The way the world economy is heading and with actual noise about an actual honest-to-god old-fashioned world war (weren't those supposed to be impossible now?) -- you may be more on the nose with this than you intended.
When I look around my office most colleagues are at least 35, if any group of people has been hit by the economic meltdown that is 20 somethings.
So if you as a 20 something have a job, don't piss of your older colleagues: they are in control of the situation with a vengeance, not only they are the bosses, but they are also getting most of the well paid jobs.
Younger people have an image problem, behaving like over developed teenagers won't endear them with the old timers holding the reigns of power.
The "image problem" is mostly manufactured by folks older than them. This whole "kids today have no respect" is one of the oldest, most time-honored memes around. The difference is that, this time around, if the older folks keep dismissing younger folks and writing them off this way, thanks to this absolute bullshit economy (which said younger folks could not possibly have done anything about; that one's squarely in older generations' corner), in ten-twenty years all the older folks are going to be sitting around enfeebled and dependent and wondering why on earth there seem to be so few people with quality experience to take care of them. Have people really so quickly forgotten that helping younger generations is the foundation of *everyone's* future? This post seems to be trying to take on a stern tone, but it mostly comes off as deeply short-sighted. Anyone who looks around a reasonably-sized office and finds that the youngest employee is *35* ought, if he or she has an ounce of sense, to be very, very worried about the future.
But then who will be the scapegoat for all the complex, multi-faceted problems I don't want to spend the energy exploring and thinking about in a fair-minded manner with an eye to solutions rather than emotional comfort food???
Every person wants to be recognized for their contributions. A few compliments, a please and thank you, and recognizing that others earned their bona fides, goes a long way towards getting yours. It's called emotional maturity -- get some, and a lot of doors will open up. Or sit there and rage in your impotence about how much better you are than the rest of us, and fail miserably. You're adults now. It's really your choice.
That's cute. I used to think that way, and it's why I wasted my twenties kowtowing to unreasonable but powerful 40- and 50-somethings and tiptoeing around their delicate egos, working ungodly long hours without complaint, consistently putting in stellar work product (and getting solid reviews, huge compliments from clients, and reports from coworkers that my bosses sung my praises when I wasn't around), actively seeking out increased responsibility (and living up to it) and only very occasionally pushing back ever so slightly when I recognized that my mental health would fray if I didn't. Guess which one of those put me first on the chopping block when the economy crashed.
Fuck those "do good work, be respectful, and you'll get far" lies. You know who's still working at my old place of employment, making Monopoly money in a shit economy? The dude whose work quality was far inferior to mine (again, this is from multiple sources), but whose one area of excellence -- kissing the boss's ass -- gave him the edge. He literally spent more on holiday gifts for the man than he did on his own wife. I'll take my shitty salary in exchange for retaining just a tiny sliver of self-respect, thanks. Any system that demands that last infinitesimal sliver doesn't deserve to tell me what *I'm* doing wrong.
I've seen highly-successful people use "U/R" in professional communications. My old boss used to do it all the time, and he's a 50-something millionaire partner in a major international law firm. So did several of his high-powered, multi-million-dollar clients (also Boomers, of course). Most young people I know *cringe* at this shit. The notion that this is a generation divide (at least one that people *my* age are on the wrong side of) is laughable.
So what? Treat them like the royalty they were brought up to believe they are?
If you hate Gen Y because you see them as entitled, perhaps you should ask yourself why a powerless young kid's sense of entitlement would bother you. Why do you need groveling from already-disempowered people? Seems to me that says more about you than it says about them.
If Generation Y wants to do something, get off your asses, vote out Boomers who are pro-corporations first, fuck the people second
Worst advice ever. Anyone who didn't sleep through Poli Sci 101 knows that old people are the most dedicated and consistent voting constituency out there, and *these* old people outnumber us, just as they outnumbered their parents. Even if every member of Gen Y and Gen X went out and voted, the Boomers and the handful of WW2-generation grandparents left around (many of whom probably trust their kids to tell them how to vote at this point, if the way my dad controls his mother is a fair indication) would *still* be able to out-vote us. That's even *assuming* we were able to assemble a cohesive voting bloc, which, get real.
