barsoapMillennial rule
PugJesusI mean, we were cringe at their age. It would be more surprising if they weren't cringe.
Yeah, it’s not that Gen Z is cringe. It’s that any and everyone who is between the ages of 10 to 16 are cringe.
It happens with every generation. It happened with everyone before Gen Z and it’ll happen with everyone after Gen Z.
You can probably jack that age limit up to the early 20s, tbqh.
Wow what a fascinating deep conversation. Someone should write all of this down in a magic book
They actually made a documentary about just this in 2004. It was a multi-part series.
Here’s a compilation of a few clips from it: youtube.com/watch?v=IM-TQHJKefA&feature=share7
Ned’s Declassified School Survival Guide: FUNNIEST MOMENTS! 📓 NickRewind
I thank god smart phones didn’t exist in thebMySpace/FaceBook transitional time. Holy god I was an edgy atheist getting into “debates” about religion with my friend’s parents.
bxyrkMeh, kids are weird. Like REALLY F’N WEIRD. I was pretty f’n weird and hell, I still am. I’m not mad at kids for being odd little shits, I just correct my kids when they’re not being good humans to others, other than that, good luck, the world’s on fire 🤷
Uper end of the millenial spectrum here. Zoomers are alright. They might seem weird because they are young and young people are all weird like that. But their core values and beliefs? Man they are gonne be really nice people.
I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Andrew Tate is insanely popular in that demographic.
Stop ruining things for me :/
"The survey revealed that just one in five young people have a positive view of Tate, though young men were significantly more likely to have a positive view of him – 32 percent of them – than young women – 9 percent. Heterosexual young people were more likely to have a positive view of him; nearly a quarter of them said so, compared to just 5 percent of LGBTQ individuals."
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bbd8/andrew-tate-young-people-support
One in five is quite a bit. To make an extreme example: If one in five people on the street were looking to stab you, you’d be thinking there’s a lot of people wanting you dead.
Also it’s ca. one in three among the young men, which is terrifying. And if the “more favorable among heterosexual” holds true for only the male half (I see no reason why it wouldn’t), that’s even higher among that demographic.
Fuck that’s scary.
Man, nearly one-in-two people on the street have positive opinions of other right-wing chuds who are equally as vile. As far as I'm concerned, 1-in-5 is probably as close to a win as it's humanly possible to get considering our current society.
ObiTotally agree with you, how are we supposed to think these are positive numbers, it’s insane.
Ironic that Tate is a millenial. Also generations aren’t like monolithic blocks of culture. The reason Tate is popular is because literally everyone is failing young men. Sure we get women as heroes now (good ones and very prominent bad ones … ahem WW84)
The reason we get a backsliding is because (imo) we focus on elevating women too much. It is so so devastating for young men that just get nothing. No recognition, no support and no opportunities. Couple that with the fact that until men hit their mid to late 20s the dating power dynamic is asymmetricly shifted towards women. And you get hammered by the media “women support here, women support there” and if any young teen dares to ask “well what about us boys?” They just get shushed, that it’s not their place, male privilege etc. They don’t see that “privilege” everyone else speaks of. So you just get mounting aggression because no one is confirming their struggles. And eventually it ferments and turns to hate and then you can serve them whatever lies you want, if you give them the prospect of control over their life they will eat it up. And that’s what Tate did. He promised them power and success.
The reason we get a backsliding is because (imo) we focus on elevating women too much. It is so so devastating for young men that just get nothing. No recognition, no support and no opportunities. Couple that with the fact that until men hit their mid to late 20s the dating power dynamic is asymmetricly shifted towards women. And you get hammered by the media “women support here, women support there” and if any young teen dares to ask “well what about us boys?” They just get shushed, that it’s not their place, male privilege etc. They don’t see that “privilege” everyone else speaks of. So you just get mounting aggression because no one is confirming their struggles. And eventually it ferments and turns to hate and then you can serve them whatever lies you want, if you give them the prospect of control over their life they will eat it up. And that’s what Tate did. He promised them power and success.
