You know how it goes. Lefty loosey, righty tighty.
I have an 18 year old coming home this week.
(The thing about that saying is that when I first heard it, I didn't understand how rotation was canonically translated into Left or Right. After all, if something rotates clockwise, the top is moving right, but the bottom is moving left. Who am I to privilege the top of the rotation over the bottom of the rotation? Am I god now?)
No, no. I'm picturing a flathead screwdriver.
Picture a wrench and turn the screwdriver the same way.
Similarly, a friend managed to potentially throw a monkey wrench into clockwise/counter-clockwise by noting he could never recall if it was from the viewers perspective or that of the clock (see also stage right/left), I do find that in my dotage there are an increasing number of binary distinctions that I recognize as such, but which take a moment's (or more) reflection to remember which is which--thank God they put the arrow by the fuel gauge to show which side the gas cap is on.
8. Clockwise if you want to get tight, counter if you want to get loose.
I like my martinis like my drug dealers--shaken down.
I like my martinis like I like my coffee - with coffee inside instead of a martini.
Re: the second link, I was going to say that all the emphasis on TikTok seems to be overstated given the prior popularity of Vine. However, looking it up, Vine was not around for very long (and certainly not as big as TikTok).
The first link also offers evidence against social media as a culprit.
I think Biden should have destroyed TikTok when he had the chance.
Shoulda TikTook when the TikTaking was tot.
Seems like Covid response pushed the younger generation strongly to the right. Similar to how the Great Recession pushed the younger generation to the left. Anyway, w.r.t. the second link, +6 D for the 22-29 year old group is terrible. In 2016, the 18-29 year olds voted for +19 for Clinton.
And a short rant by me based on a very minor aspect of the 2nd post. Among the political aspects noted for gen z 2.0 is "movement towards free speech."
OK, it's shorthand, but fuck that thought all the way to the moon and back. And the whole media complex and discourse in general act as if a movement towards free speech was an actual thing rather than "free speech" being a purposefully deceptive label for a variety of grievances. (I probably would not have been as triggered if it had been "movement towards 'free speech'".)
And some of my overwrought reaction is a result of my direct exposure to "free speech" with regard to the political views of this particular cohort. One of my volunteer activities from 2017 to 2023 involved in-classroom/(zoom during covid) presentations and discussions of elections and voting. They generally included various exercises around things like "how does government affect your life," and "what political issues are you interested in." And increasingly common "issue" (almost always from boys and also a few mail teachers--one of whom was watching OANN on the classroom TV as we were setting up) was "free speech." And yes, not lost on me that feeling the need to state your main issue out loud in room otherwise full of people saying "LGBQT, women's health, abortion rights, guns in schools" is exactly the kind of thing where many probably felt the need to self-censor to "free speech."
My ire on this has grown as the free speech trope has continued in the face of the current authoritarian administration. There was even a congressional hearing a few months back with Matt fucking Taibbi and others still yammering on about Twitter censorship.
18: Similarly it is not a t all clear to me that it was the "Covid response" that pushed them right rather than just the experience of a big fucking worldwide epidemic. Or I guess if you include in "Covid response" (which most do not ) all the fucking disinformation, political sabotage and disingenuous reporting on the actual Covid response.
A buig bad thing happened and it had various big bad consequences. Full stop.
The most obvious takeaway is that maybe it's dumb to define your generations before giving generational landmarks a chance to actually occur!
Personally I'd end the sentence after the word "generations." I can't find previous discussions about this in TFA but I know I've complained about the concept before. The Baby Boomers correspond to an actual baby boom. Every other generation is just ex post facto reasoning and boundaries between them are usually made up on the spot by whoever's speaking.
OP: I actually followed both links and enjoyed them - they were short and pretty direct, which was nice.
I too shall wield a broad fucking brush in my tarring of the many!
Oh, and while I am at it, the whole generational discourse in general is for the most part completely fucked. Certainly some valuable nuggets in there--particularly those associated with dramatic rises and falls in birthrates leading to dramatically unequal cohorts*. But it is usually carried out at a Brooks-Dowd-Friedman** level of insight.
*On preview see Cyrus in 21.
**The NY Times' Three Morons from Hell. Jesus the fact that the these three were the paper of record's most enduring and popular OP Ed contributor for well nigh 25 years is so emblematic of our political times.
22: How dare you not air a grievance!
Belatedly, assume a spherical screwdriver.