IF there's a solution to be had, it's one younger folks are, consciously or unconsciously, already working towards: namely, writing a new economy from the ground up. The old economy of over-leveraged assets, debt-driven growth, and sloppy-big profit margins is over, period. We've exhausted our collective PPF (at least, the West has). The only way to achieve economic growth is to change the way we think about productivity, the way we think about "jobs," the way we think about money, and the way we interact with each other. Younger workers are feeling these concepts out. Can't say yet whether this will be successful, but one thing working in our favor is that we see through the lies (which is probably why people our age have been marked out as "difficult" -- we're not playing ball because we know the game's rigged). Judge us for being smarter and more forward-thinking than you wish we were if it makes you feel better, I guess. But the bottom line is that we're concerned more about our futures and our kids' futures than we are about our parents' futures, which *used* to be conventional wisdom for how life is supposed to work anyway.
and vote in anyone who isn't an OBGYN and/or Evangelical.
Perhaps, but I'll bet you didn't have the kind of student loan debt anyone 35ish or under (today) had (though it admittedly is EVEN WORSE for around 28ish and under).
I read the comment as having less to do with gaming generally and more to do with Pokemon specifically. There's a pretty hard-line age cut-off for Pokemon stuff, and there are even Gen Yers/Millenials who view Pokemon as purely "kid's stuff." Depending on how Gen Y/Millenials are defined, I'm considered just this side of Gen Y (born in 81) -- but even if I'm technically a year too old (I mean, who sets these cutoffs? I tell you what, it's weird being "between" generations -- I'm definitely not Gen X), what I'm about to express is a sentiment felt equally by my husband (born 1982) and my brother (born 1983), who I think are both considered solidly "Gen Y" by every definition I've seen.
When Pokemon first became a "thing" in the US, I was finished with high school and getting ready for college (and even if I'd still been in high school, how many high school seniors do you know who pick up a new kids' game for the first time? Bet you the high schoolers you know who are into Pokemon have been into it since they were in elementary school). Pokemon was a kids' cartoon. I was not about to turn right around from walking into adulthood just to go play a kids' game. Pokemon was something for my ten-year-old cousins to futz around with when they've finished watching all their Power Rangers DVDs. It was *not* something older kids/young adults (like I wanted to think of myself as) played with.
It's a bias, yeah, but it's one I've found to be unusually pervasive. Pretty much everyone I know around late twenties-ish and up just plain doesn't "get" Pokemon and doesn't understand why their mid-twenties friends are so into a kids' game. Whereas, of course, everyone I know under 28 talks about it in the same breath as they'd talk about GTA. If you're on the younger side of this divide, I don't know how to explain to you the feeling of pure *weirdness* this creates for me as a lifelong gamer. I will say that any time I see someone with a clear affinity for Pokemon, all it does it remind me how old I am, and I do *not* like being made to feel old.
Closer but still not quite there.
There are only two ways for someone to be saddled with a dead person's debt: (1) to have been married to that person (and even then it depends on state law, e.g., is it a community property state and was the debt part of the community), or (2) to have signed a guaranty on behalf of the decedent.
That's it. Those are the only two ways you can be legally bound to pay a dead person's debt. Kids are NEVER responsible for their parents' debt unless they sign a legal document agreeing to take responsibility for that debt. Period.
Now, if the kids are living in a house on which the estate owes money still, they may be faced with electing to pay the mortgage themselves or moving. But it won't be foisted on them without their consent. They have the option to move, etc.
If you're talking about the United States, the answer you're looking for is "never."
(Btw, this is separate from the question of rescinding a life insurance contract for fraud, which they can do if you die within the contestability period. But they can't refuse to pay on the grounds that a contracting party is dead. This would obviously defeat the purpose of the contract itself).
IAAL, btw.
Most people that most office workers wish they could call out for being an asshole? Are people displaying the kind of immaturity Linus Torvalds is endorsing. The only people I've ever wanted to be nasty to are people who are already being nasty to me, and I'm pretty sure that goes for most folks. Almost like this is a self-perpetuating spiral. Almost like leaders are what's needed to stop it. How unfortunate that someone with Linus' stature is so unwilling to be a leader.
