Is… is that the rep we have? I sort of thought that was boomers and just, well, bigots from every generation. Gen X was also sex positive feminism 3rd wave and the beginning of intersectionalism.
We have had problems over here where we lose people down an antivax q-anon abbit hole, but it seems to affect all ages. I think maybe it has something to do with underlying mental health vulnerabilities.
I don’t think it is about flipping a coin between open-minded and close-minded but about radicalization. While it is harder to see with QAnon, radicalization be it right, left (although you have to go really far on the horseshoe), or religious is staunchly anti-intellectualistic. Once you believe in ideas or at least do not see them as really distasteful, it gets easier to go towards more and more batshit insane ideas.
While I am not sure if there is actual research on how age affects radicalization, research on radicalization has identified certain things that make it likelier for a person to be radicalized. Vulnerability, marginalization, and othering are all pretty common. To extend it there might be an age group vulnerability of 45 and up age group because of either being empty nesters or kids at least starting to be a lot more independent.
There is also somewhat of a domino effect. People like to be part of a group. If people don’t give any legitimacy to radicalized viewpoints, it makes it harder to be radicalized. The problem with this is also how hidden ideas can become mainstream as has at least in Western countries happened with the alt-right, they can reach a scary critical mass. Once you have been tempered with completely crazy viewpoints at one point thinking JFK Jr will be resurrected is not that weird anymore.
Over a decade ago when I started to get really worried about the rise of fascism in the West, my mom thought I was insane. Now we have had (not American) actual neo-Nazi as minister and no one of the ministerial parties thought it was a huge enough deal to actually not do it. In my books that means they all are neo-Nazies. My mom also doesn’t think I am insane anymore. The tools they used to gain power are not new. We are just not taught to identify them. I was because it would be a pretty bad idea to have someone in my profession if not aware of signs of radicalization.
We really need to step out of the idea that radicalization only happens to people who are somehow slow or uneducated. It might make you more likely to fall for it, but cognitive ability and education will not mean you will not end up there as well. Issue with the anti-intellectualism of the alt-right is not if someone themselves has education but if they are willing to listen to other people who do. If no one is an expert for example racist ideas of the alt-right about biological differences can’t be refuted. Which is probably partially where it comes from times quite a lot.
Everyone likes to think they have cognitive ability. If we just think radicalization happens only to stupid people, and you are not stupid, getting a person de-radicalized is going to be a lot harder. Thinking that we as people with cognitive ability can’t be radicalized will also make it easier to fall for it because you can’t be radicalized.
Instead of intelligence or education, we should focus on the trifecta of vulnerability, marginalization, and othering. That’s a better predictor.
(And no, I do not actually disagree about the ideas being idiocy, just that falling for them are not just for idiots)
I disagree on the fundamental level that if someone “intelligent” chooses to follow the ideas of idiocy it’s not proof that the intelligent can be swayed, but that the individual is objectively less intelligent that previously assumed. This is reinforced when someone more intelligent isn’t swayed by said idiocy.
It is because radicalization is more than a cognitive process. It is as much social and psychological. Intelligence alone is a pretty bad predictor of a lot of things we like to think only depend on intelligence. While there is some causation, it is not a vacuum or often even the biggest predictor of many things.
Radicalization is the thing that makes you believe in things that can’t be real. Making people believe a lot of things is surprisingly easy. Look into religions. While I don’t believe and you might not, a lot of intelligent people throughout world history have. There might be a correlation between intelligence and atheism these days, but the effect is far from linear.
I’ve also seen a lot of self identified progressive Xers and boomers that need to be explicitly taught these things. One was a terf before he looked around as his fellow terfs. Another was oddly possessive of Bugs Bunny in drag when he found out that some consider that episode a pro-trans episode. A whole lot of them don’t pick up on the anti environmental subtext in their comic book movies.
Yeah that’s just facts. This Bowie type shit is ANYTHING BUT straight, that’s what makes it iconic.
The straights have always copied/been inspired by queer fashion, just like white america with black american music genres (jazz, rock, blues, r&b, rap).
Absolutely, there’s a long history of the “in-group” co-opting culture from the “out-group” because it’s seen as exotic and transgressive. Was it hypocritical for such a homophobic generation to idolize queer icons, only so long as they were cool and made good music? On a cultural level, yeah. On an individual level, depends on the individual and their specific beliefs and actions
Edit: Also my favorite Bowie album will always be Ziggy Stardust. Maybe a little basic but it just hits all the right campy, flamboyant, and always-incredible notes
Seriously that’s some 80s shit my sister was into but she’s 9 years older than me, meanwhile it was more Biggie and Wu-Tang for me when they dropped around 93-94 when I was a teen. It was all baggy clothes.
Gen X: Haha, those millenials sure looked stupid as kids!
Also Gen X:
Boomers: Haha, Gen X sure looked stupid as kids!
Also Boomers:
Given a better quality photo, the women on the left and right really wouldn’t be out of place nowadays.
The boomer’s had everything better. That fashion works for me.
But everyone was so much thinner back then. The average person was so much hotter.
The only thing that’s really improved is people’s teeth.
Because they inherited an economy with actual food and replaced it with “food” filled with industrial inventions like corn syrup
And these are the ones scared of gender/LGBTQ politics… We know why now…
Is… is that the rep we have? I sort of thought that was boomers and just, well, bigots from every generation. Gen X was also sex positive feminism 3rd wave and the beginning of intersectionalism.
Guess it depends on where you live. I find a lot of people around me that are 45 and up and don’t live in a more wealthy area are basically that way.
I saw a lot flip sides since 2020… From being open minded to closed. From repping Obama to repping trump and the coup.
It’s really weird to be honest.