🐱TheCatliterally everyone is failing the young disenfranchised men
ftfy. your whole comment is just an example of the fact that when ‘you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression’. I know thats not what these men want to hear but there’s no other way to deal with. I live in a country that just removed rights to a safe abortion , and is fucking over the entire working class women and men, but please tell me more about how ‘women having too much power’ is the problem
you are specifically talking about young men wit outdated ideas about labor division based on gender. They want their bang maid and they are pissed they don’t get it. Guys who accept that everyone has to work, so everyone has to do housework don’t have trouble dating.
you are specifically talking about young men with outdated ideas about labor division based on gender. They want their bang maid and they are pissed they don’t get it.
That is not the source of their problems, they were not born like that, they were usually not brought up like that. It’s where they end up because society sucks, they’re in search of solutions, and the only people at least promising solutions are grifters.
You know what saying “So men have problems, tough luck, their fault, fix it yourself, everyone helping them is sexist and hates women and wants to outlaw abortions” is called? Toxic masculinity. Stop being part of the problem.
Oh please, don’t project on me.
The reason we get a backsliding is because (imo) we focus on elevating women too much
Here’s where you crossed the line from ‘helping men’ to ‘blaming women’. These mens problems are their own, not the fault of women. Are you saying that women are the reason they aren’t getting enough attention is exactly the type of sexist shit that leads to incels.
I never said that, you’re quoting someone else.
If you want me to point to a big (but not sole) cause then it’s in the lack of male role models available to boys, as well as those who are available having to tip-toe around the issue. Like, try being a male teacher in a female-dominated educational environment and argue that the boys need to roughhouse: Instead of learning, under supervision, how to do so safely and without causing interpersonal conflict down the line, to learn to control their energy, there’s, in my perception, this desire from lived feminism to “train the shopping cart race energy out of boys”. Which won’t ever work, what you instead is pent-up energy without any skill in directing it in productive ways.
Said grifters take the boy’s indignation about being bereft of that aspect of their development, and that energy, and fuck them up even more. It’s literally that simple.
The issue is not elevating girls, the issue isn’t even not investing energy into the boys, the issue is spending all that energy on having them sit still in class until their bored brains ooze out of their ears… and even if they manage to do that you get statistics like boys needing to be significantly better in class to get equal grades. And then educators complain about lack of respect. The issue is the energy investment causing the problem because, and now I am going to blame women: Feminism at large doesn’t get men. Never has. Never was willing to listen. To be edgy: The best it gets is academic Karens psycho-analysing their own animus and thinking it’s actual men. That combined with educational systems being female-dominated and engaging in toxic masculinity in the “men can’t raise children their input isn’t even necessary when it comes to boys women understand better” gets you a system which fails the boys, allowing characters like Tate to succeed.
(I’ll leave the issue that that kind of attitude is officially called toxic masculinity to another rant, feminism has a terminology problem).
You’re right, I now see what was someone else.
What confuses me is that you read a comment chain where a man told a woman that the reason that men are suffering is that women have too many resources, which I rebutted. And that made you want to argue with ME.
Why let the sexism slide from your fellow man but try to police my response to it?
The thing I was policing was the “but what about women on the other side of the Atlantic” attitude, as well as specifically blaming clueless erm Halbstarke^1^ for the system that made them that way.
Rebutting undercomplex analysis like that doesn’t exactly help the issue, displacing rightful anger about US politics onto the backs of failed youth. Supreme Court justices are old enough to know better, Tate fans on average barely have pubes.
^1^ German for “half-strong” for (immature) boys ages what 16 to up to early 20s or so, in the sense of “yep they have physical strength, but no strength of wisdom or, for that matter, knowing WTF they’re doing”. “Yob” captures some of the meaning, but it’s very very approximate.
So you are arguing for me to show empathy to young men, as Im being blamed for their problems, and the commentor is advocating that resources be taken from me?
seems you expect quite a lot of empathy and understanding from me and none from the other commentor, or young men.
Ok let me just point out the other side of the perspective coin, here. Quoth that same post:
And you get hammered by the media “women support here, women support there” and if any young teen dares to ask “well what about us boys?” They just get shushed, that it’s not their place, male privilege etc.
…which is exactly what you did: Shushing him for complaining about getting shushed. Probably not even aware of the extent of the power you wield with that. I didn’t really read that comment as “we should take resources away from women” much less “abortion should be outlawed” but explaining how those boys perceive things. Would you disagree with the statement “We should avoid the perception that more is being done for one sex than for the other”?
And no I don’t really expect empathy and understanding from anyone. Call me jaded: People are by and large way too caught up in isms to see the person in front of them for who they are. Which is why I’m going for mindfulness, as in “did you notice what you just did there”.
The reason we get a backsliding is because (imo) we focus on elevating women too much.
You didn’t read this as ‘we should focus on women less and men more’?
Would you agree with the statement ‘society materially still does much more for men, equality has not been reached, and supporting the fiction that women now have ‘more support than men’ is harmful to women’ ?
You don’t see how that entire comment is scapegoating women for men’s issues - which largely derive from lost economic status, and not women?
You didn’t read this as ‘we should focus on women less and men more’?
I read it in the context of the whole post. It’s the most pointed statement. I would have said it differently, yes, something along the lines of “We’re at a point where boys and girls should be focussed on equally”. We’re not in the 50s where it was necessary to make young girls believe they could have a career other than housewives, have a right to decide about their own life path, etc, continuing that kind of “empower the girls” focus while society has changed is not equality.
At least over here it’s been 110% socially accepted for generations.
Would you agree with the statement ‘society materially still does much more for men, equality has not been reached,
Going to ignore those two because it’d be long and distract from the discussion. Suffice to say that yes we should pay social types of work more but the reason it’s underpaid is not misogyny but capitalism not giving a fuck about externalities, and “equality” is such a broad term that the question really can’t be answered without first asking “where”, and “do we even care”. Yes men are by and large physically stronger than women and instead suck at the social martial arts.
and supporting the fiction that women now have ‘more support than men’ is harmful to women’ ?
That question is a) loaded and b) besides the point. The question is whether young boys feel disadvantaged, hopeless, directionless, are not educated in how to use their energy productively. And yes denying those feelings is harmful to women because it allows pied pipers like Tate to train an army of misogynists.
And do note that in Tate’s case it’s not ideology, it’s pure psychology and emotion. You have paleo-conservatives who’d like to live in the 1600s and those have virtually zero pull, but a tiny, angry, incoherent Chihuahua like Tate gets all the followers. His ideology is a product of the issue, not the issue itself.
You don’t see how that entire comment is scapegoating women for men’s issues - which largely derive from lost economic status, and not women?
Not at all. It was I who brought up that education is (in many places) female-domniated and therefore women have their share in the blame. Also we’re talking about teens, here. Economic status doesn’t play into it, it’s lack of perspective and men generally don’t care about being bakers as long as they can still have a family of their own. It’s a respectable job. Don’t project female aspirations to be queen bee onto men.
totally disagree with you. The older men pied pipering these young men away are entirely doing it out of grievances about economic status, which has family units falling apart as a side effect (most men can’t afford to support a stay at home partner).
The young men are buying it, and joining right-wing organizations which prop up the economic status quo for the rich, hurt their own economic prospects, and do nothing to solve the root problem.
You seem to get close to the truth when you admit the thing about “capitalism not giving a fuck about externalities”, but I can’t tell if you think that’s okay because of a naturalistic fallacy, or if you’re admitting that women’s labor is systemically undervalued by capitalism and it needs to be addressed.
it’s always funny to hear men focus on the education part of the equation, which pays nothing, and when its shown that women statistically do better they see as ‘unnatural’ / ‘needing fixing’ …
… but ignore or dismiss the career part of the equation, which makes up the majority of adult life, is the portion that generates resources via pay, and is the portion that men statistically do better at.
Maybe its a side effect of the young men complaining basically having not had experienced all their privileges yet, because they’ve been in the education phase.
Hopefully you won’t tell me you think one is natural and one is not.
The older men pied pipering these young men away are entirely doing it out of grievances about economic status, which has family units falling apart as a side effect (most men can’t afford to support a stay at home partner).