Perhaps if you're unable to motivate your people to do better work without yelling at them to scare them into doing it (and thereby guarantee yourself higher rates of turnover, at least among your talented employees), it's due to your failings as a manager rather than their failings as workers.
Bill Gates had his company hacked and slashed into pieces before his eyes, and Steve Jobs is dead. "Corporate America" might have tolerated their bullshit (since when is "corporate America" an appropriate arbiter of what's socially acceptable behavior?), but karma didn't. No, I'm not saying that Jobs got cancer because he was a bad person, but I am saying that, at the end of the day, he died an angry person whose billions could neither make him happy nor keep him healthy. Bill Gates seems a much happier person now that he's focusing on making the world a better place. People who remember Steve Jobs largely remember him for his products; conversations about Steve Jobs as a person are virtually guaranteed a liberal sprinkling of provisos, caveats, and words like "but." People who think about Bill Gates increasingly associate him primarily with charitable humanitarian and environmentalist causes. I know very few people who don't admire Bill Gates at least a bit, but I know plenty of people who disdain Steve Jobs -- even Apple fans.
The right "by conquest"? What is he, some kind of knight-errant? Should we all come forward on bended knee and pledge our allegiance to him like he's some kind of feudal lord?
Odd turns of phrase aside, the "right to be listened to" isn't the same as the right to be listened to, without question, regardless of how rude, abusive, immature, violent, and otherwise inappropriate your comments and/or mannerisms.
You wouldn't suggest that his creation of Linux entitled him to break the law, to cheat on his wife, or to beat innocent kittens, would you? The fact that he's contributed something to the world doesn't relieve him of the obligation we all share to be basically decent people to each other.
Awwww, you missed a chance to blast me for nationalism! I thought the "Happy Fourth" was low-hanging fruit. Come on, I'm sure you have lots more insults than that. This post was depressingly tame. It almost reads like you were actually offended, which is silly, since we both know you're just looking for excuses to be offended. You know, like all people who get offended. C'mon, try harder, little guy!
I always find it funny how willing certain people are to get offended at the introduction of a different perspective, and how adept they seem to be at turning the blame back around on the person for adding that perspective. I can see you're enjoying your male privilege. And yes, I pointed out privilege because you seem the type to resent being reminded of it. Happy Fourth, buddy.
I understand the difference, but they can both be personal attacks.
They can both be perceived as personal attacks, I'll grant you that. But that common reaction of defensiveness is precisely what makes humans so slow to progress and evolve.
On the other hand, if that's what does it for you I'll take back my narcissism comment - I'll instead point out that your post took a fairly emotionally-neutral conversation about facts and their interpretation and turned it into a rant about assumed attitudes, imagined motivations, and implied character defects.
Does what for me? And you can't declare that a conversation is emotionally-neutral simply because you don't recognize having emotions relating to it. There are many things I find neutral and emotionally uninspiring that other people find emotionally tumultuous. For you to suggest that a conversation about theories relating to the reasons for a postulated gender discrepancy (funny that you call these theories "facts," but whatever) is "emotionally-neutral" suggests either that you're oblivious or that you're insensitive. Regardless, for those of us who have experienced actions and attitudes that stem from these sorts of discussions and have actual effects on our lives, such discussions are anything but "emotionally neutral."
And, again, you've still failed to identify any supposed "character defects" I supposedly "rant[ed]" about. I suppose by your rubric, I should take these characterizations as a personal attack on me. I have no idea why you would want to attack me. Perhaps if you're interested in becoming a kinder and more enlightened human being (something all of us can strive for) you could reflect on that for a bit.
I'm familiar with Poe's law, but I guess I just don't have the same knee-jerk reaction about people who enjoy Apple products that some do (I wouldn't have thought Poe would apply at all here). I had no intent to mock Apple fans, but rather Apple corporate. And no, those two aren't the same thing... oy vey.
Slashdot Mirror
The way the world economy is heading and with actual noise about an actual honest-to-god old-fashioned world war (weren't those supposed to be impossible now?) -- you may be more on the nose with this than you intended.
When I look around my office most colleagues are at least 35, if any group of people has been hit by the economic meltdown that is 20 somethings.
