Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We always think about what kind of planet we are leaving for the kids, but what about what kind of kids we are leaving for the planet?

Online it appears more and more they are selfish, self-orientated, far-right individuals with little understanding and empathy of other cultures, races and individuals. They seem to embrace neo-fascism in a way the Hitler youth would be proud of.

Where have these children come from? Is the spectre of the past so long ago?

Is this serious? Or just trolling? Generalizations and /shakefisting at the next generation are boring and cliche. Data or gtfo with this.

Originally posted by Digi
Is this serious? Or just trolling? Generalizations and /shakefisting at the next generation are boring and cliche. Data or gtfo with this.

https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2017/08/we-need-talk-about-online-radicalisation-young-white-women

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/far-right-alt-right-white-supremacists-rise-online

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/alt-right-national-socialist-movement-white-supremacy.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40915356

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/opinion/sunday/milo-yiannopoulos-white-nationalism.html

https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21709986-france-austria-identitarian-movement-gives-xenophobia-youthful-edge-meet-ib

It's everywhere Digi.

Only kids look at things as sides.

As a global society, we are far more progressive today than ever in the past, fringe groups are just that.

Trolling hard.

Just because you might not like the topic or content, it doesn't mean it's trolling. Kids have always been the most vulnerable to any stupid idea.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Just because you might not like the topic or content, it doesn't mean it's trolling. Kids have always been the most vulnerable to any stupid idea.

I didn't say the topic was bad, I suggested the idea behind the topic was bad. I agree social media are the new parents and they play a role in developing kids, that doesn't diminish the fact which as a global society we are more progressive in first world countries then even a decade ago.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I didn't say the topic was bad, I suggested the idea behind the topic was bad. I agree social media are the new parents and they play a role in developing kids, that doesn't diminish the fact which as a global society we are more progressive in first world countries. I would argue that we were more progressive, I think the past two years have shown a decline in forward momentum to be replaced with something else.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I would argue that we were more progressive, I think the past two years have shown a decline in forward momentum to be replaced with something else.

I believe the introduction of Trump has allowed more fringe behaviors to become mainstream but I don't believe that is the dominant system of beliefs in the USA at least.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Only kids look at things as sides. That's incredibly wrong, but if that's all you have to say, okay.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I believe the introduction of Trump has allowed more fringe behaviors to become mainstream but I don't believe that is the dominant system of beliefs in the USA at least. Not dominant, no but rising, particularly amongst the youth who are often from areas where they do not even come in contact with the people they are being taught to hate. Fear of the different is easy to manipulate especially online.

Originally posted by Scribble
That's incredibly wrong, but if that's all you have to say, okay. Not all I have to say, however, the easiest side to choose is right or wrong and when you are talking about the Far right it is always wrong.

As it was in 1939-1945 so shall it be now.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Not all I have to say, however, the easiest side to choose is right or wrong and when you are talking about the Far right it is always wrong.

Are you kidding? Communism as a form of govt had the highest death count after WWII. I'm thinking the extreme left and right are a problem and it isn't owned by one side.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Are you kidding? Communism as a form of govt had the highest death count after WWII. I'm thinking the extreme left and right are a problem and it isn't owned by one side.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Are you kidding? Communism as a form of govt had the highest death count after WWII. I'm thinking the extreme left and right are a problem and it isn't owned by one side. We are not talking about the extreme left, however, a lot of "communists" bravely died stopping Hitler who they had been allied with originally. The truth about Russia as the Soviet Union was it stopped being Communist and became a dictatorship when Stalin took over.

Communism has always been replaced by dictatorship when implemented. The Reich remained Fascist on the other hand.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
We are not talking about the extreme left, however, a lot of "communists" bravely died stopping Hitler who they had been allied with originally. The truth about Russia as the Soviet Union was it stopped being Communist and became a dictatorship when Stalin took over.

Communism has always been replaced by dictatorship when implemented. The Reich remained Fascist on the other hand.

Which is why I specifically used it in reference to the govt. Also, you do realize that fascism is left, specifically taking control of the govt and removing rights of its citizens.

Left is force, right is less force.

So what's your argument?

Originally posted by snowdragon
Which is why I specifically used it in reference to the govt. Also, you do realize that fascism is left, specifically taking control of the govt and removing rights of its citizens.

