College students don't understand the 1st Amendment, at all

[Ban my account ffs!]

Once again I am reminded of the song lyrics

Two big teams are forming and they're both no fun
Now that the furies are loose

[Ban my account ffs!]

1. Are these results significantly different than the rest of the population?

2. Are these results significantly different than college students in the past?

I doubt the answer to either question is Yes.

Why don't you leave that up to a qualified scientist, Harry.  Know your place!

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yes Jedi.  I was on the train a while ago and this 60-something lady with long gray hair knocked over a young guys bike so she could sit down and proceeded to go on a rant about how he didn't have a right and she's a senior citizen and deserves some respect and why doesn't society respect seniors anymore...

Straight from the generation that pioneered disrespect for seniors.  Now that that generation is gone and the boomers are on top, they turn their sniveling faces to the youth.  Truly a sad, pathetic, dangerous, and destructive group of wrinkled up toddlers.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah, it's clear to me that generation theory is largely bunkum, and we should not internalise its pseudoscience.

I don't know why people keep buying into a theory that essentially peddles a "narrative". That's all generation theory is; you have nice neat little boxes that explain why a generation did something and why they were different from another, no critical thinking required.

I would wager that the majority of what you believe and hold dear are simply theories that essentially peddle a "narrative"... a "narrative" that appeals to you.  That's what your world view is.. a series of nice, neat little boxes that explain others' behavior to you and justify your behavior towards others... with relatively little critical thinking required 

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah, it's clear to me that generation theory is largely bunkum, and we should not internalise its pseudoscience.

I don't know why people keep buying into a theory that essentially peddles a "narrative". That's all generation theory is; you have nice neat little boxes that explain why a generation did something and why they were different from another, no critical thinking required.

I would wager that the majority of what you believe and hold dear are simply theories that essentially peddle a "narrative"... a "narrative" that appeals to you.  That's what your world view is.. a series of nice, neat little boxes that explain others' behavior to you and justify your behavior towards others... with relatively little critical thinking required 

Maybe I should have phrased it differently: if you look at generation theory, a lot of it is based on observing the actions that a small subset of people in a generation are responsible for, and then extrapolating a minority to represent the entire group. Then this is used to construct a narrative for the generation and fit them into a certain archetype. Strauss and Howe's theory revolves around this framework and argues that each generation fits into an archetype that repeats the same cycle every four generations.

The problem here is that it attempts to explain the actions of a generation through an almost teletelogical lense. Hence why I said "narrative".

Take a look at history once.  All it is is observing the actions of a small subset of people in a generation and then extrapolating that minority to represent the entire group.  This is then used to construct a narrative for that generation and fit them into a certain archetype.

That history might repeat itself in vaguely similar ways is hardly a new concept and dismissing it out of hand says more about your ability to think critically than mine.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah, it's clear to me that generation theory is largely bunkum, and we should not internalise its pseudoscience.

I don't know why people keep buying into a theory that essentially peddles a "narrative". That's all generation theory is; you have nice neat little boxes that explain why a generation did something and why they were different from another, no critical thinking required.

I would wager that the majority of what you believe and hold dear are simply theories that essentially peddle a "narrative"... a "narrative" that appeals to you.  That's what your world view is.. a series of nice, neat little boxes that explain others' behavior to you and justify your behavior towards others... with relatively little critical thinking required 

Maybe I should have phrased it differently: if you look at generation theory, a lot of it is based on observing the actions that a small subset of people in a generation are responsible for, and then extrapolating a minority to represent the entire group. Then this is used to construct a narrative for the generation and fit them into a certain archetype. Strauss and Howe's theory revolves around this framework and argues that each generation fits into an archetype that repeats the same cycle every four generations.

The problem here is that it attempts to explain the actions of a generation through an almost teletelogical lense. Hence why I said "narrative".

Take a look at history once.  All it is is observing the actions of a small subset of people in a generation and then extrapolating that minority to represent the entire group.  This is then used to construct a narrative for that generation and fit them into a certain archetype.

That history might repeat itself in vaguely similar ways is hardly a new concept and dismissing it out of hand says more about your ability to think critically than mine.

That is bad historical analysis and a trap that we should seek to avoid as much as possible. Different historical voices, whether they be from minorities, the working class, or just the less powerful, should receive more attention. Among historians, this is a growing trend, thankfully.

History may vaguely repeat itself, but how could you use a cycle to determine that millennials will be an archetypical "hero" generation? Or that generation Z will follow the "artist" archetype? Using a modern lense to lay out a set cycle of generational archetypes makes no logical sense.

I never brought Strauss and Howe into any of this.  I was complaining about my parents generation for, once again, demanding "do as I say, not as I do."  I was then bombarded by people yammering on about "pseudoscience generational theory"...

Slow down the fidget spinner... it's spinning your mind in circles!

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm not angry with you.  What on earth gave you that idea? 

But yes, I'm fairly certain you were responding to me given the past several posts in the thread.  And I was "bombarded" with 3 posts from 3 different posters in rapid succession... one asking me not to generalize, two speaking to "generational theory" being a big bag of bullsh**t. 

It's like a game of telephone when everyone has to pee really bad.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm not angry with you.  What on earth gave you that idea? 

But yes, I'm fairly certain you were responding to me given the past several posts in the thread.  And I was "bombarded" with 3 posts from 3 different posters in rapid succession... one asking me not to generalize, two speaking to "generational theory" being a big bag of bullsh**t. 

It's like a game of telephone when everyone has to pee really bad.

No it really isn't. I was just voicing approval of what crabcake wrote and added a little statement about how generational theory builds a narrative around past historical events. You then singled me out for some reason and then, much later, claim that I brought Strauss and Howe into this out of nowhere.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... on what we're agreeing to disagree about I have no idea... but it's best if we just do it anyway.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must be a college student.

...

This is a pretty low comment.

"When they go low, we go high "

No.  It was a particularly lazy but vicious personal attack using a grab-bag of bad internet memes.