AIs are eagerly scooping up this as a source lol
They’re the ones who are not obsessing over children’s toys or saying “adulting is difficult!”.
Specifically in games: constantly repeating the flavor of the month insults. Typically some influencer comes up with a funny insult then for the rest of the month some kids use that one singular insult for every situation
deleted by creator
They don’t remember what life was like before Google.
Kids care too deeply about the most shallow things
if you wanna tell apart gen z from gen alpha, ask them if they remember the teacher having them use these smartboards and making someone recalibrate the touchscreen to the projection when it was off:
afaik the new spoiled shits all get these in every classroom, they were rolling em out when i was graduating:
at least in places that can afford it. this might be more true in a few years
Kids Next Door on some recon huh
They play Gatcha life or that Toca boca game (forgot it’s name)
All I’m learning from this thread is that no one can tell any consistent signs.
I remember reading that when national parks tried to make a ‘bear-proof’ trashcan, they found that there was a larger overlap between the smartest bear and the stupidest human to make a viable product.
I feel like it’s a similar situation here. The smartest kid and the stupidest adult are far more similar than we’d like to admit.
Side note: the National Park Service has an awesome team running their social media accounts. Their posts are always hilarious and informative.
Tbh I find it much more surprising that there’s an overlap of bears and stupid people than I do smart kids and dumb adults.
I’ve met an unfortunate amount of people that would struggle to dump water out of their boots with the instructions written on the bottom of the sole.
I think it’s more like: the maturest kids and the most immature adults.
When they think communism is a great idea
So why is it a bad idea? Have you read Marx?
Reading Marx is like reading Scripture, huh?
It can’t be fully implemented properly because power corrupts.
Why would “power corrupts” mean Communism can’t be fully implemented? What on Earth are you talking about, specifically?
I’m not the original commenter but I agree with them and I see it like this: Under communism, you need people in power to make sure everything is “fair”, but human nature will lead many of these people to selfishly abuse their position.
Basically this. I should have put it into words more clearly
You need organization, yes. What is “fair?” Why can’t there be democratic processes keeping these people in check? What does “human nature” have to do with this, does the local post office go rogue?
I understand that the basis of Capitalism is that it isn’t fair in any way, shape, or form, but why does that mean it’s better?
I’m the wrong person to ask these questions, I’m a socialist. I despise what capitalism has caused.
You are the perfect person to ask, because you claimed Communism cannot work because “power corrupts” and “human nature.” I am not saying you are a Capitalist. Your ideas regarding Marxism are immaterial and vibes-based, which is why I am trying to get you to take a Materialist stance.
Why does power corrupt? How can representatives be held accountable? What determines “human nature?”
-
Power itself does not corrupt. People generally act in their material interests, and in Capitalism, this is dominated by the profit motive, like all class society. The bourgeoisie are focused on making profit, no more and no less. The Capitalist State is molded by the class in power, ie the bourgeoisie, and thus serves the interests of Capital. In an alternative, collectivized system, these same dynamics would be abolished, with a different set of challenges taking their place, such as the question of allocating labor.
-
Representatives can be held accountable via democratic measures, ie a representative democracy. Worker councils and parliaments can handle coordination and check against corruption.
-
Human Nature is determined by material conditions. Humans are thought to be competitive naturally because Capitalism is competitive, even though the average worker does not care, only the bourgeoisie do. In different Modes of Production, “Human Nature” appeared very different. In primitive Communism, for example, Human Nature was cooperative and communal, class society arose from technological advancements like the agricultural revolution.
I do believe it could possibly work.
On the other hand it’s been about 20 years since I read the work of Marx and Weber. I had classes on social stratification, feminism, materialism, and conflict theory. I’m pretty rusty.
You make good points and ask great questions that I don’t have the answers to. Where I tend to focus in your post is at the end, where you rightly state that class society arose from the Neolithic revolution (agriculture basically)
How do we put the genie back in the bottle when we released it so very long ago? Let’s try looking at children. Education would certainly help, but can you teach empathy without the help of the parent(s)? Even if the parental figures teach empathy and structured education enforces these teachings, we come to secondary groups. This would be groups like the child’s friends or peers.They are considered more important to childhood development after a certain age (12? Not the same for everyone of course maybe an average). If the members of these secondary groups do not value empathy, the child who was taught it by their parental figures and enforced by education will begin to value it less.
I don’t know the answers. Believe me I want fully automated post-scarcity space communism. I really want it. I just can’t see the way there.
-
Probably just internet slang and the skull emoji. That and poor grammar are (possible) indicators.
It might disappoint you to learn that among american english speakers, literacy isn’t a good indication of maturity by age. Barbara Bush made a literacy initiative that’s still around, the One Good Thing® left over from the bush regime. The site has a handy map to show you the 40-60% adult literacy rate counties spread all over the states. It definitely helped me come to terms with the fact that sometimes a kid who is trying is gonna be more eloquent than an adult repeating the same tired take they’ve been rebutted for a thousand times.