Left is force, right is less force.

Not really, this is an internet trope, Fascism, as it was described for the early 20th century in Italy and Germany, is right wing. Left-wing Fascism is a construct of people like Jonah Goldberg in an attempt to deny fascism is right wing, despite the support of conservatives to Hitler and Mussolini in the early days. This tactic of misdirection usually relies on taking the straw man broadsides heaved at liberalism by wingnuts and finding commonalities between them and some fascist program; for example, noting that Nazi Germany had large public works projects, and since liberals also favour public works projects while conservatives do not, liberals must also be fascists. The Political Compass generally rates fascists as in the economic centre, well to the left of today's right-wing politicians but well to the right of socialist figures.

But I do love the way kids defend the far right here... No, no I don't.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Not all I have to say, however, the easiest side to choose is right or wrong and when you are talking about the Far right it is always wrong. Same with the far left, but because it's a part of your chosen side in this tribal war, you choose to ignore them.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Which is why I specifically used it in reference to the govt. Also, you do realize that fascism is left, specifically taking control of the govt and removing rights of its citizens.

Left is force, right is less force. Wrong, that's authoritarianism vs libertarianism. Nothing to do with left and right.

Gonna have to agree with Putinbot on this one, Fascism is right-wing authoritarian because of its distinct social attitudes.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Not really, this is an internet trope, Fascism, as it was described for the early 20th century in Italy and Germany, is right wing. Left-wing Fascism is a construct of people like Jonah Goldberg in an attempt to deny fascism is right wing, despite the support of conservatives to Hitler and Mussolini in the early days. This tactic of misdirection usually relies on taking the straw man broadsides heaved at liberalism by wingnuts and finding commonalities between them and some fascist program; for example, noting that Nazi Germany had large public works projects, and since liberals also favour public works projects while conservatives do not, liberals must also be fascists. The Political Compass generally rates fascists as in the economic centre, well to the left of today's right-wing politicians but well to the right of socialist figures.

You clearly don't have to agree with it, you obviously don't believe in it but that doesn't make it any less so. Fascism favors the left, not the right. Whenever the state assumes power more power that is the left in the govt when people have more freedom that is the right.

Now clearly you will that night and day but that doesn't diminish the fact the the left is more govt control fascism, communism, socialism, the right is democracy, capitalism etc

Originally posted by snowdragon
You clearly don't have to agree with it, you obviously don't believe in it but that doesn't make it any less so. Fascism favors the left, not the right. Whenever the state assumes power more power that is the left in the govt when people have more freedom that is the right.

Now clearly you will that night and day but that doesn't diminish the fact the the left is more govt control fascism, communism, socialism, the right is democracy, capitalism etc I mean, you're factually incorrect, but sure, keep going. But it'd be better if you took some time out to do some research and come back with a better grasp of the topic of discussion.

In your search to be right, you narrowed descriptions to only fit your definitions and not those around you. If you want to play in the discussion then you need to explain your terms and not try to correct others, because you are incorrect in this case for our discussion.

If you want to be correct then correct the mistakes, otherwise your just an ass.

Originally posted by snowdragon
You clearly don't have to agree with it, you obviously don't believe in it but that doesn't make it any less so. Fascism favors the left, not the right. Whenever the state assumes power more power that is the left in the govt when people have more freedom that is the right.

Now clearly you will that night and day but that doesn't diminish the fact the the left is more govt control fascism, communism, socialism, the right is democracy, capitalism etc The far right is really looking at inequality of outcome, this is where labelling them all together becomes difficult. The modern far right is desperate and has a variety of ideologies. Some of those are extremely Authoritarian. Juan Linz described these aspects of the far right in his seminal work on Authoritarianism. Francoist Spain, for example, has many commonalities with Trumps administration. The central leader, like most fascist regimes Trumps America relies on passive acceptance to succeed and this is why it will fail.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
The far right is really looking at inequality of outcome, this is where labelling them all together becomes difficult. The modern far right is desperate and has a variety of ideologies. Some of those are extremely Authoritarian. Juan Linz described these aspects of the far right in his seminal work on Authoritarianism. Francoist Spain, for example, has many commonalities with Trumps administration. The central leader, like most fascist regimes Trumps America relies on passive acceptance to succeed and this is why it will fail.

