them down the pathway of hearing about the dozens of ways things are fucked--and they feel like they are largely going unheard. Why wouldn't they descend into utter apathy or outright cynicism?
Sorry but you seem to be willfully misinterpreting what she is saying.
This feels like a bad faith interpretation of what happened there.
I think you are misunderstanding, I agree that data is representative and there is a metric ton of stuff to be worried about. I don't think the actual people they interviewed are a good voice for the generation.
Grindr divested from its Chinese ownership in 2020. If ByteDance is either unwilling to do the same, or isn't given approval from the Chinese govt to do so, then that kind of proves the point!
Yep, young voters have always been disillusioned, decided not to vote, and then got mad when politicians don't court a group who refuses to even show up. It happened with gen z, it happened with millennials, and it happened with every generation before us
Idk to me it seems like insinuating political influence in vaccine safety/efficiency is a bad thing. Its especially funny because after all that Pfizer released the first preliminary results just 6 days after the election.
Why do you believe that?
Nobody's going to bother to court a group that doesn't show up. Politicians who tried to court the young do show up every now and then, that was Bernie Sander's strategy, it doesn't work because even "high" youth turn out is still really low. Nobody is going to put the effort into courting a group who is disengaged, because you'll reliably get better results courting people who are already engaged. The honest truth is that if the youth want to be courted by politicians, they need to vote first. If you just wait for the other side to take interest you'll be waiting forever. People do court the ones who do show up, that's why "stay the status quo" is the big thing in the democrats and why republicans are going full Maga. Because those are by and large who is voting reliably
You're missing something important here. For Millennials at least, they started politically after, they started voting... but their interests and their struggles were ignored, both by the party they voted for and the other side. Unlike Gen X and Boomers, who basically can vote for either side and have their interests served. I'm a Gen Xer myself. I voted for Hilary Clinton, but I did just fine under Trump. I would never vote for him because I think he's the literal devil, but whoever wins the next election will have a minimal impact on my economic situation. Same is mostly true for Millennials and Gen Z, but more in the negative.
It seems logical that younger people are idealistic and want to vote accordingly. Give them another ten years and they will also understand that harm reduction is more of a fact instead. There are adversaries both domestic and foreign who try to influence that idealism unfortunately.
I'm a millenial. We're ignored because we don't vote. The reason gen xers and Boomers are catered to more is simple, they're the ones who reliably show up to the polls. Again, you need to turn out first and then politicians will care. That's simply the reality of political calculus
This feels like a self fulling prophecy though. Politicians have limited time and money to campaign. Their data tells them the young people don't show up, so they don't cater to the young people because they won't show up. But those young people aren't showing up because you're not catering to them...
What came first? Vote for people who aren't talking about issues that effect you, or don't vote because you aren't being inspired to take the time? It's a chicken versus egg scenario.
I mean yes, but the issue is that there's no guarantee people will show up if you do try to cater to them (and in fact there's evidence that even when people have tried they still turn out in lower numbers than more reliable groups). There are two groups with the power to change this equation, but one has nothing to gain if they try and fail (politicians), whereas the other can at least attempt harm reduction. You're right these things are cyclical, polticians cater to groups who vote and these people then in turn vote more often for those politicians. But politicians will never be the ones to change those cycles. The reality is like previous generations, millenials and gen zwill eventually learn this lesson and start voting, but at that point they'll be the old people replacing the boomers and gen z. Because young people never understand these lessons until it's too late, the cycle will continue indefinitely.
Telling a bunch of sad, miserable, scared people to shut up is a surefire way to get them to be politically active.
The reality is nothing we say will get these people politically active. fixing their situation won't get them politically active either, they'll just shift from not being politically active because they don't think it'll make a difference to not being politically active because they don't think a difference needs to be made. There's nothing special about the current younger generation compared to the past, if anything they're turnout is slightly higher aligned to the number of elections compared to older generations though the amount of data is still very low for them. The reality is that young people generally don't find politics interest so they look for excuses to disengage. Saying things aren't good is a good reason to vote more, not less. That's consistently been true with every generation.
I don't follow this logic. If this was true, why would Boomers vote at all? They've been catered to pretty much their whole lives, and yet remain the most consistent voting block. Their interests are being met and they vote to keep it that way.
I mean the reality is that our parents were right on this one. Every young generation starts out disengaged. Literally every single one of them. The trend of people voting more as they get older is consistent across every goddamn generation. The reality is young people lack experience and have only just started getting engaged in this stuff if at all, so anything that's not an instant fix will seem like it's nothing. It's only as people get older that they realize the long game does matter and that their decisions have impact, it's just not instantaenous, so eventually they learn their lessons, start voting, and the polticians start taking them seriously, but at that point they're the old people
I'm trying to form a tl;dr of your argument here for my own sake but is it effectively:
because they've gotten to the point where they realize the power of their votes. Again, the pattern is consistent across every generation, boomers didn't start out with high turn out, like every other generation they realized the power of their vote, started turning out, and the politicians started paying attention
No, I'm saying that this tone policing is pointless, because people have made their choices and are only looking to work backwards to justify them at this point. I can give all the evidence I want to support why voting is important, why making your voice heard is helpful, and why it can make a difference, and none of that will matter because logic has nothing to do with this. Again, turnout in gen Z is actually HIGHER than any other generation at the same point in the cycle, so this idea that their circumstances have made them uniquely disengaged is nonsense, it's patently untrue and directly contradicts the data. The reality is most people of any age aren't tuned into politics well and have a rudimentary understanding of government, the difference between young and old people is largely how much time they've had to realize and internalize the powers they do have in the system
Your 1+1 is not equaling out to 2 for me.
More relative to how many elections they've been in. As in, gen z voted more in their first elections than millenials or boomers did when they were young and starting out voting.
circle.tufts.edu
I feel like that didn't answer my question; Why do you think Gen Z had the highest turn out for their first election(s)? What inspired them to go out for that first time?More relative to how many elections they've been in. As in, gen z voted more in their first elections than millenials or boomers did when they were young and starting out voting.
In general every generation follows a similar curve in how it votes over time, with people consistently voting more as they get older
Gen Z Voted at a Higher Rate in 2022 than Previous Generations in their First Midterm Election
Author: Alberto Medina Contributors: Katie Hilton, Sara Suzuki
Because world events have made them more aware of the importance slightly earlier for some of them. That said, the difference isn't that significant and these groups aren't monoliths, the point is the idea that gen z is uniquely disengaged is bullshit. If anything the importance of harm reduction is why the millenial voting patterns spiked and why gen z is higher, because dire circumstances have forced people to understand the value of their vote sooner than they might otherwise
lol. I wish.
Feels like it is vastly overstating the conservative support there is among Gen Z. It's one thing to say you don't support the Dems but to openly support even worse. I don't buy it.
