The Gen X vs Z fight shows a common tendency in many other areas today.
Gen X: The following enumerated dysfunctional trends exists and are a problem for society (with exceptions and qualifying that the causes of the dysfunction reach back in time).
Gen Z: It's not our fault, because the causes of our dysfunction reach back in time, and al…
The Gen X vs Z fight shows a common tendency in many other areas today.
Gen X: The following enumerated dysfunctional trends exists and are a problem for society (with exceptions and qualifying that the causes of the dysfunction reach back in time).
Gen Z: It's not our fault, because the causes of our dysfunction reach back in time, and also here are some exceptions.
The point being, that the Gen Z side of this particular debate does not dispute the characterization of the problems (other than to redundantly note that it doesn't apply to everybody). It instead focuses on who's to blame.
I see this pattern in discussions about race or gender ideology or homelessness or many other issues (ie: not even having nothing to do with age or "generation"). One side wants a discussion centered on functionality (aimed at recognizing, analyzing and redressing a real world problem) but gets shunted into a morality discussion about blame and innocenc by the other side. The latter approach seems to have an unconscious component of "let's stop worrying about figuring out how to make real measurable improvements, and just establish that it's somebody else's fault so we can ignore it".
It's like "I have a toothache", leading not to a dental exam and perhaps a cavity filling (IF that turns out to be the issue), but instead to debates about whether it's the fault of a parent who allowed too much candy in the house during somebody's youth, or on the young adult's own dental care when on their own. But the toothache is still there, no matter who one wants to assign original fault to.
Moral positioning takes precedence over rational functionality. One side speaks facts, the other side speaks emotions. One side wants to find at least a partial fix, the other side is devoted to establishing their innocence and lack of agency.
Looking at causes from the functionality perspectives is useful to the degree that (1) original causes may shed light on the socio-political mechanisms currently sustaining the problem (or may not), or (2) negating the original causes might be part of breaking the cycle today (but other times, the way out differs from the way in; or the original cause may already be voided). Notice that establishing who has the moral high ground is not in that. To the degree that looking at original causes is driven by blame and moral positioning (as accuser or defender), it makes it harder to get a clear understanding which might help improve the situation, and it diverts time and attention from problem solving into "who is more bad".
The Gen X vs Z fight shows a common tendency in many other areas today.
Gen X: The following enumerated dysfunctional trends exists and are a problem for society (with exceptions and qualifying that the causes of the dysfunction reach back in time).
Gen Z: It's not our fault, because the causes of our dysfunction reach back in time, and also here are some exceptions.
The point being, that the Gen Z side of this particular debate does not dispute the characterization of the problems (other than to redundantly note that it doesn't apply to everybody). It instead focuses on who's to blame.
I see this pattern in discussions about race or gender ideology or homelessness or many other issues (ie: not even having nothing to do with age or "generation"). One side wants a discussion centered on functionality (aimed at recognizing, analyzing and redressing a real world problem) but gets shunted into a morality discussion about blame and innocenc by the other side. The latter approach seems to have an unconscious component of "let's stop worrying about figuring out how to make real measurable improvements, and just establish that it's somebody else's fault so we can ignore it".
It's like "I have a toothache", leading not to a dental exam and perhaps a cavity filling (IF that turns out to be the issue), but instead to debates about whether it's the fault of a parent who allowed too much candy in the house during somebody's youth, or on the young adult's own dental care when on their own. But the toothache is still there, no matter who one wants to assign original fault to.
Moral positioning takes precedence over rational functionality. One side speaks facts, the other side speaks emotions. One side wants to find at least a partial fix, the other side is devoted to establishing their innocence and lack of agency.
Looking at causes from the functionality perspectives is useful to the degree that (1) original causes may shed light on the socio-political mechanisms currently sustaining the problem (or may not), or (2) negating the original causes might be part of breaking the cycle today (but other times, the way out differs from the way in; or the original cause may already be voided). Notice that establishing who has the moral high ground is not in that. To the degree that looking at original causes is driven by blame and moral positioning (as accuser or defender), it makes it harder to get a clear understanding which might help improve the situation, and it diverts time and attention from problem solving into "who is more bad".