@19, 20
"the "Covid response" that pushed them right rather than just the experience of a big fucking worldwide epidemic."
Perhaps young people at low risk from Covid were unhappy with restrictions that did not benefit them and appeared tuned to assuage the concerns of older, more vulnerable, and more politically powerful people.
My suspicion is that parents were the ones unhappy with that.
||
Percival Everett just won the Pulitzer Prize for James. It turns out the process was a bit convoluted with it winning only because there was not a consensus on any of the three books actually recommended from the jury so a procedure in the rules to consider another candidate was invoke (should be a gift link). A bit ironic given one of the main subplots of his American Fiction revolving around some literary prize drama. (And maybe it just stood out to me because those are the only two books of his that I've read--but the latter did get the boost of the relatively recent movie.)
Not read any of the other three finalist, but I do think the book worthy of the prize. Will put the others on my list to read: Rita Bullwinkel's Headshot, Stacey Levine's Mice 1961, and Gayl Jones's The Unicorn Woman.
|>
I'm not sure how to evaluate the underlying poll, which is described as the "Yale Youth Poll, an undergraduate-led research project at Yale University, but given the polling organization's own report describes the purported Gen Z divide with this level of detail
Finally, our data uncovered an interesting divide within under-30s as a cohort: When asked whether they would vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in the 2026 congressional elections in their district, voters aged 22-29 favored the Democratic candidate by a margin of 6.4 points, but voters aged 18-21 favored the Republican by a margin of 11.7 points.
Which is a bit different than generic D vs. R.
4: Me too! Also, looking at your hand in an L shape to tell left from right doesn't work at all. Either hand looks like a forwards or backwards L depending if you look at the palm or the back.
I used to imagine I was sitting at a piano, at which point muscle memory would kick in to distinguish left and right, because it was automatic in that context years before it was automatic anywhere else.
Inside of Gen Z are two wolves. Neither of them are very good with hand tools.
Inside one wolf is a wrench. Inside the other wolf is a piano.
30: One of my favorite memories is of Anand, looking at his hands, one palm up, the other down. He was turning them over together, murmuring to himself "Two lefts. No lefts. Two lefts. No lefts."
28: I enjoyed reading James, but Everett made some choices that really irked me, and ultimately made me like the book a lot less:
1. The reverse code-switching was smart and funny. But I didn't understand the point of making James not only very smart, but some kind of unique genius who is not only able to teach himself to read and understand philosophical texts, but who holds spiritual communion with Enlightenment thinkers. (I understand it's because the Enlightenment principles that motivated the founding of the republic also require emancipation, I just thought it was a weird choice to make James a world-historical superbrain as opposed to a regular smart person.) I didn't like this choice but it didn't bother me all that much, compared to...
2. The reveal at the end! (I don't want to spoil it here, but you know what I'm talking about.) What was the point of that??? It really undercut the sweetness and poignancy of their relationship. I hated it, and can't understand why Everett did that.
The discussion of right vs left here reminds me of when M and I had a conversation about coral and king snakes. I said the mnemonic device isn't that helpful, because it could just as easily be "red touches black, get back Jack," and "red touches yellow, a friendly fellow." Then M forgot which one was the original rhyme, and accused me of causing his death.
Assume a planar distribution of snakes.
Looking at some of the survey's findings, what struck me was the swing between those two age groups' generic ballot was much more about the younger people being less Democratic than being more Republican (although the latter was part of it). 18-21 were 35% Dem, 46% GOP; 22-29 were 47% Dem, 41% GOP.
That difference in % GOP on its own still seems statistically significant from the sample size I pieced together, but this might be similar to the old "ACA approval ratings" story: with Gaza etc., the youngest people may be less Dem partly because they're more disenchanted with them but still on the left.
The social policy questions weren't split out in the public results. They say crosstabs are available on request.
A buig bad thing happened and it had various big bad consequences.
I thought there was a really good discussion of precisely that on this podcast with David Wallace-Wells (originally only a 5-minute clip was free, but they made the whole thing public, and I thought it was really good): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unlocked-how-the-pandemic-changed-everything-w-david/id1462703434?i=1000702681507
The first link (about polling on the questions, "A woman should have the same job opportunities as a man" and "Men and women should be paid the same money if they do the same job") is confusing me. I really don't have a mental model for what would explain the change in that result -- and I do wonder, whether people really disagree that "men and women should be paid the same money if they do the same job" or if they are just trying to signal support for some political position/ideology.
What the difference if the ideology they are trying to signal support for is sexism?
I endorse 43. I'm much more interested in Know Your Enemy for the historical episodes, and sometimes feel glad I don't get the bonus episodes, but I thought that was a really good discussion.
The same drop, though less pronounced, happened at the same time among American girls.
What the difference if the ideology they are trying to signal support for is sexism?
Perhaps no difference but my point is that I'm just not sure what they're responding to -- what is the context for 15 or 17 year olds disagreeing that men and women should be paid the same amount for doing the same job.
I realize this is a failure of my imagination, but I just don't think of that as a controversial point.
I agree that some of it is probably asshole signalling as opposed to a well-thought out world view.
Yes, I think the context for a lot of this is that they know what the "right" answer is and are being dicks because they're teenagers.
Unfortunately, there is a very easy way to mark your ballot for being a dick right now.
Well, I managed to raise three borderline-commie Gen Z kids--one pre-Covid and two in right the teeth of it--so it isn't pre-ordained.
Greatamsci. Start 'em young.
36: Actually of the two books I liked American Fiction better than James. So would not have picked it myself for the Pulitzer, but still decent and I think not one where people will look back in the future and cringe.
As for the reveal, I think I somehow saw it coming, but yet not wild about it*. And yes some aspects of his character were a bit much.
*It reminded me (although it is a very different "reveal") of the one in Jane Smiley's A Thousand Acres which I found to be quite unnecessary and a kind of "piling on" as the psychological and emotional abuse stood on their own and were quite sufficient to motivate the narrative.
As long as they're not the Jackson Hinkle type of borderline-commie.
53: for anyone else who might be confused, the Percival Everett novel that was the basis for the movie American Fiction is titled Erasure.
56: Oops. Forgot they different titles.
Maybe because I actually liked the movie a bit better than the book.
had different titles. Can you say "dotage"? Sure you can. For a few more years anyway.
In Ohio, as you age you can get a raccoon to hold your medications for you. But they won't take a rap for you.
It looks like, based on the survey, common decency among the youth peaked in 2018 and then started to drop precipitously. This would suggest the decline is Trump-related rather than covid-related.
And there is precedent for a bad administration pushing an entire generation toward becoming Republican shitfucks. It was Ronald Reagan's influence that ruined Gen X.
a raccoon to hold your medications
Doesn't this violate mask bans?
I think you can still wear masks over your eyes.
The thing about raccoons on meth is that they keep wanting more meth.
They can't light the pipe without help.
They can light cigarettes off the pilot light if you have a gas stove.
Cocaine Bear was great. Should have watched that in theater.
Do we need any more explanation than Trump shifting social acceptability bias? The links show changes concentrated among religious, who are likely right voters anyway.
In the UK meanwhile the legal position is that men and women deserve to get the same pay for *different* jobs. https://www.itv.com/news/2025-02-03/historic-equal-pay-win-for-tens-of-thousands-of-asda-workers
I think 71 is a good explanation. A lot of people have almost all their opinions downstream of their political loyalty. Trump is a chauvinist, they're chauvinists too.
21 is the most salient comment so far.
73: There is a good argument that we value work differently that is done by men, because it is done by men, and that women's work is not intrinsically easier, requiring less skill/training, or necessarily more rewarding. The skills are just different.
Trump is doing a lot to code female things as shameful and bad. There's been some interesting discussion around the Trump tariffs. He talks about girls having fewer dolls, not boys having fewer trucks. Consumption is weak and unnecessary, because it's feminine.
70: I did. It wasn't my idea and I had to go to the lobby for a bit.
21 is indeed sensible and even "Baby Boomer" is I would argue too huge a group to be meaningful. Compare the meaningful life experiences of someone born in 1945 with someone born in 1965. One of them is old enough to remember rationing, the other one is too young to remember the Beatles.
Somebody should be accusing Trump of encouraging lesbianism by taking away the dolls that girls need to develop into a normal, heterosexual mother of seven kids.
The thing about that saying is that when I first heard it, I didn't understand how rotation was canonically translated into Left or Right.
If you rotate a wheel (assuming the wheel is vertical, with its bottom edge resting on the ground, ie the normal position for wheels) clockwise it will move to the right, and if you rotate a wheel widdershins it will move to the left. Also, of course, steering wheels.