So if you as a 20 something have a job, don't piss of your older colleagues: they are in control of the situation with a vengeance, not only they are the bosses, but they are also getting most of the well paid jobs.
Younger people have an image problem, behaving like over developed teenagers won't endear them with the old timers holding the reigns of power.
The "image problem" is mostly manufactured by folks older than them. This whole "kids today have no respect" is one of the oldest, most time-honored memes around. The difference is that, this time around, if the older folks keep dismissing younger folks and writing them off this way, thanks to this absolute bullshit economy (which said younger folks could not possibly have done anything about; that one's squarely in older generations' corner), in ten-twenty years all the older folks are going to be sitting around enfeebled and dependent and wondering why on earth there seem to be so few people with quality experience to take care of them. Have people really so quickly forgotten that helping younger generations is the foundation of *everyone's* future? This post seems to be trying to take on a stern tone, but it mostly comes off as deeply short-sighted. Anyone who looks around a reasonably-sized office and finds that the youngest employee is *35* ought, if he or she has an ounce of sense, to be very, very worried about the future.
I'm 32 and share your perspective. It's not an age thing.
But then who will be the scapegoat for all the complex, multi-faceted problems I don't want to spend the energy exploring and thinking about in a fair-minded manner with an eye to solutions rather than emotional comfort food???
Every person wants to be recognized for their contributions. A few compliments, a please and thank you, and recognizing that others earned their bona fides, goes a long way towards getting yours. It's called emotional maturity -- get some, and a lot of doors will open up. Or sit there and rage in your impotence about how much better you are than the rest of us, and fail miserably. You're adults now. It's really your choice.
That's cute. I used to think that way, and it's why I wasted my twenties kowtowing to unreasonable but powerful 40- and 50-somethings and tiptoeing around their delicate egos, working ungodly long hours without complaint, consistently putting in stellar work product (and getting solid reviews, huge compliments from clients, and reports from coworkers that my bosses sung my praises when I wasn't around), actively seeking out increased responsibility (and living up to it) and only very occasionally pushing back ever so slightly when I recognized that my mental health would fray if I didn't. Guess which one of those put me first on the chopping block when the economy crashed.
Fuck those "do good work, be respectful, and you'll get far" lies. You know who's still working at my old place of employment, making Monopoly money in a shit economy? The dude whose work quality was far inferior to mine (again, this is from multiple sources), but whose one area of excellence -- kissing the boss's ass -- gave him the edge. He literally spent more on holiday gifts for the man than he did on his own wife. I'll take my shitty salary in exchange for retaining just a tiny sliver of self-respect, thanks. Any system that demands that last infinitesimal sliver doesn't deserve to tell me what *I'm* doing wrong.
I've seen highly-successful people use "U/R" in professional communications. My old boss used to do it all the time, and he's a 50-something millionaire partner in a major international law firm. So did several of his high-powered, multi-million-dollar clients (also Boomers, of course). Most young people I know *cringe* at this shit. The notion that this is a generation divide (at least one that people *my* age are on the wrong side of) is laughable.
But you realize that GEN Y is now just shy of being middle aged, at 33, right?
I'm sending you an internet punch to the teeth for suggesting 33 is almost "middle aged."
So what? Treat them like the royalty they were brought up to believe they are?
If you hate Gen Y because you see them as entitled, perhaps you should ask yourself why a powerless young kid's sense of entitlement would bother you. Why do you need groveling from already-disempowered people? Seems to me that says more about you than it says about them.
If Generation Y wants to do something, get off your asses, vote out Boomers who are pro-corporations first, fuck the people second
Worst advice ever. Anyone who didn't sleep through Poli Sci 101 knows that old people are the most dedicated and consistent voting constituency out there, and *these* old people outnumber us, just as they outnumbered their parents. Even if every member of Gen Y and Gen X went out and voted, the Boomers and the handful of WW2-generation grandparents left around (many of whom probably trust their kids to tell them how to vote at this point, if the way my dad controls his mother is a fair indication) would *still* be able to out-vote us. That's even *assuming* we were able to assemble a cohesive voting bloc, which, get real.