Yikes that sounds rough!
We have had problems over here where we lose people down an antivax q-anon abbit hole, but it seems to affect all ages. I think maybe it has something to do with underlying mental health vulnerabilities.
I don’t think it is about flipping a coin between open-minded and close-minded but about radicalization. While it is harder to see with QAnon, radicalization be it right, left (although you have to go really far on the horseshoe), or religious is staunchly anti-intellectualistic. Once you believe in ideas or at least do not see them as really distasteful, it gets easier to go towards more and more batshit insane ideas.
While I am not sure if there is actual research on how age affects radicalization, research on radicalization has identified certain things that make it likelier for a person to be radicalized. Vulnerability, marginalization, and othering are all pretty common. To extend it there might be an age group vulnerability of 45 and up age group because of either being empty nesters or kids at least starting to be a lot more independent.
There is also somewhat of a domino effect. People like to be part of a group. If people don’t give any legitimacy to radicalized viewpoints, it makes it harder to be radicalized. The problem with this is also how hidden ideas can become mainstream as has at least in Western countries happened with the alt-right, they can reach a scary critical mass. Once you have been tempered with completely crazy viewpoints at one point thinking JFK Jr will be resurrected is not that weird anymore.
Over a decade ago when I started to get really worried about the rise of fascism in the West, my mom thought I was insane. Now we have had (not American) actual neo-Nazi as minister and no one of the ministerial parties thought it was a huge enough deal to actually not do it. In my books that means they all are neo-Nazies. My mom also doesn’t think I am insane anymore. The tools they used to gain power are not new. We are just not taught to identify them. I was because it would be a pretty bad idea to have someone in my profession if not aware of signs of radicalization.
Even education can only do so much to make up for a complete lack of cognitive ability.
We really need to step out of the idea that radicalization only happens to people who are somehow slow or uneducated. It might make you more likely to fall for it, but cognitive ability and education will not mean you will not end up there as well. Issue with the anti-intellectualism of the alt-right is not if someone themselves has education but if they are willing to listen to other people who do. If no one is an expert for example racist ideas of the alt-right about biological differences can’t be refuted. Which is probably partially where it comes from times quite a lot.
Everyone likes to think they have cognitive ability. If we just think radicalization happens only to stupid people, and you are not stupid, getting a person de-radicalized is going to be a lot harder. Thinking that we as people with cognitive ability can’t be radicalized will also make it easier to fall for it because you can’t be radicalized.
Instead of intelligence or education, we should focus on the trifecta of vulnerability, marginalization, and othering. That’s a better predictor.
(And no, I do not actually disagree about the ideas being idiocy, just that falling for them are not just for idiots)
I disagree on the fundamental level that if someone “intelligent” chooses to follow the ideas of idiocy it’s not proof that the intelligent can be swayed, but that the individual is objectively less intelligent that previously assumed. This is reinforced when someone more intelligent isn’t swayed by said idiocy.
Really, this is a great example as to why “intelligence” and “`wisdom” are two entirely separate things.
It is because radicalization is more than a cognitive process. It is as much social and psychological. Intelligence alone is a pretty bad predictor of a lot of things we like to think only depend on intelligence. While there is some causation, it is not a vacuum or often even the biggest predictor of many things.
Radicalization is the thing that makes you believe in things that can’t be real. Making people believe a lot of things is surprisingly easy. Look into religions. While I don’t believe and you might not, a lot of intelligent people throughout world history have. There might be a correlation between intelligence and atheism these days, but the effect is far from linear.
Even education can only do so much to make up for a complete lack of cognitive ability.
Even education can only do so much to make up for a complete lack of cognitive ability.
Even education can only do so much to make up for a complete lack of cognitive ability.
Even education can only do so much to make up for a complete lack of cognitive ability.
I’ve also seen a lot of self identified progressive Xers and boomers that need to be explicitly taught these things. One was a terf before he looked around as his fellow terfs. Another was oddly possessive of Bugs Bunny in drag when he found out that some consider that episode a pro-trans episode. A whole lot of them don’t pick up on the anti environmental subtext in their comic book movies.
I think back then you could do “gay” things without being seen as gay so it was okay.
It was okay to dress like that if everyone knew you were out smashing loads of chicks.
But not people are going to think you’re gay so it’s really different.
Da packages.
Give them a break, they had no other accepted way to explore their sexuality
/s but also not /s
Yeah that’s just facts. This Bowie type shit is ANYTHING BUT straight, that’s what makes it iconic.
The straights have always copied/been inspired by queer fashion, just like white america with black american music genres (jazz, rock, blues, r&b, rap).
Absolutely, there’s a long history of the “in-group” co-opting culture from the “out-group” because it’s seen as exotic and transgressive. Was it hypocritical for such a homophobic generation to idolize queer icons, only so long as they were cool and made good music? On a cultural level, yeah. On an individual level, depends on the individual and their specific beliefs and actions
Edit: Also my favorite Bowie album will always be Ziggy Stardust. Maybe a little basic but it just hits all the right campy, flamboyant, and always-incredible notes
Bowie, Freddy Mercury, Elton John, etc were just so damn cool they overpowered any homophobia
Aw man, I clicked that thinking it was going to be Grunge or even this sort of thing.
I always forget that gen x also includes people way older than me.
Seriously that’s some 80s shit my sister was into but she’s 9 years older than me, meanwhile it was more Biggie and Wu-Tang for me when they dropped around 93-94 when I was a teen. It was all baggy clothes.
Starter jackets, timbs, raiders… Fubu… Billabong… Wallet chains. The longer the wallet chain the more dominace you had over peers.
It all started with a Starter Coat… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1Kc8GVUBRI