prisonchaplain

Millenials vs. Gen Z

Recommended Posts

I was speaking with my 16-year old about the differences between millennials and her generation.

  • She said that millennials were really good with sympathy. They're all pretty much mentally ill, but they comfort each other. Racism? It hurts so bad, and I feel so much guilt/shame/anger.
  • Gen Z, on the other hand, we know we're sick, but we just make a joke out of it. We're not so great at sympathy, but we are resilient.

Beyond all the provisos about stereotypes and not everyone fitting into neat categories, any thoughts on this? True? False? Insightful? Not so much?

BTW Merry Christmas everyone! :angel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I was speaking with my 16-year old about the differences between millennials and her generation.

  • She said that millennials were really good with sympathy. They're all pretty much mentally ill, but they comfort each other. Racism? It hurts so bad, and I feel so much guilt/shame/anger.
  •  
  • Beyond all the provisos about stereotypes and not everyone fitting into neat categories, any thoughts on this? True? False? Insightful? Not so much?

BTW Merry Christmas everyone! :angel:

I think there's a fair bit of truth in the first dot point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A decade or two ago I read a book titled "Generations".  The theory behind the book is that there are 4 generation types that if allowed to continue without a major cataclysm will cycle like the yearly spring, summer, fall and winter cycle.   Like the seasons there are times of difficulty and plenty.   The generations arising in difficulty will be stronger and stand better against a crisis where a generation raised in a time of plenty is weak and crumbles under pressure and difficulty.   I leave it up to the reader as an exercise to determine what type the rising generations is.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Anyone born before 1982, if you want to see how much the world has changed, here is Gen Z's big serious effort in LDS apologetics:

 

I’ve seen all the videos and they are all scholarly accurate and insightful... but the content of covered in heavy sarcasm. It is certainly a smear approach to fight anti. Their “Midnight Mormon” podcast is slightly more entertaining, but again it is a lot of smearing.

I’ve never been a fan of Kwaku (guy on the left). His “apologetic” style is always emotion based. Often times while he is dropping historical facts and logic, he is also attacking the person’s views. Because of the attack on their views, the historical facts get lost on deaf ears as their ego gets involved.

I honestly think the best thing to do when it comes to “apologetics” Is provide historical context, information of difficult topics; and faithful (but believable) responses to questions, and let everyone make the decision themselves. The anti Mormon movement is worst than politics.

I use to follow it closely, watching every FairMormon video I could, I would listen to interviews on popular anti Mormon podcasts, and read the current popular anti Mormon literature. It came painfully obvious to me that the decision to leave the church and attack it is never a factual or doctrinal one but an emotional one. No amount of correct information, no matter how eloquently said,  is going to persuade someone to rejoin the church or stop attacking it. You can tell in the interviews that most of the ex Mormons had little understanding of many basic doctrines of the church when applied to even the least complex situation. When a difficult situation arises, they resort back to basic mainstream Christian creeds. I remember an ex bishop saying “I just don’t believe that God would send my daughter to hell for eternity just for being gay”... well ... we don’t believe that so looks like you are in the right place... these interviews are full of these Freudian Slip moments where it shows they do not understand basic doctrines. That or they don’t care because emotionally they left and now they are trying to logically justify their decision.

Needless to say, I don’t follow it too much anymore. I’m far more interested in the social movements within the confines of the church. Articles being written by accepted 3rd party sources (LDSLIVING, MGF (this site even), Saints Unscrioted, etc.) that are pushing non-church backed messages like it’s ok for young men to not serve missions if they don’t want to, or it is ok for mothers to work while a daycare raises their kids, or that it is ok to watching media with filthy content (nudity, large amounts of swearing, and amoral messages).

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’ve seen all the videos and they are all scholarly accurate and insightful... but the content of covered in heavy sarcasm. It is certainly a smear approach to fight anti. Their “Midnight Mormon” podcast is slightly more entertaining, but again it is a lot of smearing.

I’ve never been a fan of Kwaku (guy on the left). His “apologetic” style is always emotion based. Often times while he is dropping historical facts and logic, he is also attacking the person’s views. Because of the attack on their views, the historical facts get lost on deaf ears as their ego gets involved.

I honestly think the best thing to do when it comes to “apologetics” Is provide historical context, information of difficult topics; and faithful (but believable) responses to questions, and let everyone make the decision themselves. The anti Mormon movement is worst than politics.

This appears to be an effort to fight on enemy ground. Jesus was occasionally condemnatory, as with the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, but he was never sarcastic or mocking (though see some prophets, e.g. Elijah, for a counterexample). I fear all such efforts, however well-intentioned, will ultimately be unsuccessful if not actually harmful. As one who has used mockery and sarcasm, I don't say this sanctimoniously. But wrong is wrong, even if I have been guilty of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vort said:

This appears to be an effort to fight on enemy ground. Jesus was occasionally condemnatory, as with the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, but he was never sarcastic or mocking (though see some prophets, e.g. Elijah, for a counterexample). I fear all such efforts, however well-intentioned, will ultimately be unsuccessful if not actually harmful. As one who has used mockery and sarcasm, I don't say this sanctimoniously. But wrong is wrong, even if I have been guilty of it.

That’s exactly it. They are trying to be to the antis and they are to us. However, we are standing on the grounds of Christianity and the antis are not. They cry out “you are being unchristian” and we can’t say anything back.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that dividing entire populations into so-called generations is foolish, a futile work that ultimately misses the entire point and takes the wrong things as important. I have felt this way for a long time, and the older I get, the more I disagree with the practice of generational "naming" and segregation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

I think that dividing entire populations into so-called generations is foolish, a futile work that ultimately misses the entire point and takes the wrong things as important. I have felt this way for a long time, and the older I get, the more I disagree with the practice of generational "naming" and segregation.

If you have not done so already - I would suggest you read the book "Generations".

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vort said:

I think that dividing entire populations into so-called generations is foolish, a futile work that ultimately misses the entire point and takes the wrong things as important. I have felt this way for a long time, and the older I get, the more I disagree with the practice of generational "naming" and segregation.

Heh.  Last time I checked, the breakdown was "70's kids", "80's kids", and "90's kids".    Stopped paying attention when they were trying to decide what to call the aughts.  Haven't checked for 20 years, until last month, and now I see the breakdown is different.  

At the end of the day, foolish or not, this is being done by quite a bit of people.  I don't have to agree with it, but it's useful to understand there's an awful lot of energy going into people's self-identity and how they think of others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2020 at 9:14 PM, Vort said:

I think that dividing entire populations into so-called generations is foolish, a futile work that ultimately misses the entire point and takes the wrong things as important. I have felt this way for a long time, and the older I get, the more I disagree with the practice of generational "naming" and segregation.

 

 

I think there is some argument in favor of general culture at the time when one is growing up, but otherwise I agree. My husband used to be very stuck on the generational naming, often condemning our fellow millennials, until I pointed out the many "typical" millennial characteristics he as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now