IF there's a solution to be had, it's one younger folks are, consciously or unconsciously, already working towards: namely, writing a new economy from the ground up. The old economy of over-leveraged assets, debt-driven growth, and sloppy-big profit margins is over, period. We've exhausted our collective PPF (at least, the West has). The only way to achieve economic growth is to change the way we think about productivity, the way we think about "jobs," the way we think about money, and the way we interact with each other. Younger workers are feeling these concepts out. Can't say yet whether this will be successful, but one thing working in our favor is that we see through the lies (which is probably why people our age have been marked out as "difficult" -- we're not playing ball because we know the game's rigged). Judge us for being smarter and more forward-thinking than you wish we were if it makes you feel better, I guess. But the bottom line is that we're concerned more about our futures and our kids' futures than we are about our parents' futures, which *used* to be conventional wisdom for how life is supposed to work anyway.
and vote in anyone who isn't an OBGYN and/or Evangelical.
I... what? You... don't trust doctors who deliver babies...? For... some... reason?
Perhaps, but I'll bet you didn't have the kind of student loan debt anyone 35ish or under (today) had (though it admittedly is EVEN WORSE for around 28ish and under).
I read the comment as having less to do with gaming generally and more to do with Pokemon specifically. There's a pretty hard-line age cut-off for Pokemon stuff, and there are even Gen Yers/Millenials who view Pokemon as purely "kid's stuff." Depending on how Gen Y/Millenials are defined, I'm considered just this side of Gen Y (born in 81) -- but even if I'm technically a year too old (I mean, who sets these cutoffs? I tell you what, it's weird being "between" generations -- I'm definitely not Gen X), what I'm about to express is a sentiment felt equally by my husband (born 1982) and my brother (born 1983), who I think are both considered solidly "Gen Y" by every definition I've seen.
When Pokemon first became a "thing" in the US, I was finished with high school and getting ready for college (and even if I'd still been in high school, how many high school seniors do you know who pick up a new kids' game for the first time? Bet you the high schoolers you know who are into Pokemon have been into it since they were in elementary school). Pokemon was a kids' cartoon. I was not about to turn right around from walking into adulthood just to go play a kids' game. Pokemon was something for my ten-year-old cousins to futz around with when they've finished watching all their Power Rangers DVDs. It was *not* something older kids/young adults (like I wanted to think of myself as) played with.
It's a bias, yeah, but it's one I've found to be unusually pervasive. Pretty much everyone I know around late twenties-ish and up just plain doesn't "get" Pokemon and doesn't understand why their mid-twenties friends are so into a kids' game. Whereas, of course, everyone I know under 28 talks about it in the same breath as they'd talk about GTA. If you're on the younger side of this divide, I don't know how to explain to you the feeling of pure *weirdness* this creates for me as a lifelong gamer. I will say that any time I see someone with a clear affinity for Pokemon, all it does it remind me how old I am, and I do *not* like being made to feel old.
At least everyone can agree that, no matter how bad it is to be completely wrong about something, even that still isn't as bad as being a woman.
Assbag.
Closer but still not quite there. There are only two ways for someone to be saddled with a dead person's debt: (1) to have been married to that person (and even then it depends on state law, e.g., is it a community property state and was the debt part of the community), or (2) to have signed a guaranty on behalf of the decedent. That's it. Those are the only two ways you can be legally bound to pay a dead person's debt. Kids are NEVER responsible for their parents' debt unless they sign a legal document agreeing to take responsibility for that debt. Period. Now, if the kids are living in a house on which the estate owes money still, they may be faced with electing to pay the mortgage themselves or moving. But it won't be foisted on them without their consent. They have the option to move, etc.
If you're talking about the United States, the answer you're looking for is "never." (Btw, this is separate from the question of rescinding a life insurance contract for fraud, which they can do if you die within the contestability period. But they can't refuse to pay on the grounds that a contracting party is dead. This would obviously defeat the purpose of the contract itself). IAAL, btw.
I think you're positing a clear distinction where none exists.
TIL that familiarity with basic grade-school level homonym vocabulary is a "meme."
