#generational conflict

[morphine-king]

The Sun In A Net (1963) – Stefan Uher

[ariel-seagull-wings]

@princesssarisa @countesspetofi @the-blue-fairie @professorlehnsherr-almashy @thealmightyemprex @themousefromfantasyland

Knowing that Zero Mostel's parents cut relations with him when he married his wife Kate, because she was not jewish, and even refusing to meet the two grandchildren that were born of the marriage, gives a deeper context to why the musical Fiddler on the Roof would give a more simpathetic, modern viewed portrayal of an interethnic/interfaith marriage of a jewish person and a christian person compared to the ambiguous, somber and pessimistic portrayal of that marriage in the 19th century Sholem Aleichem Tevye Tales.

Love it or hate it, it was inevitable that a stage play made by people living in the US jewish diaspora for people living in said diaspora would present a different perspective from the generation living under the Rússian Czarist Empire when the conversion to Judaism was forbidden but the reverse was obligatory in an interfaith marriage in written law.

In the 1960s, the distant memory of the shtetl life was now a story told by the grandparents, not part of the lived reality.

So the narrative, set in an impressionist dream of the shtetl, is really about the new generation of jewish people living in America, who after changing and adapting traditions to a new time, place and perspective, mixing influences beyond the tales of Aleichem, from the romantic paintings of Marc Chagall, to the Borscht Belt vaudeville comedy, passing to the ballet coreography of Jerome Robbins, have to grapple with the previous generations ties to Eastern Europe and show that their new interpretation of the classic characters and stories is as much valid as the older versions.

[thatbadadvice]

Help! My Employee Thinks She Deserves Pay In Exchange For Labor!

Ask A Manager, 19 October 2021:

I’m not comfortable with one of my new staff members and how overconfident she is. Her work is great and she needed very little training but she’s got very big britches.

“Jane” has only been with us for two months. Just today she asked for a meeting with me and our payroll manager. It turns out payroll made an error entering her direct deposit information that resulted in Jane not getting paid, not once but two times.

Our company requires potential candidates to complete sample assignments during the interview process and we pay them an hourly contractor rate. It turns out she didn’t get paid for her assignment period, or for the next full pay cycle. The payroll employee apologized directly to Jane in an email, because it was their error in entering her information and not following up/fixing it that resulted in Jane not getting paid. Jane was able to show emails back and forth where she checked in with the payroll employee and asked if it was fixed, which they confirmed it was. Today was payday and Jane didn’t get paid. She checked with the employee again and they acknowledged that they “thought” it was fixed. It’s upsetting for Jane, I understand, but I think she was out of line about the whole thing. People make mistakes.

Neither payroll nor I knew anything about it until today. We both apologized and assured her the issue would be handled. After that, she looked at me and the payroll manager and said, “I appreciate your apology, but I need you both to understand that this can’t happen again. This has put me under financial strain and I can’t continue to work for COMPANY if this isn’t corrected today.” The payroll manager was heavily in agreement, but I was speechless that she’d speak to management like that.

Payroll handled the whole thing and cut her a check with the okay from HR. Jane had referenced that not being paid put her in financial hardship and unable to pay bills, so HR allowed the use of the employee hardship fund and gave her $500 in gift cards so she can get groceries and gas and catch up on bills. I’m just kind of floored that she’s getting gift cards after speaking to her superiors like that. I’m also uncomfortable because why is our company responsible for her fiscal irresponsibility? Her personal finances or debts are not the company’s responsibility. I just don’t think it’s the company’s responsibility to give her more than what she’s earned (the extra $500 from the employee emergency relief fund) to fix things for her if she overspent or didn’t prioritize her bills or save smartly. We also don’t know if she is actually experiencing a financial hardship or just claiming she was.

HR allowed her paid time to go to the bank today and deposit her check. I told our HR person that while it’s not okay Jane didn’t get paid, the way she approached it was uncalled for. HR told me, “She’s right, it can’t happen again and it shouldn’t have happened at all.” I’m getting tired of the respect gap I’m seeing with younger staff. I think Jane would be better suited in a different department. I’m not comfortable having her on my team since it’s obvious she doesn’t understand she’s entry-level and not in charge. Should I wait a while before suggesting she transfer to a different department?

Dear Employer,

You raise a number of important issues, not least among them: why do we work? Do we work because the vast majority of us are helpless to escape a fundamentally exploitative global capitalist system that requires us to exchange our time and skills and labor for money or else simply fuck off and die? Or do we work because we must get taken down a peg or two before we get too uppity to be useful to our social and economic betters?

I'm being rhetorical, of course! The correct answer is the latter, obviously. Work is not something people should or even usually do for a paycheck, which is what makes this situation so bizarre! Work is something people do because it's the right thing to do, because it is intrinsically good for its own sake, which is to say: because it literally enriches and empowers only the most worthy in order to further distance otherwise useless, entitled grunts like your employee from getting anywhere close to laying even the barest finger, even a pinky finger, on the means of production. There's nothing more purely and altruistically satisfying than working, especially when we know that our labor serves to strengthen the boot upon our own necks! A strong boot means a happy worker! Huzzah!

And what you have here, letter writer, is not a happy worker — what you have here is a worker who believes work and pay are related, and that they are entitled to reimbursement for their work merely because that is the immutable and binding nature of the laws where you live. I can't think of a better example of one being too big for one's britches than this little grabby-gabby wiseass with the gall to demand payment for services rendered per an expressly agreed-upon prior contract between all parties.

It's a real shame that the law requires people to be paid for their labor regardless of whether they bring a sufficiently sunny attitude to the workplace, and there's certainly nothing sunny about being clear and direct that you cannot continue to work for free indefinitely with a spring in your step and a song in your heart! What kind of sourpuss can't show a bit of cheer in the office, even if the lights are off at home and they can't afford groceries or other basic essentials because of the repeated incompetence of an employer who holds their very survival in their hands? That's not the kind of can-do attitude that gets people ahead in this world!

Of course, by "people" we mean young people, who will never succeed as long as they remain universally and frightfully presumptuous. Everyone your age and older has unimpeachable comportment in every situation, whereas people who are younger than you are disrespectful smart-alecks — and it's frankly disturbing that your HR department conceded so quickly to your employee's unreasonable fixation on receiving money that she was legally entitled to! What's next, avocado toast and $5 lattes on demand???? A living wage???? Health insurance???? For an entry-level employee who's so poor with money management that she complains about going months without pay????

Only people who suffer in silence at length out of sheer and absolute terror at offending those who hold control over their financial wellbeing deserve to be paid money for food and shelter, and they can take their paychecks whenever your company damn well gets around to it, and thank you for the pleasure! Why wait to transfer this employee out of your department — surely you're not afraid of offending this selfish peon? Cut her loose, along with anyone else she might have influenced with her money-grubbing ways, and ensure that you are surrounded only with the worshipful lackeys you deserve!

[dumplingequivalent]

hey I think I know why old people are insincere assholes the essay

Yknow when you're trying to connect to someone from an older generation, and they gloss over your attempts at genuine connection?

Like when a family member got you a gift that really meant something to you, but when you try to express your genuine gratitude, it seems like they don't really give a shit?

Or maybe you open up and share something personal with an older coworker or family friend along with some advice on a concern that you've been actively worrying about for them, but they don't acknowledge it or even act like they heard you at all?

Something clicked for me today, and now I think it's bigger than Poppop's Just An Asshole Sometimes.

I think there's been a huge shift in western culture around authenticity and genuine expression in the past two decades or so - the way we as a society and culture view it, express it, present it, and respond to it - that's causing minor intergenerational conflicts in our personal lives, but more importantly, major conflicts in our shared public spaces.

Hear me out.

