Uncool boomers be like: “It’s the damn phones”, when they’ve created cities where 2+ tons of metal can freely roam around wherever they like. They’ve created cities where kids cannot go anywhere on their own without being run over by these said metal beasts.
But ofc uncle Kevin, “It’s dem damn phones. Can you at least look at me instead of scrolling through Facebook when I’m talking to you?”
Instant gratification from unknown sources under the direction of a 9 year old is a serious problem and people like you who pretend its not are probably part of the generation damaged most by it.
Eh, I have to agree begrudgingly. I remember having this discussion with someone I know about mental health post smartphones. We came across a few studies tracking mental health of adolescents for the past few decades. To compensate for lack of data (due to lack of mental health awareness, yadayadayada), they tried to inductively predict this missing data using various factors. The interesting part however was the increase in mental health issues in the early 2010s. Now of course, while their data might be quite error prone, I think it makes sense logically.
More exposure to fked up world events (like Gaza, Ukraine, lack of climate action and so on) leads to one being depressed of course.
In my experience, faceless trolls are much worse than in person bullies.
So yeah, I do agree with you. The situation is not black and white. Unfortunately, the uncool boomers (sorry for the lame term,-I use it to not generalize all boomers) do not see it that way. Banning smartphones in schools is one of the stupidest things to do. Uncool boomers purely blame smartphones, and almost always engage dialog in bad faith. It’s mudslinging basically.
Now, if I present a nuanced opinion here, it won’t be considered at all. Essentially similar to the “leftist long paragraph” meme. Therefore, to combat this, mudslinging back is most effective. At least it drives home some idea (in this case, the idea of walkable city design). Is this bad faith? Yea, unfortunately. But does it make sense to try to have a good faith dialog with someone who doesn’t want to have one?
Sorry no, there have been several studies about the negative mental health impacts of always on social media life in teens but you just like muddying the waters so you pretend it’s anyone’s game and give a backhand at the end of your drivel.
I haven’t come across these, but I don’t deny their existence. I just wrote down what I’ve come across myself. I already agreed with you on this point.
Pretty sophisticated but still just forum sliding bullshit.
I’m sorry that you feel that way. But as you demonstrated just now, you are not interested in engaging in good faith. You are still stuck on the “social media bad” train, when I already agreed with you on that. This is exactly what I mean by mudslinging. People just want to repeat certain phrases again and again, progressively louder and louder while vomiting ad hominems left and right.
It isn’t “forum sliding” if the topic is indeed that complex. But as I stated before, you are not ready to move on from “social media bad”. Hence, how can one engage in good faith in such a scenario?
Is it the boomers this time? I remember millennials thinking that about zoomers and now they’ve grown up, zoomers have been saying it about Gen Alpha calling them iPad babys
You do realize that everything around you is mostly built by previous generations when you are not a “boomer”, cause your generation doesn’t do much yet other than differentiate between “cool” and “uncool”? And that’s true for every generation.
Criticizing the ruling class is extremely important to a functioning society. Baby Boomers are largely the ones in power around the world. The largest voting bases of all conservative movements are baby boomers. I wouldn’t mind if the generations that follow criticize us for stuff. That’s just how stuff works.
Not really, criticizing was commonplace and accepted in medieval societies, changes were made by disobedience and rebellions. (I have that fixation on Dutch 80-years war the last few days, hope to get rid of it.)
EDIT: Point is - it doesn’t matter what you say when that doesn’t serve to exchange ideas without interruption and control, and all the talk in the Web in that spirit is controllable and interruptible. Also this can’t be true, there simply were no baby boom in many parts of the world in those years.
Uncool boomers be like: “It’s the damn phones”, when they’ve created cities where 2+ tons of metal can freely roam around wherever they like. They’ve created cities where kids cannot go anywhere on their own without being run over by these said metal beasts.
But ofc uncle Kevin, “It’s dem damn phones. Can you at least look at me instead of scrolling through Facebook when I’m talking to you?”
deleted by creator
Eh, I have to agree begrudgingly. I remember having this discussion with someone I know about mental health post smartphones. We came across a few studies tracking mental health of adolescents for the past few decades. To compensate for lack of data (due to lack of mental health awareness, yadayadayada), they tried to inductively predict this missing data using various factors. The interesting part however was the increase in mental health issues in the early 2010s. Now of course, while their data might be quite error prone, I think it makes sense logically.
So yeah, I do agree with you. The situation is not black and white. Unfortunately, the uncool boomers (sorry for the lame term,-I use it to not generalize all boomers) do not see it that way. Banning smartphones in schools is one of the stupidest things to do. Uncool boomers purely blame smartphones, and almost always engage dialog in bad faith. It’s mudslinging basically.
Now, if I present a nuanced opinion here, it won’t be considered at all. Essentially similar to the “leftist long paragraph” meme. Therefore, to combat this, mudslinging back is most effective. At least it drives home some idea (in this case, the idea of walkable city design). Is this bad faith? Yea, unfortunately. But does it make sense to try to have a good faith dialog with someone who doesn’t want to have one?
deleted by creator
I haven’t come across these, but I don’t deny their existence. I just wrote down what I’ve come across myself. I already agreed with you on this point.
I’m sorry that you feel that way. But as you demonstrated just now, you are not interested in engaging in good faith. You are still stuck on the “social media bad” train, when I already agreed with you on that. This is exactly what I mean by mudslinging. People just want to repeat certain phrases again and again, progressively louder and louder while vomiting ad hominems left and right.
It isn’t “forum sliding” if the topic is indeed that complex. But as I stated before, you are not ready to move on from “social media bad”. Hence, how can one engage in good faith in such a scenario?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Loll post this meme as a post!!!
Is it the boomers this time? I remember millennials thinking that about zoomers and now they’ve grown up, zoomers have been saying it about Gen Alpha calling them iPad babys
You do realize that everything around you is mostly built by previous generations when you are not a “boomer”, cause your generation doesn’t do much yet other than differentiate between “cool” and “uncool”? And that’s true for every generation.
Criticizing the ruling class is extremely important to a functioning society. Baby Boomers are largely the ones in power around the world. The largest voting bases of all conservative movements are baby boomers. I wouldn’t mind if the generations that follow criticize us for stuff. That’s just how stuff works.
Not really, criticizing was commonplace and accepted in medieval societies, changes were made by disobedience and rebellions. (I have that fixation on Dutch 80-years war the last few days, hope to get rid of it.)
EDIT: Point is - it doesn’t matter what you say when that doesn’t serve to exchange ideas without interruption and control, and all the talk in the Web in that spirit is controllable and interruptible. Also this can’t be true, there simply were no baby boom in many parts of the world in those years.