Tate is a multi-millionaire. Status is actually his whole thing and frankly speaking I don’t think he cares about family I have the heavy suspicion he’s gay. As said: Angry Chihuahua syndrome. The man can’t operate without an inflated ego and looks pathetic to any man older than 20 and not himself an angry Chihuahua. But he certainly has the funds to do pretty much anything he wants to do (thanks to his grift). IIRC (this is from an article about him which I certainly won’t be able to find on the net right now): He was born in low economical status, saw some cool sports car or the other and how the driver treated a parking attendant with dismissive disgust, and then and there decided that he’s going to be the one, not the other. Not very bright, the guy, thinking that those are the only two options (and kicks to the head during his MMA “career” didn’t help, either).
The young men are buying it, and joining right-wing organizations which prop up the economic status quo for the rich, hurt their own economic prospects, and do nothing to solve the root problem.
Yes. They’re clueless. Counter-question: Why is the left so bad at convincing people to act in their own self-interest?
You seem to get close to the truth when you admit the thing about “capitalism not giving a fuck about externalities”, but I can’t tell if you think that’s okay because of a naturalistic fallacy, or if you’re admitting that women’s labor is systemically undervalued by capitalism and it needs to be addressed.
I’m an Anarchist, capitalism needs abolishment. But yes addressing things is a perfectly valid step on that path, all anarchism is gradualist anyway.
it’s always funny to hear men focus on the education part of the equation, which pays nothing, and when its shown that women statistically do better they see as ‘unnatural’ / ‘needing fixing’ …
… but ignore or dismiss the career part of the equation, which makes up the majority of adult life, is the portion that generates resources via pay, and is the portion that men statistically do better at.
Wait what where are we right now. The reason I’m focussing on education in this instance is because Tate fans simply aren’t old enough to have careers. They just have a feeling that their career portion of life is fucked before it even started, and not necessarily because they can’t get a high-status job, but because without a high-status job they won’t be respected, and won’t get a partner. In reality there’s plenty of cashiers perfectly willing to be wonderful mothers of the kids of my example baker. That “you’re not worth anything if you don’t rake in money” is another reason why capitalism must go. Not to mention that realistically the only way to make serious money without being a fraud is to be born rich. The other way is to be a one in a bazillion inventor or something.
But, again: While abolishing capitalism would probably solve the issue in itself, addressing it is a perfectly valid step on that path. And addressing it requires not denying the perspective of those kids, or countering it with “but other systemic issues kids have no control over”, which is pretty much all that I’m trying to get out of you here.
Also, back to capitalism: I said before that the education thing was a big, but not sole, reason for Tate having fans. Another reason is youth unemployment over here in Europe and it got better but we had over 50% youth unemployment in Greece and Spain, Greece and Italy still were at over 30% in 2019, down to 20% by now. That right there is a damper on career prospects, now isn’t it?
Maybe its a side effect of the young men complaining basically having not had experienced all their privileges yet, because they’ve been in the education phase.
What privilege does an unemployed man have? Aside from economical issues you have psychological ones, not contributing to the tribe means lack of self-esteem and you’re on a downward spiral into alcoholism, anger, or both. In terms of evolutionary psychology it’s men self-outcasting by reading the room, then thinking “wait I actually do have something to contribute” and if that’s not reciprocated, they aren’t told “well yes how about this thing which allows you to lead a dignified life” or something to that effect, voila you have a neurosis.
And there I was, thinking that feminism accepted that patriarchy hurts men…
But, again: While abolishing capitalism would probably solve the issue in itself, addressing it is a perfectly valid step on that path. And addressing it requires not denying the perspective of those kids,
attacking capitalism. Addressing it requires attacking capitalism, and some men would rather attack women. Coddling their perspective is also not required. They must wake to the fact that the rich stole their future, not women.
It’s SO IRONIC that you typed all that shit about Tate, who you admit was poor and economically struggling and WEAPONIZED men’s hatred of women to make himself RICH, but then say he’s not an example of an older man pied pipering younger men into hating women out of a desire to solve his economic woes. It sounds to me like thats exactly what he did and you typed it out yourself. We just see things from opposite perspectives entirely.
edit: I’m being combative now but I don’t care:
Counter-question: Why is the left so bad at convincing people to act in their own self-interest?
Maybe its because the left is more likely to be women, and men have a hard fucking time listening to women for some reason. Maybe it’s not a problem with ‘the left’ at all. Do you need some statistics to back this up?