I can see that would be a problem in Europe. I think that in the USA we are going to get a sweep to the left in our Congress.

Anyway, this is going nowhere, you kids will defend far-right ideology and I will attack it and you will defend it etc.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Anyway, this is going nowhere, you kids will defend far-right ideology and I will attack it and you will defend it etc.
Tell me who the **** is defending far right ideology

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Anyway, this is going nowhere, you kids will defend far-right ideology and I will attack it and you will defend it etc.

I think you are right to defend the left, the right is the snake eating its own tail.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I think you are right to defend the left, the right is the snake eating its own tail.
I mean the left are the ones attacking pride parades and feminism for not being intersectional enough, and telling lighter skinned black people to check their privilege.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Anyway, this is going nowhere, you kids will defend far-right ideology and I will attack it and you will defend it etc. Nobody here is defending the far-right. Stop trying to grasp at "issues" that don't exist.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Anyway, this is going nowhere, you kids will defend far-right ideology and I will attack it and you will defend it etc.

Kids these days, pfft.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean the left are the ones attacking pride parades and feminism for not being intersectional enough, and telling lighter skinned black people to check their privilege.

Just because someone says you should defend the left doesn't mean you are extreme.

There are several posters here that have a very hard time trimming down definitions and words because their goal is to be right over having a valid discussion.

Originally posted by Robtard
Kids these days, pfft. No different to any other day really Rob.

A Psychologist did some research on the post-Millennial generation (Gen Z or iGen):

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/ how_teens_today_are_different_from_past_generation
s


She calls them the 'iGens."

She feels that her research has as isolated 11 key things that are different about iGens compared to previous generations.

For example:





They are more accepting and care for others but they are more likely to want to stifle what they deem as offensive speech.



Generation Z highlights:



http://genhq.com/gen-z-2017/



In other words, the speculations the SWS makes in the OP is the opposite of what the research shows. They are more inclusive, less racist, more responsible with money, and more forward thinking than previous generations.



When we explore actual research, we see that Baby Boomers like SWS are out of touch with reality and are consuming too much curated news from the tele and Pop-Media sites.

Originally posted by Digi
Is this serious? Or just trolling? Generalizations and /shakefisting at the next generation are boring and cliche. Data or gtfo with this.

It's trolling, just look at his other threads.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's trolling, just look at his other threads.

He's a career troll. He makes no secret of it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He's a career troll. He makes no secret of it.
https://imgfast.net/users/3311/36/97/52/smiles/1674954573.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
A Psychologist did some research on the post-Millennial generation (Gen Z or iGen):

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/ how_teens_today_are_different_from_past_generation
s


She calls them the 'iGens."

She feels that her research has as isolated 11 key things that are different about iGens compared to previous generations.

For example:





They are more accepting and care for others but they are more likely to want to stifle what they deem as offensive speech.



Generation Z highlights:



http://genhq.com/gen-z-2017/



In other words, the speculations the SWS makes in the OP is the opposite of what the research shows. They are more inclusive, less racist, more responsible with money, and more forward thinking than previous generations.



When we explore actual research, we see that Baby Boomers like SWS are out of touch with reality and are consuming too much curated news from the tele and Pop-Media sites.

I don't usually take just one study, I would be interested if you can find a few over a period of years and a metadata Analysis. Otherwise, all we have is an indicator. Add a hyphen between forward and think DDM and perhaps one between much and curated all though that's less obvious.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
and perhaps one between much and curated all though that's less obvious. http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/nick-young-confused-face.jpg


The news has been curated, and they're watching too much of it. It has nothing to do with the extent that the news has been curated...

Much-curated would be a choice. It's right either way.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Much-curated would be a choice. It's right either way. If he used 'much-curated' in that sentence, it would create a fragmented syntax, as the 'too' would have no purpose. Thus, 'much-curated' would not apply in any way in the context that he was using 'much curated' in. Again:
Originally posted by Scribble
The news has been curated, and they're watching too much of it. It has nothing to do with the extent that the news has been curated...


Example: If I said "They watch too much violent television," it wouldn't make any sense to say instead "They watch too much-violent television."