Most people that most office workers wish they could call out for being an asshole? Are people displaying the kind of immaturity Linus Torvalds is endorsing. The only people I've ever wanted to be nasty to are people who are already being nasty to me, and I'm pretty sure that goes for most folks. Almost like this is a self-perpetuating spiral. Almost like leaders are what's needed to stop it. How unfortunate that someone with Linus' stature is so unwilling to be a leader.
Perhaps if you're unable to motivate your people to do better work without yelling at them to scare them into doing it (and thereby guarantee yourself higher rates of turnover, at least among your talented employees), it's due to your failings as a manager rather than their failings as workers.
Bill Gates had his company hacked and slashed into pieces before his eyes, and Steve Jobs is dead. "Corporate America" might have tolerated their bullshit (since when is "corporate America" an appropriate arbiter of what's socially acceptable behavior?), but karma didn't. No, I'm not saying that Jobs got cancer because he was a bad person, but I am saying that, at the end of the day, he died an angry person whose billions could neither make him happy nor keep him healthy. Bill Gates seems a much happier person now that he's focusing on making the world a better place. People who remember Steve Jobs largely remember him for his products; conversations about Steve Jobs as a person are virtually guaranteed a liberal sprinkling of provisos, caveats, and words like "but." People who think about Bill Gates increasingly associate him primarily with charitable humanitarian and environmentalist causes. I know very few people who don't admire Bill Gates at least a bit, but I know plenty of people who disdain Steve Jobs -- even Apple fans.
The right "by conquest"? What is he, some kind of knight-errant? Should we all come forward on bended knee and pledge our allegiance to him like he's some kind of feudal lord?
Odd turns of phrase aside, the "right to be listened to" isn't the same as the right to be listened to, without question, regardless of how rude, abusive, immature, violent, and otherwise inappropriate your comments and/or mannerisms.
You wouldn't suggest that his creation of Linux entitled him to break the law, to cheat on his wife, or to beat innocent kittens, would you? The fact that he's contributed something to the world doesn't relieve him of the obligation we all share to be basically decent people to each other.
Surely you aren't asking the AC to use more "professional" language about Mr. Torvalds...
Awwww, you missed a chance to blast me for nationalism! I thought the "Happy Fourth" was low-hanging fruit. Come on, I'm sure you have lots more insults than that. This post was depressingly tame. It almost reads like you were actually offended, which is silly, since we both know you're just looking for excuses to be offended. You know, like all people who get offended. C'mon, try harder, little guy!
I always find it funny how willing certain people are to get offended at the introduction of a different perspective, and how adept they seem to be at turning the blame back around on the person for adding that perspective. I can see you're enjoying your male privilege. And yes, I pointed out privilege because you seem the type to resent being reminded of it. Happy Fourth, buddy.
I understand the difference, but they can both be personal attacks.
They can both be perceived as personal attacks, I'll grant you that. But that common reaction of defensiveness is precisely what makes humans so slow to progress and evolve.
On the other hand, if that's what does it for you I'll take back my narcissism comment - I'll instead point out that your post took a fairly emotionally-neutral conversation about facts and their interpretation and turned it into a rant about assumed attitudes, imagined motivations, and implied character defects.
Does what for me? And you can't declare that a conversation is emotionally-neutral simply because you don't recognize having emotions relating to it. There are many things I find neutral and emotionally uninspiring that other people find emotionally tumultuous. For you to suggest that a conversation about theories relating to the reasons for a postulated gender discrepancy (funny that you call these theories "facts," but whatever) is "emotionally-neutral" suggests either that you're oblivious or that you're insensitive. Regardless, for those of us who have experienced actions and attitudes that stem from these sorts of discussions and have actual effects on our lives, such discussions are anything but "emotionally neutral."
And, again, you've still failed to identify any supposed "character defects" I supposedly "rant[ed]" about. I suppose by your rubric, I should take these characterizations as a personal attack on me. I have no idea why you would want to attack me. Perhaps if you're interested in becoming a kinder and more enlightened human being (something all of us can strive for) you could reflect on that for a bit.
I'm familiar with Poe's law, but I guess I just don't have the same knee-jerk reaction about people who enjoy Apple products that some do (I wouldn't have thought Poe would apply at all here). I had no intent to mock Apple fans, but rather Apple corporate. And no, those two aren't the same thing... oy vey.