But in reality its because right-wing is associated with authoritarian attitudes so it’s just easier to get a right wing person in line than a left wing person.
It’s SO IRONIC that you typed all that shit about Tate, who you admit was poor and economically struggling and WEAPONIZED men’s hatred of women to make himself RICH, but then say he’s not an example of an older man pied pipering younger men into hating women out of a desire to solve his economic woes.
Oh I misread you then, and, looking back, to no fault of yours.
But I still contend that Tate going for disaffected young boys is incidental to his character: In another situation, he would’ve taken up another grift. Tate as the public phenomenon we’re witnessing is contingent on his victims, without those he would’ve become a drug dealer or something. Pimp, human trafficker, defendant, yes all that – but not figurehead. Characters like him have existed through the ages, also in the age of the internet, but never was there so much of a following. Fuck I had one of them as a neighbour.
Coddling their perspective is also not required.
It’s SO IRONIC that just one sentence previously you advocated for coddling their perspective: That their fears about their life being fucked before it even really began are valid and should be addressed.
Now, my sorry ass isn’t going to bring down capitalism any time soon. Teaching that it’s not women but fat cats who are at fault also won’t help, at best you get actionism – why would a couple of hot-heads without experience succeed were generations of leftists failed. What I can and do do though is teach martial arts, and with that exactly that what those youngsters are missing, and that is the capacity to navigate the fucked-up state we find ourselves in: There’s no “art” in martial art without mastery of your emotions, without training your capacity to observe, to defuse, broadly speaking without increasing your capacity to adapt to whatever situation you find yourself in in a self-directed manner – if you adapt without that self-direction you’re being controlled and will hate yourself for it because you will have to sacrifice core values and human social instincts. That is what I teach those boys real men do: Live up to the challenge, and teach others how to do the same. And that even if a gal becomes (usually verbally) abusive, the most you do is tickle her until she lost that train of thought. You know, proportional self-defence.
Occasionally news reaches me of a mother of a friend of a guy not wanting them to attend. Something something Karen not wanting “her little boy to learn violence”. That, right there, is a future Tate fan and yes I blame Karen for failing her son, for preferring being an ism over being a mother, though not publicly. Wouldn’t do any good.
…unless doing what Karen is doing is what you meant by coddling. Then, by all means, don’t do it, boys resent it anyways, even if they humour you by appearing dependent they’ll look anywhere but that place to form their actual character. But it’s also not a thing I ever mentioned much less advocated.
You know what Spartan mothers did? When their sons came of age and thus militiamen, they’d hand them the family shield, telling them “come back with it or on it or don’t come back at all”. Now I don’t advocate the militarism but as an archetypal image it still symbolises the necessary break in the mother-son relationship, female confirmation of manhood, splendidly, just take the crassness with a grain of salt. And you know what without that supposition of dependence looming over him he’s even likely to enjoy coming over for dinner.
Maybe its because the left is more likely to be women,
Marginally, at best, especially with AfD voters being like 2/3rd protest votes in the east by people who previously voted anything else, but initially hard left. They just ran out of options because they can’t get their asses up and participate actively to make sure that their actual concerns are addressed because having a political opinion, much less advocating for it, was never a thing in the GDR. 30 years of re-unification with a socialist country full of actual socialists and the federal republic became less social. WTF. But I digress.
and men have a hard fucking time listening to women for some reason.
Pot, kettle. This is capitalism, if you want someone who listens you hire a therapist.
It’s SO IRONIC that just one sentence previously you advocated for coddling their perspective
Where?
My whole fucking point is that these guys shouldn’t be coddled. If I made a typo somewhere saying they should be, I want to fix it. But I think you may have misread again.
Attacking capitalism is coddling their perspective by validating that they are getting hurt instead of descending into “shush your fault for being you” territory. I was just playing a semantic gotcha game at that point.
I was just playing a semantic gotcha game at that point.
at least you can admit it.
As for the difference, I wouldn’t call validating the perspective that capitalism is fucking us ‘coddling’ soley because of the fact that I think it’s true and actionable
As opposed to the fictions being presented by PUAs that women are meant to be dominated, which I obviously find untrue thus the term ‘coddling’.
