Global Gen Z Rebellion! Boomer Politicians Being Put On Notice!
- Thread starter Kool-Aid
- Start date
The alchemist
VIP
The generational renewal is mostly nonsense. Kids turn to attach themselves to preexisting options. So although the father might be a republican, the son might be a democrat, but at the end of the day vote within the established systems that never change anything fundamentally. And secondly, the newer generations are not really a true cohort. They are an extension of lineage systems for the most part, with newer pivots. Not overturns.
I remember thinking, when my generation grows up, we will change things. Now that I look around, when I grew up, people just settled in with things. There is no true antagonism. This is just a dispassionate observation, not disillusioned by having naive thoughts from when I was a kid. This is not a cynical claim; it just is what it is. Part of growing is that you also consider more.
Still, I am very proud of the generation that acknowledges how government expenditure is on sports rather than health and education. They got their minds in the right direction.
However, when you look at the facts on the ground, there is a gloomy picture that protests are more of an idealised expression of freedom and having the power to change rather than any changed met with immediate demand. Rarely does policy follow from protests. The very few that do are almost pyrrhic and get set as an example of how the West is ideal, but they are 1 in 1000s.
It does not mean people should not protest; rather, they should ask more questions about what it says about the Western political apparatus that lauds itself as this transient, flexible, improvement-based ethical truly anchors itself on.
In my humble opinion, I think protests shape the general population more so than political systems and in this, in long term, could reflect a political overturn or a democratic split, whereas potential new political groups come to represent that. In this sense, protests should be looked at as an aggressive active discourse among the population rather than tools for immediate change towards politicians. I.e., there is no direct effect on elite decision-making but more so alters the fabric alignment of general thinking among people and discourse, with protest also being symbolic. So even though shit might not budge an inch in the institutions, the collective mindset shifts.
There can be two things that occur from that: either the government becomes more removed from the people and turns for the worse, supported by elites. Or they pivot with the aforementioned internal political contention with representatives for the public appearing to clash with the ones representing the old guard, becoming a new dynamic paradigm that can either become better or once again worse, splitting society.
These are protests for the right reasons. Protesting for the wrong reasons only make things worse and they are a sign of deeper ills that cannot be fixed with one policy, usually.
This might sound contrary to popular beliefs and democratic mythology, a system changes more tangibly when adults see sense rather than youth. Youth uprising by itself fizzles.
I think true dissent that turns into revolution and shit like that are mostly not what they seem. Those turn co-opted.
I remember thinking, when my generation grows up, we will change things. Now that I look around, when I grew up, people just settled in with things. There is no true antagonism. This is just a dispassionate observation, not disillusioned by having naive thoughts from when I was a kid. This is not a cynical claim; it just is what it is. Part of growing is that you also consider more.
Still, I am very proud of the generation that acknowledges how government expenditure is on sports rather than health and education. They got their minds in the right direction.
However, when you look at the facts on the ground, there is a gloomy picture that protests are more of an idealised expression of freedom and having the power to change rather than any changed met with immediate demand. Rarely does policy follow from protests. The very few that do are almost pyrrhic and get set as an example of how the West is ideal, but they are 1 in 1000s.
It does not mean people should not protest; rather, they should ask more questions about what it says about the Western political apparatus that lauds itself as this transient, flexible, improvement-based ethical truly anchors itself on.
In my humble opinion, I think protests shape the general population more so than political systems and in this, in long term, could reflect a political overturn or a democratic split, whereas potential new political groups come to represent that. In this sense, protests should be looked at as an aggressive active discourse among the population rather than tools for immediate change towards politicians. I.e., there is no direct effect on elite decision-making but more so alters the fabric alignment of general thinking among people and discourse, with protest also being symbolic. So even though shit might not budge an inch in the institutions, the collective mindset shifts.
There can be two things that occur from that: either the government becomes more removed from the people and turns for the worse, supported by elites. Or they pivot with the aforementioned internal political contention with representatives for the public appearing to clash with the ones representing the old guard, becoming a new dynamic paradigm that can either become better or once again worse, splitting society.
These are protests for the right reasons. Protesting for the wrong reasons only make things worse and they are a sign of deeper ills that cannot be fixed with one policy, usually.
This might sound contrary to popular beliefs and democratic mythology, a system changes more tangibly when adults see sense rather than youth. Youth uprising by itself fizzles.
I think true dissent that turns into revolution and shit like that are mostly not what they seem. Those turn co-opted.
Last edited:
