What Millennials Think About Politics
Millennials: Who are they? What do they believe? Why do we care?
Armed with data from the recent Reason-Rupe poll on the same subject, Reason TV explored these questions on the campus of University of California, Irvine by asking students in the 18-29 age group to talk about their political philosophies, their attitudes towards Democrats and Republicans, their reactions to the word socialism, and their perspectives on entrepreneurship.
"Right now, I think of [socialism] as more of a postive, because I think our country could use it a little bit more," said one student who typifies attitude represented in the Reason-Rupe poll, which found that 42 percent of millennials favor socialism over capitalism.
However, as Reason polling director Emily Ekins explains, this may be because millennials simply have a different understanding of socialism than prior generations who came of age during the Cold War.
"If they were to understand that 'socialism' meant government running Facebook, Amazon, Uber… they would not like that," says Ekins, who found that only 32 percent of millennials favor a "government-managed economy" over a "free market economy."
Millennials also have a distrust of the two-party system and increasingly identify as independents, with 34 percent declining to identify with a political party even when asked if they lean one way or another, a rate three times higher than that of Americans over 30 years old.
Ekins says that millennials speak a different political language than older generations, a language shaped in no small part by major world events like the 9/11 attacks, the financial crisis, and two wars in the Middle East, all of which occured as this generation came of an age where politics began to matter to them.
"We need to be more concrete and specific with the words we use when we talk to young people," says Ekins. "Words like capitalism and socialism, language from the Cold War, post-World War II era is just not going to work, because those words have lost meaning."
Approximately 7 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Paul Detrick. Scroll down for downloadable versions. And subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Reason seems to be really interested in fooling themselves into thinking millennials are libertarian.
They also seem eager to portray millenials as needing to be engaged or politically catered to.
Millenials in this country grew up in with the largest, most expensive, and most repeatedly demonstrably inept governments in history and still have ideas like; "If they were to understand that 'socialism' meant government running Facebook, Amazon, Uber... they would not like that,"
In their own words; "Words like capitalism and socialism, language from the Cold War, post-World War II era is just not going to work, because those words have lost meaning."
Mountains of dead bodies in the past don't make sense to millenials, it's too concrete.
Is Ekins a millennial herself? She was a PhD candidate in 2010 so that puts her on the late edge of Gen X if not older (going by the 25/45/65/85/05 generational division).
She claims tweener status.
She also makes a good 6th man as 2 guard running a 1-3-1 offense. So i'm told.
in case that is too obscure for people
That would be a pretty old PhD candidate, pushing into the mid 30s
Mountains of dead bodies in the past don't make sense to millenials, it's too concrete.
I like the way you put that.
Yep, ONLY 32% of them are telling them they're out and out communists, we'll be in the libertarian moment any time now!
At least we can be thankful that 'libertarian' isn't losing its meaning.
It gains new meaning every day.
My experience with millennials is that they give "Somalia" ad an example of a "libertarian" society.
It is a libertopian society. After all, what gives you the right to use your GUNS to coerce me into paying for your protection racket (which you call the police, the courts, and the military)? I don't see any reason libertopian logic can rationally stop at this point. Either you can compel me to pay for your schemes, or you can't. There is no magic line around the little bit of government that you would have hold off complete chaos.
But you sort of have a point. The real debate (from an economic perspective) between left and right is something like the Texas vs Sweden, not Somalia vs Venezuela. Unfortunately, your side is just as or more likely to bring up the USSR, Cuba, or Venezuela as a straw-man goal of the left as we are to mock the failures of libertopian Somalia.
Every time Reason does a story on Millennials I hate them even more.
Yes, I'm pretty handy with the broad brush.
I am so, so glad they aren't. Glibertarians are dinosaurs, and the meteor is coming.
The sad fact is, the vast majority of people, not just the young, have no idea about politics nor ideology in general, nor do they understand the vast majority of current issues, and neither do they care to find out.
Understanding all these ideologies and issues requires time and effort, which most people are never going to do.
We're screwed.
True but it's far worse among the millennials. They really have been dumbed down by high technology and had their capacity for abstract thinking and problem solving blunted. Never had to use a card catalog to find a book; never had to imagine what a movie monster looked like; never had to strategize from a few pixels floating around a small TV screen. Photorealism or bust with those kids.
This is hilarious. Not only is it fucking retarded to refer to millions of individuals as "they", the idea that increased technology makes people dumb is the closest thing you can say to "get off my lawn" without shaking your cane.
So when you were young, was it the fashion at the time to wear an onion in your belt?
Technological advance does not inherently make people dumb, but it does remove the skills for doing what the technology now does. Hopefully the users gain other new skills at the same time.
100 years ago, technology was blunting the skills of cooking over an open fire, making one's own clothing, riding a horse. All useful skills at the time (and I fear they may become useful for us again pretty soon) but not really fundamental to human nature. But this is different. Technology is concretizing abstractions for us now. Abstract thinking is what separates us from the animals and we're blunting that skill.
Uh huh. Ok, grandpa. How are your swordfighting skills? Are they blunted too? Wait, I think I hear the orderly calling you to dinner. At 4:30 PM.
^ Exhibit A proving my point.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm not a millennial you obsessive fucking moron. Maybe you should get your reading glasses.
So you're old enough to know better. Even worse.
Your social security check is late! Things cost more than they used to! Young people use curse words!
You REALLY do not have to use none of that there new fangled stuff if you don't want to. Seriously, you can live in a cave and cook over an open fire all you want. Go for it, we all support you if that's what you want to do.
One thing I have noticed, being the father of a 12-year-old, is that current kids seem to have a lot less imaginative play than what I've seen over the past 50 years. And who can blame them? When I was a kid our parents used to tell us (on weekends or during summer) to get out of the house in the morning and they didn't want to see us until dinnertime. So we had no choice but to invent our own fun, which often meant cops and robbers, army or similar make-believe.
Kids today have formalized 'playdates' with structured activities, and tons of after-school programs, to ensure they're never left to create play on their own. And a lot of activities seem to involve "watching" more than anything else.
What I don't know is if this is a good or a bad thing. My generation (I'm in the youngest of the boomers) may have had all that imaginative childhood, and it has led to the unrealistic feelz of progs dominating so much of government and media. The millenials seem more interested in making money rather than poetry. That could be a very good thing for everyone. And it definitely would make them more likely to be libertarian than the save-the-world boomers might be.
"They" are living proof of power of propaganda, inept education system and ignorance being raised to the level of an attribute.
sorry if you don't like being called ignorant sheep... try not being one.
Not all of life is on your ipod.
Never had to use a buggy whip to get their horses to run faster, never had to keep a check book balanced because of online banking, never had to wait a week to have a picture developed because of digital cameras, never had to use a pay phone because of cell phones, never had to wait until Monday to stand in line at a bank because of ATMs, never had to crank over the motor in their car because of electronic ignition, never had us graph paper because of computers... I could go on like that all day, you know, but it would be just as meaningless as what you just posted.
Technology is the only betterment of mankind. Not religion and most definitely not government or bureaucracy.
Biggest rock is best rock!
That's not the point I was making. The technologies that you're talking about enable people to learn new useful skills at the expense of skills peripheral to human nature. I'm not nostalgic at all for the days before computers or the Internet. These are in fact a boon to learning "old" skills that you would never have been exposed to in the old days.
My point is that abstract thinking is not a skill you want to hand over to computers, because you're going to lose it. That's far worse than losing the ability to shear a sheep.
Computers can engage in abstract thinking for us?!? Holy shit, you've discovered artificial intelligence! This might be the singularity!
They can perform the tasks that previously required abstract thinking, causing the humans to lose those skills, yes.
No they can't you fucking imbecile. You don't know a fucking thing about computers. They can't perform anything even remotely close to "abstract thought".
But keep making yourself look like an idiot, it seems to be your thing.
Maybe if I post it twice you'll read it correctly the second time? Triumph of hope over experience, most likely.
So are you going to post a detailed, concrete example or examples of how computers perform tasks that supplant abstract thinking, or are you just going to continue to repeat your stupidity? Be precise now. Come on, you can do it.
Every photorealistic video game for starters.
You haven't explained how that supplants abstract thinking in any way. Oh, that's right: that's because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Come on, keep digging! Try again! This is fun!
There are examples of large numbers of people who have decided to rely on technology rather than to use their abstract thinking. The whole mortgage securitization system that came unraveled in 2007/2008 was based on flawed financial models. These were very sophisticated models that required advanced information systems to process huge amounts of data. Users of these systems relied on technology and were unable to see the flaws in the underlying models.
This is a human error. But unthinking reliance on the technology that facilitated the application of flawed financial models greatly contributed to a massive financial meltdown. The geezers did not understand the model or the technology. The whizkids did not understand the limitations of modeling.
It's not a fault of technology, but a fault of humans who use technology.
"It's not a fault of technology, but a fault of humans who use technology."
All we need to do is to take these faulty humans out of the picture and everything will be fine.
"There are examples of large numbers of people who have decided to rely on technology rather than to use their abstract thinking."
This is lacking in understanding of the banking business. Most people rely on trust when it comes to dealing with a banker, and leave the technical details with the banker. That's always been in the banking business, and I'm sure it's the same today. Though of course the technical aspects ofthe business have become insanely complicated over time.
Seems like the same thing is happening right now in Vancouver. But can we really justify human stupidity by blaming modern technologies? In my world, people are still the same as they were in the 80s. They are just overfed with information they don't need to survive.
You don't know a fucking thing about computers. They can't perform anything even remotely close to "abstract thought".
Epi, I'm pretty sure our most basic computers (calculators) have blunted the abstract skill of mathematics in most people.
You...you mean like slide rulers and abacuses?
Do you know what a "slide ruler" is, Episiarch, or how it works?
Most people didn't use slide rules for everyday math in the old days, because they were fairly cumbersome. Indispensible for multiplying series of numbers, but most people didn't need to do that.
"you mean like slide rulers and abacuses"
These tools actually make the abstract concrete, as you'd know if you weren't so keen on dismissing them.
"My point is that abstract thinking is not a skill you want to hand over to computers"
I get where you're coming from, but I think much more important that the possibility of losing abstract reasoning is something much more fundamental. Something that every living thing shares with us. That's our ability to focus our attention. Computers seem to encourage and incentive a scattering of our ability to focus. I think this is more worrisome.
It's not just computers that are scattering attention. Phones, tablets, 24/7 TV, the glut of entertainment prospects overall saps the ability for younger folks to learn to concentrate like their parents or grandparents did.
Couple that with the diminishing influence of analog tools (writing, paper, pencil, etc.) and you have a recipe for a vastly different future than any generation before has experienced.
Let's hope it doesn't make "Idiocracy" a documentary.
I doubt that technology made it an idiocracy - idiots make it an idiocracy.
The ATM thing brings back memories of waiting on the bank line for hours with mom so we could get money to go food shopping.
Now I get pissed off if the one guy in front of me at the ATM does two transactions.
And ATMs themselves are being rendered less useful due to the ubiquity of debit/credit acceptance.
Hell, I use a credit card to get a soda at the cafeteria at work. One quick swipe and I'm passing the previous customer who's still fumbling their change into their purse or wallet. I go to an ATM maybe four times a year. I had to get my PIN reset once because I forgot it from lack of use.
I use my debit card more and more.
Many of my, uh, activities require cash though.
"Technology is the only betterment of mankind. Not religion and most definitely not government or bureaucracy."
You might be surprised at how much investment in and promotion of technology that governments and bureaucracies get themselves involved in.
They can be taught. They're only politically stupid because they've been taught to be by the state and/or their clueless yuppy parents. But until they get out into the real world, they aren't going to learn too much, because let's face it, understanding politics is hard and boring, and when your biggest worry is a grade and how much your parents are allowing you on their expense accounts this month, you aren't too awful motivated.