Shame we’re fighting each other instead of the rich, is my point.
It’s not that deep. It’s just misogyny.
“Privilege is when equality feels like oppression.” When “straight white cis male” is the default, all resources are “male” resources. All history is “male” history. Not sure how that’s so unfair.
There are men-only 12 step meetings. There are men-only homeless shelters (way more than there are for women or LGBTQ folks actually). Men-only recovery programs. Men-only church groups and support groups. A few years ago a domestic violence org in my hometown changed from being women-only to accepting all genders, including straight cis men, and it certainly can’t be the only one in the US. And of course men had to create a male counterpart to International Women’s Day. There’s a million resources and groups for prostate cancer and testicular cancer (because I’ve literally heard men complain about the amount of recognition breast cancer gets - not that breast cancer only affects women…) Plus your “no nut/no shave November.” And of course, any space, organization, or institution that is not gender specific to begin with generally becomes dominated by straight white cis men. Maybe you just aren’t looking hard enough for these “male resources.”
EvelynAs someone who’s part of Gen z, I’ve only met two people ever who have genuinely supported Andrew Tate, and I know a lot of people my age.
Jo MiranGen-X here. Leave our kids alone. Y’all are just mad you’re middle aged now. Believe me, been there.
We are looking out for your kids. Just like everyone else looked out for us when we were teenagers on the internet: By mercilessly roasting us because what we were doing deserved to be roasted lol
Being a teenager and being embarrassing is like the strongest connection in the world. If I ever had to take more advanced science classes in my poorly educated state, I’d tell you what kind of covalent or electron bond or something it was, but I didn’t. But trust me, being young and embarrassing is a rite of passage. They just happen to be going through it now.
Oh, I know. My comment is meant to be tongue in cheek. Millennials are at that age where they are very sensitive about teaching middle age and it’s difficult to pass the opportunity to twist the knife. It’s payback for everytime a millennial told me they enjoyed Nine Inch Nails cover of Johnny Cash’s “Hurt”.
A gen Xer dissing NIN?!
I liked their cover of old town Rd more
As a millennial, I was involuntarily subjected to your terrible taste in fashion and music until my generation’s tastes took over.
Of course it is your children who are resurrecting baggy jeans… you passed on your terrible taste to them. It is only a matter of time before they try to bring back Limp Bizkit too.
I’m so sorry. I’ll tell my kids to get off your lawn.
You’re out of touch
I’m out of time - Time
But I’m out of my head
When you’re not around
RagnellThis is the nature of aging. As an older millennial I wish more millennials would get with it. We spent our 20s and 30s wanting to be treated as adults. Well, this is how young people treat adults.
You have to remember that gen Z’ers are early twenties. It’s not usually the early 20s ones that are cringe, it’s the younger teenagers who, almost as a rule, are always pretty cringe. They don’t have the sense and forethought to not do really, really embarrassing stuff. They’re just full of emotions and hormones and those impulses aren’t tampered by fully developed brains thinking better than to…do really weird stuff. It’s not out of the ordinary. Millennials are late twenties to late thirties/early 40s.
Oh, I just meant the first part. Yes, we're out of touch. We're old. Deal with it. Don't be like my mother, dying your hair into your 70s.
I thought we killed generational trend analysis anyway.
Your mom sounds pretty cool, actually. My mother is around the same age and like straight out of medieval times in terms of how she sees the world.
My mother will only vote Republican. :(
Zoomers, keep being weird and wonderful, I love it.
RoseAs a zoomer, gen Z, yes. They are cringe and weird.
Specifically tiktok, that place is the weird one
We get it you’re not like the other zoomers.
I’m so out of touch for being a zoomed. I have just accepted that, lol
Same here, it’s probably because I stay off TikTok like it’s the plague. I’ve even modded my YouTube app to disable shorts. (YouTube ReVanced my beloved)
Bud Spotify won’t recommend me music newer than 2014 I know I’m out of touch
Is OP a bot? They’re literally generating random posts by the minute
Are you confusing me with 196.
Fine, it's both
“No it’s the wealthy elite who are cringe”
Petition to replace cringe ageism with based classism (against the rich)
Seconded.
Thirded!