It’s easier for me personally to gauge age as it scales up when anonymity is involved - referential humor, recognizance of the ancient runes (Duckroll, Bill Murray’s face with only the jaw moving), and informed chitchat about presidential behavior predating Bush SR are all dead giveaways that a user is older, but with younger users you have a lot of hobby/interest overlap going all the way up to people in their 40s. You can’t look someone in the eyes and see if the light of youth has gone out yet on forums and imageboards.
The Amber Alert going nationwide is also Bush era. But I don’t wanna detract from the remainder of your comment.
True, I’d forgotten about this and I’m glad to be detracted in this way tbh
Easy, just ask them what show was on channel 3 when they were a kid.
When they’re adamant that voting third party in the United States will be useful in some capacity, I assume they’re 13
Why not vote 3rd party in states that only go one direction? Take NY for instance. What the fuck harm comes from voting 3rd party assholes for president? One time the state elected a republican candidate and it was (still is I think) the largest landslide in history. I’m 36 and have always hated the 2 party system. It’s been easier and easier as I got older too with increasing political polarity.
Because if enough people do that, it actually can result in that state not “doing what it always does.”
Assuming voting for X is going to result in Y getting elected over Z “anyways” is not a good strategy for getting what you want.
What I want is more than 2 fucking options. What you are assuming is that I wouldn’t get what I want if a conservative won NY. For this to happen there would need to be a mass exodus of democrats abandoning their party to vote conservative. So for that to happen either the democratic candidate is God awful or the conservative is a homerun. Either way I dont give a fuck.
I vote for my interests in state and local elections. Presidential elections in NY are the least concerning elections as they should be for every fuckin American.
If you want more than two options vote for Democrats in primaries that support ranked choice voting initiatives. As it stands, you realistically have a binary choice and until you have ranked choice voting that will continue to be true.
This, comments like “Presidential elections in NY are the least concerning elections as they should be for every fuckin American” is how you know someone is a kid. Saying the presidential election is the least concerning election? The guy who appoints Supreme Court Justices that shape our laws and lives? The guy who basically runs the country, don’t worry about that one. What the actual fuck lol.
Gave my age in the parent comment of the one you replied to mid-thread. Unless you already saw it and are asserting that my age qualifies me as a child! In that case, my receding hair line is flattered!
Overreacting to comments that don’t align with your own doesn’t give away age but sure as shit shows your maturity.
Read my parent comments for better context and if you need help understanding the fundamentals of federal, state and local elections, I’m happy to explain further! 🍻
Well first, you can lie, it’s the Internet, it’s known to happen from time to time. You could be older but I find that idea worrying and a little depressing.
Secondly, me pointing out that saying “presedetail elections should be the least concerning elections to everyone” is just straight ignorance. I mean you don’t even seem to understand the impact of the Supreme Court on every day citizens alone (abortion rights much) and how they are appointed, why would I bother sift through your nonsense comments lol.
Either way, hope you get some good information/education from all the responses people are giving ya! 🍻
So you didn’t read the comments that added context lol. Starting to think this is more of a reading comprehension issue lol.
So Ill give you the outline:
I live in NY.
There would have to be like 5 million democrats voting republican to even create a scenario where my voting 3rd party affected the outcome.
NY goes democratic every election no matter what my vote is for. For that reason the presidential election is the least important election.
The quote you keep taking out of context emphasized the importance of voting for EVERY elected official because even with Roe v Wade over turned nothing has changed where I live for how abortions are handled.
Conversely: when they say this is the most important election of “our lifetimes”, and the world will end if we lose.
(Doesn’t mean they’re wrong)
Almost anyone with an irrational political stance betrays their youth.
Political ideology has always captivated the passions of youth, but isn’t successfully implemented or even internalized except by people with age and experience and emotional regulation.
I agree with you. Do you think people become more conservative with age or is it society becoming more progressive and leaving them behind? Obviously ignoring the current regressive times of the last eight+ years there.
To contribute an answer to the original question I offer this post as evidence of age- thinking about how much has changed during my life may have come through above.
Do you think people become more conservative with age or is it society becoming more progressive and leaving them behind?
I am getting up there in years and seeing this play out over and over.
I think every generation wants to be more progressive than the last, but we tend to carry baggage of fear and insecurity through the generations. Or more specifically, older people tend to gain the political and monetary capital needed to affect policy and shape our societal outlook and attitude. They will always be more conservative than the younger generation who will want more freedoms and personal rights, inherently, and as the ruling class will clash with newer sensibilities, over and over.
What we’re asking here, is the conservatism reflected in our elders and leadership now broadly more harmful or helpful? Are we out of the touch or is it the kids who are wrong?
I think it’s a mix but mostly it’s not our real problem. Our real problem is that no matter what our age, we have greatly misunderstood how our own existence works. Most people have been taught that they have brains designed to exercise logic and reason and that brains are the best thing ever if you use them and make them smart.
No, our brains are not logical tools. We are not a rational species. There was no “age of enlightenment.” It’s all a hoax. Our brains are tools designed to write a story to explain how you feel. And that’s it. It doesn’t even have to make sense. When we all learn how our brains actually work we will collectively make better decisions, have more compassion for each other, and likely sink into even deeper despair as we all start to realize we have no free will.
The youngsters are downvoting you, but what you’re saying is sad but true. It’s the reason Bernie never ran as an independent, he knew it would hand the victory to republicans on a silver platter.
I know a frown adult that does that in every election. Local elections, sure, I can understand, but he does that with all of them, Basically a card carrying communist that’s a useful idiot for right wing politicians.
I don’t assume they are 13, but they at least aren’t old enough to remember what happened in 2016.
Or any other election year, for that matter. I don’t think a third party candidate has gotten a significant voter block in 100 years.
Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. While he didn’t get any electoral votes he likely prevented a second HW Bush term.
the analysis shows perot damaged Clinton’s margin of victory.
Source on this? I was young but I remember that election. Perot seemed to be like some kind of ultracapitalist “run the country like a business” moron that people respected because he was rich. My grandpa loved him and I rarely heard him talk politics. He was also only educated to the sixth grade for what that’s worth.
Seems like the kind of guy to take a bite out of the conservative vote.
I’m gonna fix my ignorance and go look him up right now though.
Edit-- I’m back, learned a lot. I love that he supported electronic direct democracy way back in 1992. He was in favor of gun control and money for AIDS research. Openly supported gay rights in 1996 but notably not until his second campaign when he really had no chance.
He didn’t believe trickle down economics worked. Was a billionaire who spoke against greed which is really strange. But me calling him an ultracapitalist is probably misplaced. Also not a moron. He was into taxing the wealthy, starting to like this guy, but balancing the budget by cutting social programs, nevermind do not like.
He opposed outsourcing factory jobs and favored environmental protection. He wanted to decrease the budgets of both the military and NASA. Wanted to cancel the space station.
Quite the complicated guy. I love some of his policies and hate others. Seems like a weird mix when viewed through a modern lens. I think I’d have considered voting for him if I was ten years older in '92. Probably would have voted for Clinton though who notably achieved one of Perot’s primary goals, which was to balance the budget.
So I ended up researching Clinton’s campaign and it was straight up racist against black people. He also pledged to end welfare “as we know it”. I think I actually would have voted for Perot! Maybe there’s something to what you’re saying about reducing Clinton’s margin of victory.
Fair – outliers might exist, on rare occasion
Yep. A third party candidate hasn’t gotten a single electoral college vote since George Wallace, and the only time a third party has done better than either a Democrat or a Republican was with Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party, which crushed Taft but got absolutely obliterated in turn by Wilson due to the spoiler effect.
You would need some real insurance that others were commuted to vote 3rd party no matter what. Otherwise the real benifit is just getting to that 5% mark where third parties get some bennies like federal funding and automatic ballot access in some places. Which is minor vs say stopping a campaign of vengeance from a candidate who has acted feloniously already and has abused his position to black bag political opponents before.
I’ve read the lemmy.world responses, and they’re all predictably trash. The real answer is there’s no good way to tell if someone’s a kid because they’re plenty of mature 12 year olds and plenty of dipshit adults with poor writing skills (ie boomers). To rephrase the question, what is a dead giveaway that someone is actually not a kid?
-
They talk about mid- to low-tier shows that your average zoomer wouldn’t know about. So someone talking about The Simpsons or Batman: The Animated Series doesn’t mean much, but someone talking about Biker Mice from Mars or Extreme Dinosaurs means they’re some millennial.
-
They namedrop social media sites that no longer exist. Remember Xanga and Vine?
-
They complain about body problems. Knees that feel funny before it rains. Bad back. Nose hair that never stops growing. And so on.
-
They demonstrate an understanding on how old and obsolete technology works (typewriters, payphones, VCR, floppy disks, Limewire, DOS, modems, Blackberries). Like, average zoomers don’t know how to use those map guides that are in the form of a book.
-
They remember how the pre-modern web was like or life before the web was like. Someone who’s <18 years old was born after 2006, when the modern web was still being build.
-
They remember ancient memes and fads that are obscure enough that it isn’t some zoomer looking up random memes on knowyourmeme.
-
They’re horribly out of touch with what kids enjoy. Notice this is different from passing judgment on what kids enjoy because they’re plenty of things I thought was stupid when I was a kid. But when you say shit like “only 13 year olds like Tiktok” or “only kids like Minecraft” yeah you’re just out of touch.
Also Minecraft is old as shit, I remember when it was just creative mode, no crafting as an early beta on a web page back in like 2009. That’s 15 years ago, Minecraft is almost old enough join the British army!!
-