1. Authenticity Then VS Now

2. Authenticity Becomes A Privilege And No One Tells The Boomers

3. Boomer-Meta and Why It Matters

1. Authenticity Then Vs Now

If you're on tumblr you probably understand nuance -

- so I think the concept of "authenticity" meaning something different to Boomers than it does to Millennials or Gen Z isn't baffling to you. it probably feels really familiar.

If you went to a US school in the 2000's, you probably remember the DARE program and anti-smoking and anti-drug ads on TV. And if you don't, you probably already have an idea of what I'm talking about. Things made by adults that felt embarrassingly out of touch to the children they were designed for.

As we all know, these all flopped immediately yet lasted the whole decade. (flopped except for the anti-smoking ads which I'll come back to) In retrospect, these marketing attempts says a lot more about the generation of adults responsible for them.

Things like the DARE program were, pretty transparently, designed to resemble what boomers remembered was "cool and interesting" from their own childhoods. My favorite example is Yello Dino and his video on "Tricky People" that's a painfully obvious homage to Fonzie from Happy Days crossed with Barney that's just as painful to watch.

Watch from 8:03-15:30 or so to see Yello Dino appear and sing a stranger danger song with the Local Kids™.

It's easy to look at this kind of thing and the DARE program and say "of course kids didn't fall for any of this, it's so poorly made; blatantly trying to sell an idea;" etc. But I think the core issue is authenticity.

Remember the anti-smoking ads? Those worked in the end because they featured people who looked like people we knew in person, with real problems from actions they really regretted. And that stuck.

But the Boomer "How Do You Do Fellow Kids" bullshit was never grounded in reality.

The approach they were trying to replicate only worked back in the boomers childhoods because everyone was seen as being genuine by default.

People in real life told the truth unless proven otherwise. Comedians on TV said things to make the audience present laugh. Singers appeared on TV so you could see them as well as hear them. People in ads were selling you a product.

Actors acted like their characters to portray that character "genuinely".

Why would they lie? Their job is to be that character. If they say they like Big Coffee Brand™, you might laugh as it's obviously an ad,

but you also then believed that to be true.

No, really. The section on Fonzie's wiki page bout Henry Winkler's involvement in social issues, titled "Civic Involvement," reads like a social commentary in a dystopian horror. There's little to no distinction between the character and the actor. Henry Winkler is Fonzie, and Fonzie is Henry Winkler.

So if you wanna be like Fonzie, you wanna be like Henry Winkler. You wanna smoke and drink and say what Henry Winkler does, because that's what Fonzie does.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Now, flash forward to the 2000's.

The police officers doing DARE were (mostly) never thrilled to be there. The anti-weed ads were so exaggerated that they seemed cartoony. Hell, some of them were cartoons, just unfunny ones. And most importantly, we were taught from a very young age that everyone is always lying.

"Never reveal personal information about yourself to strangers or online to protect yourself" turns into "Everyone is lying to you to get something from you" really, really fast.

People in real life aren't to be believed until they can prove what they say is true. Comedians on TV say things to keep themselves relevant and in the rumor mill. Singers appear on TV to sell concert tickets and promote albums. Ads use social issues that affect real people as marketing. Actors are people who are pretty and pretend to be other people in a way that's never convincing, but sometimes if they're feeling generous they'll let you know what they really think and feel.

So, why would anyone tell the truth?

Why should you?

2) Authenticity Becomes A Privilege And No One Tells Boomers

(Thank you for reading this far and I promise I'm don't with the edgy "everything sucks" poetry now)

So now we've all grown up into jaded adults who've been taught to not trust but to strive to "be your unique self" and that creates some weird social dichotomies.

If you want to be truly happy, you must accept yourself and do what you want to do.

....but then you risk being seen as a cringey fuck that gets laughed at on Facebook by your highschool classmates and all of your previous bosses.