They can't be taught until first they are taught to think.
The average youth of today has the reasoning power of a road kill armadillo... ie: ZERO.
Not even the most basic of cognitive skills, if it isn't in their precious ipod it doesn't exist.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You can't fool me. There ain't no Sanity Claus.
There was, but it was replaced by the FYTW Claus.
Millennials! The Shock Troops of the Libertarian Movement!
/Reason derp
I liked them better when they were Generation Y.
Generation "Why" would suggest they are possessed of limitless curiosity.
If they can't wikipedia it, it didn't happen.
So, no. Although I'm totally ok with "Generation 'Dear God, Why'"?
I'm encouraged, actually, by the fact that they tend to be against government control of the economy. They just honestly for the most part don't seem to understand that that's what socialism is.
I get the impression that what goes on in the average millennial head when asked "what do you think of socialism" is something like "well, I like parties, and I have a lot of friends, and I don't like being lonely, so I guess I'm a socialist!"
Precisely -- and when asked about a "free market" there's a similar misunderstanding. "free" has a good connotation of course.
Later in the poll, when asked if government programs or the market provide greater opportunity, they're split.
They bring their parents to job interviews, don't want to learn how to drive, and insist that texting on the job is a fundamental human right.
We're not talking about hair length or musical preferences here -- this generation is (in general of course) going to have major problems coping with the real world.
"this generation is (in general of course) going to have major problems coping with the real world."
Be sure of one thing (or two): they will change and the real world will change.
Ok Reason, this is starting to get closer to 'in need of intervention' territory. This 'millennials are libertarian' delusion needs to end, and I say this as one. STOP trying to kid yourself into thinking that political apathy is equal to libertarianism. In the end, political apathy is more likely to spawn demands for 'someone who's tough and will get shit down' than a bunch of anarchists with a solid philosophical grounding.
Millenials may not have a solid ideology but they're willing to spread any nonsensical facebook meme in the name of 'fairness' and 'equality'. I know Millenials who are completely apolitical who suddenly jumped on the 'destruction of women's rights' over the Hobby Lobby ruling. Millenials actively favour the government intervening in situations where they want to, and only start to show 'anti government' tendencies when the government intervenes in something they like. Yes, it's vapid, inconsistent and self-serving, but that's the nature of the political environment that they are exposed to. It should be no surprise that they choose to replicate that.
The goal of libertarians should be attempting to constructively win over those interested who lack a pre-existing ideology, not to pretend that dissatisfaction with the current political system and greater social tolerance naturally causes Millenials to swing libertarian.
"vapid, inconsistent and self-serving"
Thus are the politics of the young, for the most part, masked behind shrieking idealism, of course.
Gen-X was no different, nor the Boomers, nor the "Greatest Generation."
In the 1930s old folks were editorializing about this lazy new generation with their cars and telephones who are never going to develop the skills they need to understand the *real* world.
Hell, in 1105 Peter the Venerable was complaining about the crazy kids with their astrolabes and turbans stargazing with Arabs and neglecting their Latin.
Kids just never will learn!
Millienials will come of age and eventually start bitching about how stupid Gen Z is, and on and on . . .
In the 1930s old folks were editorializing about this lazy new generation with their cars and telephones who are never going to develop the skills they need to understand the *real* world.
Yes, FDR's version of the millennials. Remember anything FDR did?
I'm not sure "they're as selfish and stupid as Baby Boomers" is an argument in favor of Reason's obsession, actually.
Hence my point. This is not a push towards libertarianism, this is normal dissatisfied youth in a political system. Reason needs to stop pretending that this naturally leads to the outcome they want because history has shown that is not the case.
Mandatory "lazy generation" reference.
Yep.
Is there any generation that this doesn't describe? Maybe pre baby boomers?
Not to the same degree as with millenials. Remember the expression "it's a free country" for when someone was doing something you didn't like but tolerated? I've never once heard a millenial use it.
In my experience with my fellow Millenials (Canadians and some Americans) the more common political notion is "how do we get the government to listen to 'the demands of the people'?" The majority of Millenials believe the fundamental problem with government is not that its naturally flawed, but that it is broken because of current leadership and once more virtuous individuals are in power everything will be difficult. That is how they got them to vote for Obama, and that is how in Canada Trudeau Jr. will be elected. Emotional idealism is the driving factor in Millenials' political thinking.
*Everything will be different. Difficult is the more likely scenario of course, honest slip there.
The majority of Millenials believe the fundamental problem with government is not that its naturally flawed, but that it is broken because of current leadership and once more virtuous individuals are in power
So basically they are like every other age cohort, then.
Yeah, I'm probably not being clear on that, but these are characteristics pretty common across all age groups. My ultimate point is that Reason is claiming that Millenials are proto-libertarians when they, for the most part, share the exact same political ideals as their elders.
That became a popular meme even in libertarian circles in the 1990s & 2000s. To some extent it's probably correct in the USA & many other democracies: the gov't is less libertarian than the people, because of public choice, etc.
Future Reason headline:
WORLD ENDS - 42% OF MILLENNIALS ARE "BUMMED OUT," 38% ANGRY THAT THE BEYONCE CONCERT WAS CANCELLED, AND 20% ARE TOO BUSY PLAYING VIDEO GAMES TO ANSWER OUR POLLSTERS
I really doubt any poll - even a Reason poll that I think would be honestly designed - of millennials, or anybody else for that matter.
People are deluged with telemarketers and junk solicitations. Busy people have no time for such nonsense, and screen it out. I really think that the only people who respond to pollsters are so bored or lonely that they have nothing better to do.
Everytime a pollster manages to get through my screening, I just hang up.
well, let's be honest here, it's a lot easier to define what is socially 'liberal' than what is economically 'liberal'. Just ask a few of these kiddies and you'll see. It's easy to say that ok, I'm socially liberal, I'm for gay marriage, legalizing weed, etc., but just ask them what economically liberal means and watch the deer in the headlights look and the uh, uh, I don't really, like, know...
When everything you do economically is with mom and dad's credit cards, it's a little hard to understand economics. And you aren't very likely to learn anything real world about it from some liberal university economics prof. How you start to learn that, is you get a job and look at the FICA and state tax deductions on your paycheck. That will teach you more than 4 years of college in about 2 minutes.
"you aren't very likely to learn anything real world about it from some liberal university economics prof"
Note that this "poll" was conducted entirely of students at UCI. I wonder if you polled the millenials out working on a construction site if you would get the same spread?
I wonder if you polled the millenials out working on a construction site if you would get the same spread?
No, but I am wagering that it would depend on if these youngsters have joined a union or not as to which direction it would lean in.
The video is filmed at UCI, but the R/R poll was done more scientifically.
Maybe 10% of the population understands, even the basic principles, of economics.
I seriously doubt that 10% of the population of the USA could point out and name more than 5 states on a US map. And I would wager a large amount of money that not even 10% could look at a global map and name 5 countries. Do you think that even 10% could name one of their own state representatives or senators in US Congress?
The population of the US has been dumbed down to almost the level of idiocracy. They are taught that they can't say anything or someone will be offended and that they are supposed to be ready to pee their pants at the slightest thing scary, and obey authority without question. Besides some skill in a specific field that allows them to go to work in some office, most US citizens are effectively retards.
Pointing out places on a US or world map is a skill almost no one uses in real life.
Understanding supply and demand, which I would consider to be the bedrock of economics, is fundamental to doing business or negotiation. You're going to get a lot more people who understand it, even if they don't use the "right" terminology.
Hardly the case. There's an entire field of industry (geographic information science) blowing up around that right now. You haven't noticed the proliferation of analytic products being produced on maps in everyday news articles, particularly online? Or the businesses that use cartography for their every day workflow and decision-making process?
It's become a subject of increased emphasis at the undergraduate and graduate levels in colleges...and it's filtering its way down to the high schools, thanks to the increased availability and affordability of GIS products to casual users.
Interesting, I hadn't thought about that.
How much of the work is done by computers, though? Saying "show me a map of eastern Ukraine" and having a map of eastern Ukraine display before your eyes isn't teaching you to look up places on a world map.
Actually, the individual analyst has to do a lot, considering that 2D cartography involves a lot of distortion due to the shape of the earth and that there's no such thing as a perfect 2D map that faithfully represents all aspects of terrain simultaneously. It depends greatly on the type of product you're trying to produce with your map.
Not to mention that in aspects of business, you also have to be able to map and analyze the human terrain as well...behavior, infrastructure, demographics, etc. And that's always changing, as is the physical terrain.
Yes of course, but my point is that the specific skills these polls ask about aren't being used. A person can be very skilled at making and using maps in general and still not pass those tests because they haven't been trained on those maps.
I consider myself to be very good at cartography and geography, but if you showed me a map of Nigeria with administrative division boundaries, and asked me to point to certain ones, I'd be utterly helpless because I've never trained on those before. If you gave me a relief map of Nigeria, though, and asked me to point out where the cell towers should be placed for optimal coverage, I could do that easily.
You sound like someone who would appreciate an introduction to ArcGIS, then. If you've got a decent laptop at home, you might want to give this book a shot...it comes with a six month free license for the software (I would suggest buying, not renting).
http://www.amazon.com/GIS-Tuto.....c+workbook
Buying, not renting, the book, I mean.
I'll check that out, thanks.
Pointing out places on a US or world map is a skill almost no one uses in real life.
Oh really, oh zen master of cooking over an open fire and using card catalogs?
Talk about irony.
You totally missed my point, anyway.
I must have missed the place where I said those skills were important today.
I do sure as hell hope they don't become important soon, but hope is failing.
Economics is like how Feynman described quantum physics. If you think you understand it, you don't.
Sounds like Kant.
economically 'liberal'
One problem is that the phrase has two meanings that are polar opposites. Do you meaning economically 'liberal' in the American sense or in the original sense of the word 'liberal'?
Let's just look at WHY things are they way they are instead of imagining one way or the other how it actually is.
Kids these days are more likely to view socialism as a 'positive' thing? Why? Because the progs have had complete control of our education system for decades. What else could we honestly expect? So it's very likely most kids are going to roll out of college as full on wide eyed socialists. The rest of us have a responsibility to teach them to unlearn all of the brain washing if we expect anything to change.
So I don't know why we don't change the subject from 'are millenials libertarians'? To which they answer is a definitive NO, to 'how can we teach these brain washed little sheep TO become libertarians'.
It amazing how much some older people love, love, love generational collectivism. You'll note it's never the kids going on about "my generation", it's always the collectivist old farts going on about "the kids these days". And the best part is that old people have been doing this since there were people who lived long enough to be old. But they're not even self-aware enough to realize they're just acting like the ultimate stereotypical old person.
You'll note it's never the kids going on about "my generation", it's always the collectivist old farts going on about "the kids these days".
I won't note that because it's wrong. I take it you've never heard of The Who "Talkin bout my generation" or the scads of other pop artists among the BB and GX and even the Millenials writing songs collectivizing their age cohort that go platinum.
Pop artists writing dumbass songs = the thoughts of every single individual born between arbitrary dates.
Ok grandpa. Cool story bro. You want me to turn the tv on and change the channel to your stories?
Make sure you use that rotary dial to change the channels, the remote control will make you dumb, (;
Goddamn Elvis and his Devil Hips are perverting the youths!
Lots of people were buying those "dumbass songs". Maybe it was the grizzled WW2 vets buying up The Who albums out of a sense of irony?
Can you have any conversation without attacking people? You come across like an entire geek convention of personality disorders.
Yup...and every new generation thinks that they can't learn anything from the people who came before, and that they're going to revolutionize how everything works, right up until they're no longer the new generation and then they bitch about how worthless the kids are.
Generational collectivism is just as stupid and delusional as most other collectivism...no matter where on the age scale you fall.
Acknowledging that I'm engaging in collectivism with that first paragraph. 🙂
Software geeks are notorious for this, and that's why GUIs suck everywhere and everything is so bug riddled.
We just got a state of the art digital oscilloscope at work. Fantastic hardware with a 25 gigasample per second sensor. Software interface looks like something out of the 1980s written by chimps. It crashed during the initial demo.
We tend to write our own interfaces that control the test equipment remotely over Ethernet as a result.
Software geeks are notorious for this, and that's why GUIs suck everywhere and everything is so bug riddled.
Serious question, which thing in UC's post are they notorious for? This is a question I've wondered about too and it would be good to get a clear picture of what you mean.
^This
It's not just old people. I work with the military, and about 30% of the conversations I hear today revolve around how "today's soldier" is so much worse than soldiers that were around five or ten years ago. Of course, when I joined the military almost 20 years ago, I heard the same crap from older soldiers back then.
It's nothing more than people trying to assert the perceived superiority of whatever group they believe they belong to over some other group they think everyone else belongs to. Personally, I don't think people are any smarter, dumber, hard-working, or lazier now than they've ever been.
That's my overall point. Collectivizing individuals is fucking stupid, and doing it based on their being born between completely arbitrary dates is extra crispy fried stupid. People are people.
Yup. We earn what we earn in life because of our individual choices. There might be some common trends, but I know plenty of people in my "generation" who've done better than me, and quite a few more who've done worse. Had nothing to do with whatever collective group we were a part of...just the decisions we made as individuals.
And I really wish Reason would stop beating this dead horse. It's getting fucking tiresome seeing variations of the same headline.
Don't seek approval and validation from young people for your views, Reason...the one generational constant that is true is that they'll find it pathetic and won't respect it. 🙂
Nicely put.
Collectivizing individuals is fucking stupid, and doing it based on their being born between completely arbitrary dates is extra crispy fried stupid.
versus
You'll note it's never the kids going on about "my generation", it's always the collectivist old farts going on about "the kids these days".
Makes you think. Well, it makes me think, not sure if it's possible for someone like you.
For all you know I might be younger than you, yet you assume I'm old for some reason. Could it be... collectivization based on age cohort?
You're not very good at reading...do you need your reading glasses? I didn't say all old farts, I said the collectivist ones...like you. But nice try to redirect away from your own collectivism. Well, not really, it was super weak, but you're old and I have to cut you some slack.
I didn't say all old farts, I said the collectivist ones
You did, however, refer to "the kids" as a collective and make a definitive statement about what they "never" do, as a group. Tu quoque doesn't necessarily undermine your argument, but it does make you look pretty foolish.
Epi, I am a millenial and can say with certainty that everyone saying negative things about this generation are largely right.
Also, the idea that generalizing is the same thing as collectivizing is wrong. Collectivism is when I say 'everyone who belongs to a group is bad' whereas what most people are arguing is that millenial tend to be bad, though there are exceptions. That strikes me as completely reasonable.
Furthermore, it's actually idiotic not to make generalizations. For example, Britain in 1943 was the sort of country that withstood constant bombings and deprivation in order to fight for themselves and the future of the free world. Today, it's a society in which you can't go out at night without stepping around 15 year olds who are so drunk they're collapsed in their own vomit and hooligans riot in the streets of London when their welfare bennies are cut .5%. Oh, it's also a country where roving Islamic rape gangs were ignored by the government because they didn't wish to appear 'racist.'
You'd have to be an idiot not to generalize about the decline of British fortitude over the last 60 years. Of course, Britain in the early 1900s did all kinds of things that were horrible which modern Brits wouldn't do, such as the Boer War death camps, but the point is that you can clearly see the differences between different cultures. It's stupid to pretend they don't exist.
Actually, it is pretty idiotic to make generalizations. Do you really think England is the dystopian hellhole you're painting it out to be? Have you ever actually been there? Because I can't believe that you have if you're going on like that.
And that is exactly why generalization and collectivism are stupid. Your "generation" is no different than any other. People are people. A lot of people tend to be lazy and stupid no matter when they were born. Just look at Solomon Grundy as a perfect example.
Actually, it is pretty idiotic to make generalizations.
People are people. A lot of people tend to be lazy and stupid no matter when they were born.
Complete and utter immunity to self-awareness.
Yes, totally. I'll dig my hole even deeper and say that most people have eyes, most people need to eat food, and most people are people.
This is pretty interesting coming from someone who constantly 'collectivizes' progressives.
Moreover, the idea that generalizations are wrong is one of the most actively idiotic things you have ever said. Let us say, hypothetically, you had two people. One is a 23 year old from an anarchistic region of Syria and the other is an 80 year old woman from Kansas.
Epi, let me ask a question. Which one is more likely to join a terrorist organization? Once you've answered that question, let me ask a follow up. How did you make your decision?
Ding, ding, ding! Through rational generalization and pattern recognition. That's the thing: Generalizations are just pattern recognition and it's idiotic to argue that people should ignore obvious patterns.
Also, I have been to England on multiple occasions. The first time I was there, I left London the day its bus routes and underground train system were bombed. The same week, there was rioting in Glasgow over the G7 summit complete with cops in full body armor.
In 1950, how many gangs that spent their days grooming 12 year olds to be their rape victims were ignored by British authorities due to fears of being called racist? In 1950's Britain, how many people were arrested for hate speech and interrogated for insulting Muslims?
There I go collectivizing again! I should just ignore basic facts like you.
And I lived in England for six years and never personally witnessed a riot or a bombing (and I was there during the 7/7 attacks). It's like anywhere else...your experience is largely dependent on where you live.
Also, the reason that I suspect Epi collectivizes progressives is less that he's a collectivist than that progressivism is an ideology for bigots and fools. It's like accusing him of collectivizing spree killers because he thinks they're all bad people. Their choice to be spree killers makes them bad people, whereas choosing to believe in progressivism makes one less intelligent. 🙂
I've personally known many progressives who were neither bigots nor fools. You should retract your collectivist statement.
The point is that everyone collectivizes because not collectivizing is fundamentally impossible. Moreover, it's undesirable since it requires you to overlook obvious differences between areas and results in you drawing improper conclusions.
For example, is someone from Sweden or Detroit more likely to be violent? If you said Detroit, how do you know? Show your work in a way which does not require any generalizations.
Dunbar's number strikes again!
And I've lived in America my whole life and never witnessed a murder. In fact, I live in Chicago and have never personally witnessed a violent crime.
I guess I can't make any claims about general criminal tendencies in inner city Chicago since I've never personally witnessed a gang murder.
It sure would be stupid to generalize and argue that the British have less respect for free speech than Americans given that teenage British girls are getting arrested and interrogated by cops because they ask their teachers to move them to a different study group since none of the girls in their current group speak English.
Wanting to be in a study group you can understand is clearly worthy of police interrogation, so it would be wrong to draw conclusions about the loss of British free speech liberties and the public support for such tyrannical policies.
Also, I should really trawl the Reason archives for some of the things you've said about cops. You should probably retract some of those statements since they were awfully collectivizing and I wouldn't want you to look like a hypocrite.
Jesus Christ the UK is even more fucked up than I thought. No authority figure in the story (or the BBC) even try to PRETEND that the 14 year old girl did anything other than ask to move to a study group where she could understand the language.
In 1950s all you had to deal with was crippling industrial poverty and getting treated like crap (by both locals and officials) for being non-white. In the 1850s London was a cesspool of poverty and corruption despite being the centre of the world. Ah, the good ol' days of British Empire!
Exactly my point. I was not saying Britain was better which is why I mentioned the Boer War death camps. I was just saying that the British people are different and that we could therefore draw generalizations about those differences
America in the 1960s was more anti-black than it is today. That's a generalization. Americans were more violent in 1990 than they were in 1960. That's also a generalization.
Both generalizations just happen to be right.
Fair enough, I think Solomon's 'you youngsters and your rock n' roll' statements are getting to me. I can see definite patterns in the way many Millenials think, I just don't see how their emotional idealism is vastly different from the Baby Boomer's emotional idealism.
The Boomers weren't translating their emotional idealism and antiwar spirit into voting for Lyndon Johnson, for starters.
No, instead they just translated it to the next forty years of paternal statism and masturbatory 'interventionism'.
It wasn't their 20-something selves that did that. At least the Boomers started out trying to change the world in accord with their ideals.
Millennials are voting for Chocolate Nixon from the getgo because someone tells them he wants to help people.
And that is different then youth record voting for McGovern because you said so. Right.
Sure you don't want to act in some complaints about pop music and 'photorealistic' video games?
Americans were more violent in 1990 than they were in 1960.
That is not true.
The rise of violence centers around crumbling inner cities.
Suburbs small towns and rural areas saw not rise in crime.
Should point out that by generalizing you missed this important point.
If generaliz'ns were always wrong, there'd be no insurance biz.
Actually, I lived in England for six years and everyday life there is nothing like you're describing.
Your description is about as accurate as saying that every school in America is nothing but a shooting range because you saw coverage of Sandy Hook on the news.
That's because the Federation makes humans weak. Take away their creature comforts and they become as vicious as any Klingon.
The other day I was thinking about how about 50 thousand Londoners died during the German bombing campaign and what their reaction was, compared to how we, generally, are still wetting our pants over 9/11.
Uh, Dresden?
You're romanticizing the blitz. It was characterized by an increase in disorderly behaviour on the part of youth.
that everyone saying negative things about this generation are largely right.
So you really do have horns and your men no penises?
Oh, it's also a country where roving Islamic rape gangs were ignored by the government because they didn't wish to appear 'racist.'
I am beginning to think that government ignored it not because they feared racism but because it is government.
Sure, but isn't there an objective measure? I mean Americans had more freedom 100 years ago. You could never get the original bill of rights and enumerated powers passed in 5 states today, let alone all of them.
So generations since the founding have wanted to reduce liberty and increase the state- and have done it. If all generations were actually the same today's generation would support the same as the founding fathers. For a libertarian the complaints about "this" generation are justified if the polls are true.
"I mean Americans had more freedom 100 years ago."
As long as you weren't black, gay or female, or someone wanting to associate with the same.
And you wouldn't want to be a war protestor in 1914, and God help you trying to invoke constitutional rights against the police...
"As long as you weren't black, gay or female, or someone wanting to associate with the same."
With the rise of the regulatory state?
I'd wager you're wrong. Just because you personally don't consider them doesn't mean that a vast, unavoidable network of regulations currently exist that didn't in 1914.
Assuming you mean 1917, since we weren't at war in 1914, that's due to your pal Woody, the harbinger of progressivism.
Bo, do you know who finally let war critic Eugene V Debs out of prison?
Hint: absolutely not a leftist.
and God help you trying to invoke constitutional rights against the police...
Most people in 1914 never saw a policemen for months at a time.
And if the police (sheriff) started bouncing people around he would either get shot or run out of office.
You really need to remember that in 1914 nearly everyone was living on the farm.
Yeah, freedom of association has made great leaps since post-reconstruction, post-14th amendment 1914 where it was legally permissible to be a bigot or an asshole to 2014, where association among all people is mandated by force of government.
B-b-b-but minority groups that I identify with have it better now! Therefore, FREEDOM!
Or maybe both sets of complainers were right, and the quality really has been declining over the entire time period? Heresy I know, but maybe it deserves to be considered.
The only thing that changes over time (in my job field) is the levels of funding and emphasis poured into training, which does affect the overall product. But then that's also always been the case...soldiers never come right out of their MOS training with all of the skills they need to perform their jobs.
And the units they go to have always bitched about how the new guys don't show up already knowing everything they're supposed to know (and how they're too "busy" to train them). And it's no more or less the case now than it ever was.
What's probably affected the quality more is that they've been at war for 13 years, with no end in sight, and that they lose a lot of experience simply because their mid-level people get tired of deployments and decide they'd rather go do something else with their lives.
Because once we leave Afghanistan, O'Bummer is already spinning things up for the military in Iraq and Syria. And Putin is setting the stage for war in Europe.
No argument about the deleterious effect of continuous war.
I don't have any experience with military matters so I'll defer to your judgement on the particulars. It's just that I get sick of people citing the fact that, for example, Socrates complained about how horrid the young were becoming in 500 BC, as if it proves that old people are always complaining about the young and can thus be ignored.
What they seem to forget is that a couple of generations, the Greek states that had been free for centuries lost their independence to Alexander, and never regained it until the 20th century AD.
Socrates did not say that, it is constantly misattributed to him. It's a quote from a play by Aristophanes that is parodying Socrates.
Matter of fact, far from Socrates saying that, Socrates was executed precisely because he was "corrupting the youth."
And therefore, by Grundy's reasoning above, he's the reason the Greek city states lost their independence.
...which is completely historically inaccurate as the main reason that Macedon was able to conquer the Greek city states was due to the Peloponnesian War that crippled Athens and to a lesser extent Sparta. Greece was conquered by its own wartime stupidity, not some vague misquote of Socrates.
They also didn't lose their freedom to Alexander but to Alexander's dad.
Also I think the Macedonian Phalanx and Philip's use of Heavy Calvary which devastated more classical hoplite opponents had a bit to do with it as well.
Do you see the irony in your first sentence?
I'm 25. I'd say the "get off my lawn crowd" is a hell of a lot closer to being right about my generation then the Reason polling view, broadly speaking.
I mean, even leaving aside all kinds of debatable shit, you're talking about a generation that overwhelmingly supported Obama. Anyone who fell for that piece of shit doesn't have much libertarian cred in my book.
The Arbiter speaks?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Ladies and gentlemen, Bo literally, no fucking shit, just said this.
Plenty of older people voted for him too. I think the main reason Obama got elected was that everyone was so sick of Bush (whose platform McCain ran on) and got re-elected because Romney didn't really disagree with Obama on anything substantiative and came off as even less likable (which is pretty funny, considering Obama has the personality of cardboard, whenever he isn't acting like a spoiled brat).
It amazing how much some older people love, love, love generational collectivism.
...
it's never the kids going on about "my generation", it's always the collectivist old farts going on about "the kids these days"
Did you actually write this with no awareness of the irony?
For the love of Christ, Reason, stop it.
SOCON!!!!!!!
Socialism means free stuff from the government. Who DOESN'T like that?
Umm, those of us that are paying for it?
Let's get our terms straight:
Socialism means "beer and cigarettes are on the middle class".
Communism means "everyone with glasses gets their head bashed in with a rifle butt."
My thoughts on the subject.
"Millennials are the libertarians of the future and always will be."
I will paraphrase Harry Browne: groups don't think, act, or decide. Only individuals do. It is nonsense to treat millions of similarly-aged people as some kind of tribe.
And now for something completely different: there is a guy named Chris Langan who claims to have an IQ of 200. He published a theory of everything. It is some of the most derptastic word salad I have ever seen. Here are some samples:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
WHY ISN'T THIS MAN A REAL-LIFE DOC SAVAGE - MAN OF BRONZE?
It might be that he actually not that smart, but is good at impressing people with big words.
Nah, that can't be it.
*he's
Me fail English? Unpossible!
"Langan attended Reed College and later Montana State University, but faced with financial and transportation problems,...... he dropped out"
Smartest guy in the world couldn't find a job?
And couldn't get a scholarship either, it seems.
Even with perfect SAT scores.
I will paraphrase Harry Browne: groups don't think, act, or decide. Only individuals do. It is nonsense to treat millions of similarly-aged people as some kind of tribe.
When you pick up a pencil, there are actually an unimaginable number of particles interacting with each other, in your hand, in the pencil, in the air, in different ways, many of which are in fact opposing the lifting of the pencil. That doesn't mean it's not useful to view it as a pencil being lifted.
In fairness, that second excerpt is certainly true in a fundamental sense.
The first? Oy.
Personally I think Zach should take the polls and Emily should do the videos.
But that's just me.
At least you believe there's a pony in there somewhere.
and it doesn't look like Zach. (nothing personal bro)
Your daily dose of prog idiocy.
"...government payrolls that have long served as sources of black employment"
Apparently this detail is not to be examined any further beyond its mere fact-i-ness.
because, gee, its not like anyone went out of their way to make them into dependents? just happened that way!
So the govt controlled by "white rage" serves as a source of black employment?
It works for the NBA, I guess.
"..the government payrolls that have long served as sources of black employment."
talk about slipping masks..
The rage of redistricting?
That's awesomely foolish stuff there...
Saw that one yesterday. I actually finished the headline and got as far as "associate professor of African American studies" before I had to stop reading. Glad to see someone had the guts to point out the real issue at play here, namely gerrymandering.
If the New Black Panthers murdered George Zimmerman and his whole family and dragged their decapitated corpses through the streets, you'd still see lefty contrarians talking about how white rage is the real story because of its aura of respectability, which presumably entails debate rather than destroying people's lives and businesses. Since nothing can exist outside a narrative, the narrative is all and must be preserved at all costs.
Read enough of this shit and you realize why Ayn Rand became Ayn Rand.
the real rage smolders in meetings where officials redraw precincts to dilute African American voting strength or seek to slash the government payrolls that have long served as sources of black employment.
Wait, what?
She's actually right. Black people have been much more likely to be government workers than whites for a long time.
Of course, given that black communities are generally vastly poorer (there I go collectivizing again!) this kind of proves how incompetent government actually is at lifting people out of poverty.
Layoffs and midnight basketball.
The only thing that is different about youngsters today (and over the recent past) is the extension of the period of juvenility. The success of the government over the last 100 years is to increase the dependency of every person and to "institutionalize" them one way or another (regulated daycares, school, mortgages, prisons). Youth is institutionalized by extending the period of education (conditioning) beyond the age of 20. What we see is institutionalized thinking of 20+ year old "children".