Most American trucks use levers to steer, so the driver feels like he's got a tank.
||
Pierce is gorgeous and chilly and maybe falls apart in the last act, but also maybe doesn't.
|>
79: I don't think people born in the US in 1945 remember rationing. My Dad was born in 44 and never talked of it as a personal experience, just something people heard about during the war and that was mostly about rubber and fuel. I know the situation in the UK was different.
I can remember when the grocery stores would limit you to two dozen eggs.
If you rotate a wheel (assuming the wheel is vertical, with its bottom edge resting on the ground, ie the normal position for wheels) clockwise it will move to the right, and if you rotate a wheel widdershins it will move to the left.
Yes maybe the wheel moves right, but you're moving the ground by an equal force to the left. So confusing!
And there is precedent for a bad administration pushing an entire generation toward becoming Republican shitfucks. It was Ronald Reagan's influence that ruined Gen X.
Probably prudent to split Gen X into two sub-generations, according to the degree in which they were ruined by Reagan.
You're moving the ground to the left by rotating yourself counterclockwise.
Exactly. Hence the well-worn aphorism, Spinnie selfie lefty, groundie spinnie righty.
Also, admittedly, the younger guy's eyes are freakishly huge.
What are Prevost's views on gender equality? OK, outside the priesthood?
According to Wiki he isn't American - he's naturalised Peruvian!
I'm so sick of Americans right now. That's a relief.
I think this means we have to elect Pritzker to the White House.
92 confused me. He's not a Peruvian who was naturalized as an American. The other way.
I'm just relieved we're fully Poped again (though I was hoping for either Pizzaballa or Tagle)
I was hoping that it would be Tagle and he would come out singing. I was still trying to decide what song he should sing when my dreams were crushed.
Yes, sorry. He is not a Peruvian-American, he is an American-Peruvian. Unsure whether he still counts as a gringo. Or, possibly, gringx.
97: This guy doesn't have the warm face that Francis did. Same hopes.
You can't have a warm face that close to the lake.
99: It was perfectly correct. I just made the wrong assumption.
92. Doesn't that make him a dual citizen?
You really gotta have your pope name ready.
"His Holiness Pope Bob" would have been too American.
103: Until Trump strips him of his citizenship for refusing to speak English.
I'm so old I remember when the Pope was always from Italy.
I can remember when we used to get a new one every month. That was before environmentalists.
Pope on over to the dedicated poping thread.
heebie's working tirelessly to prevent a pope thread schism. Let's have a post about Avignon!
I've visited the Papal Palace in Avignon. It looked surprisingly uncomfortable even by mediaeval standards.
||
I was driving and listening to some random pop station and heard a voice going in about MS 13 and terrible criminals being apprehended in NH and Massachusetts. Just as I'm asking "what the hell is this garbage, I hear, "I'm Kristi Noem, honeland security secretary, here to tell you about the wats Donald Trump has made you safer". Is the US gov paying for thus garbage?
I've also been to Avignon but don't remember the papal palace very well. Looking for other things to do, I also went to the Chartreuse and the bridge to nowhere.
Just down the road is the Valley of Hell (Val d'Enfer, near Les Baux), which is said to have inspired Dante to write about the Malebolge. Extraordinary place.
43: Thanks. Finally got a chance to listen to the whole thing. Pretty good discussion overall on most points.
I think David Wallace-Wells is part of why I think climate change is an area where the Times coverage has improved over the last decade or so. On Covid we got way too much Leonhardt (who they call out) and too little Wells and the like.
Towards the end, I sort of lost track of who was who and did not care too much for the one guy's take on the lab leak (I think it was a co-host).
Too Subgenius
Not possible. All popes are insufficiently Subgenius.
So far.
118: Yeah, I think the lab leak part of the discussion got muddled. It sounded a bit like one of the speakers didn't want to say outright that they were eventually persuaded it was a lab leak. My personal position remains "absent actual new evidence*, I don't want to talk about it" so I kind of tuned out.
*evidence != new statements about the same evidence that's been discussed for years
||
ICE arrested the mayor of Newark
Also, I mentioned this in the dead thread, yesterday I heard a creepy Homeland security ad on a local pop radio station.
|>
"I'm Kristi Noem, honeland security secretary, here to tell you about the wats Donald Trump has made you safer"
If you could make a pitch to fund radio ads to counter that message, what would you think they should say?
How Trump's chaos threatens your job, your savings, and your future.
"The hidden downside of having masked, armed men rip babies from the arms of their mothers."
That beats my "can you believe these motherfuckers?"
123 is a good answer. Suitable for the "radio listener" demographic.