Originally posted by Scribble
If he used 'much-curated' in that sentence, it would create a fragmented syntax, as the 'too' would have no purpose. Thus, 'much-curated' would not apply in any way in the context that he was using 'much curated' in. Again:



Example: If I said "They watch too much violent television," it wouldn't make any sense to say instead "They watch too much-violent television." I just copy and pasted into Grammarly it says much-curated too. Try it if you have it and no, it doesn't fragment.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I just copy and pasted into Grammarly it says much-curated too. Try it if you have it and no, it doesn't fragment. I trust my own knowledge of grammar and language, as well as my ability to understand the context of the sentence, over a computer program without understanding of context. Would you be able to explain why 'much-curated' could work within the context of the sentence? The only way I could see it working is if the sentence was instead: "Watching too much much-curated news."


I'm not shitting on Grammarly, I've heard that it can be very good, but I can't trust it in this case without an explanation for why a compound word works in place of two separate words in this specific context. The compound word orphans the 'too' before it.

A Thread that reached 3 pages in just a few hours?

Better alert the Mods!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I don't usually take just one study,

Wonderful!

You have two in my post.



Originally posted by Putinbot1
I would be interested if you can find a few over a period of years and a metadata Analysis.

No you wouldn't. You're interested in moving the bar so far in the impossible direction so you can pretend to be right. Someone shit on your troll thread with actual research from two sources. Deal with it like an adult instead of posting about "meta-analyses" which you clearly don't know much about.


Originally posted by Putinbot1
Otherwise, all we have is an indicator.

You mean two studies on the attitudes and behaviors of Gen Z? Right.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Add a hyphen between forward and think DDM and perhaps one between much and curated all though that's less obvious.

No, then it would be wrong. And it is "ddm", not "DDM" if you wish to abbreviate my nickname.

Originally posted by Scribble
I trust my own knowledge of grammar and language, as well as my ability to understand the context of the sentence, over a computer program without understanding of context. Would you be able to explain why 'much-curated' could work within the context of the sentence? The only way I could see it working is if the sentence was instead: "Watching too much much-curated news."


I'm not shitting on Grammarly, I've heard that it can be very good, but I can't trust it in this case without an explanation for why a compound word works in place of two separate words in this specific context. The compound word orphans the 'too' before it. Nah, much-curated becomes vivid and adds a little humour, it's actually as simple as that it's the second way you can use a hyphen which is why I said it was a choice. It's a throwaway, it's actually as simple as that.

"adds a little humor"

If only Pootybutt would do that to his miss-information.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wonderful!

You have two in my post.





No you wouldn't. You're interested in moving the bar so far in the impossible direction so you can pretend to be right. Someone shit on your troll thread with actual research from two sources. Deal with it like an adult instead of posting about "meta-analyses" which you clearly don't know much about.




You mean two studies on the attitudes and behaviors of Gen Z? Right.



No, then it would be wrong. And it is "ddm", not "DDM" if you wish to abbreviate my nickname. Actually I know a great deal about Meta-analysis, in the same way long ago I taught you about significance in statistics. Which is why I believe you still are butthurt.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Actually I know a great deal about Meta-analysis, in the same way long ago I taught you about significance in statistics. Which is why I believe you still are butthurt.

Ah, there it is. No longer playing your game with me. Now you go to direct insults. Poor form. You had the option to continue the game but I guess it was too difficult for you.

Quote the thread you're talking about.

Well He is the Trump of his own little world.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Well He is the Trump of his own little world. Triggered.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Triggered.

You got the Permits and Background Checks to be able to use that word?

Somebody call the cops! We need an emergency FRISK DOWN NOW!!!

To add to your Trump analogy, I don't but the guards in front of my compound do.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
To add to your Trump analogy, I don't but the guards in front of my compound do.

OH now you have Compounds and Armed Guards?

Sounds like you are not a Trump.

More of a Terrorist Leader.

That or in Prison.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
OH now you have Compounds and Armed Guards?

Sounds like you are not a Trump.

More of a Terrorist Leader.

That or in Prison.


Nah, I work in a middle-eastern country where Westerners could be targeted, that said it's a safe place full of money. I move to a country in Africa, also Oil rich in about 90 days.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Nah, I work in a middle-eastern country where Westerners could be targeted, that said it's a safe place full of money. I move to a country in Africa, also Oil rich in about 90 days.

So you are a Terrorist.

You must be so sad that Obama is no longer President.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please change it to "dapoopy." i like it

You must go thru lots of Air Freshner.