Meh. I was a socialist when I was 20 years old too. Who wasn't? Tell me what the Millenials think in 20 years. That might be worth hearing about.
I was voting for George W Bush when I was 20 years old.
Kids who grew up in the 90s were mostly not socialist because socialism had just proven itself to be unviable. Unfortunately that memory faded right quick.
So you voted for compassionate conservatism. Same difference.
I voted for fiscal restraint and a humble foreign policy. That's what GWB campaigned on in 2000.
Obviously it didn't quite work out that way.
I wasn't.
I was a young republican type, seriously, when I was 20. But around my mid 20s, I got sick of the GOP and their war on drugs and went liberal. Then I got sick of the liberals and all their bullshit too and then I wondered in the wilderness for like 20 years before one day discovering libertarianism. It was like a religious moment. I was like 'That's what the fuck I am!'. And that was it. The only change that has happened since that moment is that I have gradually become more big L.
I was generally libertarian from the age of 10, when I got a paper route and realized how many people had bullshit excuses for why they should get free newspapers from a kid. It was reinforced when I turned 18 and learned what FICA was.
Then a friend of mine gave me a copy of "The Fountainhead" and I realized that it was perfectly okay for me to say that what I'd earned was mine.
So you're okay with children starving?
/leaves to attend Sociology faculty meeting/
[Rereading Fountainhead now. Still a great book.]
" realized that it was perfectly okay for me to say that what I'd earned was mine."
And what makes you think you "earned" it, given that without everything society has given you, you would be lucky to still be alive at your age, and if you were, would be mucking around in the dirt looking for grubs to eat, and hoping the local thugs weren't going to come around and extort you again tonight.
You've actually earned about nothing. Virtually everything you have is because society has given you the tools to create it. It is the latter which is precious and the source of almost all the value. You (and I) are not even molehills on the mountain.
Who wasn't?
Me.
In fact I was pretty A-political about everything at 20....except for the fact that I against socialism.
"I can't read what I want? I can't say what I want? I can't buy or sell what I want? I can't work where I want? I can't think what I want? Fuck that noise. Socialism sucks."
I was a libertopian when I was 20. Then I grew up.
In fact, every highly intelligent conservative I knew at age 20 is now a liberal, except one. He is literally a partisan hack, working in the Republican machinery in my home state. He unfriended me on Facebook because he got tired of losing, even though I was arguing with both hands tied behind my back because I don't want to be too mean. I almost feel sorry for him.
"You can't get that in say China"
Lulz
yes you can.
Easier to start a small business in China then in US.
MillenialsThink.
Hahahaha
I'm a millennial. Why am I a libertarian? FYTW.
Millenials are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans but they are also more likely to support libertarians such as Sarvis and the Pauls. I think this shows that Millenials are not so much sold on any ecomomic theory but are turned off by social conservatism
And even this must be qualified : look at who supported that current Democrat governor and his GOP challenger.
Paul can most definitely get a lot more millenial vote than Hillary. But the Stupid Party will ensure the election of Hillary. Although it won't be millenials that put her over the top.
The percentage of millenials voting for Paul or Sarvis is tiny. They are very sold on free shit and "helping people" with other people's money.
Sometimes, I skip the article and read only the comments(though not all the comments.) When I do read the articles and the comments, I regularly feel better challenged by the comments.
Reason should skip the articles and just trow out headlines and say:
"Talk amongst yourselves!"
It's not just computers that are scattering attention. Phones, tablets, 24/7 TV,
So, computers. Hell, analog TVs were computers too, their circuits "performing" the math to transform a signal waveform into a picture and sound.
This also depends on how "Millenials" is defined as an age group too. Is it 18-34 years old? Or mostly 18-25 (roughly college-aged)?
A couple observations on my part. Anecdotal, sure, but here it is...
A lot of college kids are taught by the Bubblers that socialism is a place where everyone is free and nobody takes advantage of them, all people are treated equally, there's no racism, sexism, or poverty. Everybody gets to follow their dreams (typically, by socialist professors).
However, as I've taught for the past few years, there does seem to be a tendency for many to lean libertarian. Many of the kids are still in the "bend to authority" phase (teachers, parents, institutions). Non-traditional students tend to lean even more toward the non-socialist. (I teach some Vonnegut and that gets them going sometimes.)
Disclosure: I've been a humanities guy and while there were a couple Marxists here and there, the humanities folks tended to lean libertarian in private and implied in lecture. The books assigned also indicated this. A few science and economics professors, however, would preach the glories of Marxism in their classes. Maybe I went to odd schools...
Edit: despite their years in being supplicated, the younger students tend to distrust government/institutions overall. Many know they've been screwed. They know they're not slaves to Nikes. Not all of them, nor overtly, but it's there. A few students have even brought up Ayn Rand in classes where I've recommended Hayek and Friedman.
Interesting group.
Why do we care?
Because it's important to know the political opinions of people who don't vote?
Folks we are living in an idiocracy. Ignorance is rampant. If these kids in this study are an indication of what the colleges are teaching this country is screwed. Socialism? My God man its been tried in several countries and always ends up to be totalitarianism. These kids need to read some history books and move out of their parents homes.
Olivia . you think Elaine `s st0rry is inconceivable, last week I bought a top of the range Ariel Atom since I been earnin $9671 thiss month and-over, ten-k this past-munth . it's by-far the most comfortable work Ive had . I began this six months/ago and immediately began to bring in more than $71, per hour .
Get More Info------- http://www.jobsfish.com
"Independents" are increasing in number because Republicans are so embarrassing that nobody wants to be associated with them.
Remember when Millennial Monthly was called Reason?
Sebastian . I just agree... Helen `s artlclee is astonishing, I just bought Chevrolet when I got my cheque for $6747 this-last/month and would you believe, ten k last-month . without a doubt it is the nicest work Ive had . I actually started 8-months ago and straight away made myself over $78, p/h .
100% free registration------- http://www.jobsfish.com