All jokes aside, modern society prioritizes a readied public face now more than ever, and that's really exemplified in the Internet celebrity experience. Taking a mild stance on anything generates tabloids attention, and doing something the public frowns upon can ruin a person's career permanently. you're on tumblr, this isn't news to you. you get what I mean.

This consequently makes moments of genuine emotion and expression from these celebrities inherently risky - and thus, a much more rare occurrence. Moments of streamers getting scared by spiders or cockroaches blow up constantly because, I mean yeah sure it's funny, but it's also really REALLY difficult to stage a believable reaction to something like that. And that carnal reaction draws out the desire for connection in all of us. That moment of unfiltered response feels special - a brief glimpse behind the curtain.

And celebrities online know it too. Apology videos, let's plays, streaming - all of this media has a built in sense of authenticity that is vital to making it work. Authenticity is a premium social currency in this space, and that bleeds into our everyday lives as well.

If the most badass and brave thing your idols can do is to be sincere, then eventually, you'll probably feel that way too. It makes sense - sincerity is vulnerable. Choosing to be deliberately honest and emotional when you have no expectation to be is a powerful thing. At least, to most of us it is.

While this is all happening, there's an entire generation of people who are still experiencing the world like when happy days was airing.

Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, Rachel Ray.......whatever other bullshit they put on TV, all of it begins to make more sense when you focus on their target audience - the middle aged and elderly.

Yes, really. Think of who you know in real life who absolutely loved The Big Bang Theory.

I mean, come on. This image makes me sad, dude.

Humor me for a moment. let's just run with my theory and say middle-aged and older people are all walking around as if everyone is always telling the truth to them.

Is it really that surprising that Dr. Oz was/is?? as successful as he was? As it turns out, believing everything to be true until proven otherwise is incredibly dangerous when applied to medical practice!

While we were growing up, the middle aged and elderly were spending their time being constantly self-absorbed and, just, unapologetically themselves. Which doesn't sound bad in theory, but it's really not as straightforward as it sounds.

3. Boomer-Meta And Why It Matters

So boomers are gullible. the sky is blue. why should you care

The point to all this is that authenticity is very important to modern society, and the difference of what authenticity means and how it's expressed matter drastically when understanding each other is vital.

Boomers were raised to always be genuine. If one believes themself to always be truthful, that lends to forming a bias in their own favor. And breaking the mentality down further, "I always say what I mean and I mean what I say" implies that what was said is what is true. And further, someone changing their "story" is an indicator of deception.

I've met plenty of older generation people who act like sharing their opinion is a gift in and of itself i.e. unwarranted comments on cooking or food, interjected advice about the conversation subject. Similarly, questions about the validity of a statement seem to often be taken as questioning ones morals.

This personal bias is very apparent in interpersonal situations. An attempt to be more genuine with someone who thinks this way would come across as staged and more insincere, and conversely, speaking with a clear bias appears superficial and ignorant.

But the real conflict is how this affects our news and politics. A core misunderstanding of what sincerity is and what it looks like, from either side, is dooms any conversation before it ever begins.

The lack of literacy in each other's values adds so much unnecessary conflict into already divisive matters. The stagnation in the legal progress of important social issues is probably worsened with so many of the US lawmakers being elderly themselves.

I don't have a great way to end this thing, but thanks for reading my weird essay.

The slow realization that a misunderstanding could be at the center of most major political conflict in the US consumed me for like 12 hours today and I appreciate you taking time to read my ramblings.

[lizardsfromspace]

"Parents are review bombing Turning Red bc the protagonist disobeys her parents, and that is NOT like the cartoons they grew up on, don't they know all the films they did grow up on have kids disobeying or conflicting with parents"

Yep. Yep, they know

There's a loop people of many age brackets fall into where the culture they absorbed as a kid was beneficial, or at least harmless, but similar culture today is dangerous and troubling. A piece of 90s kid's media with a "be yourself" or diversity or girl power or even environmentalist message was charming; a piece of modern kid's media with the same message is horrible woke propaganda out to corrupt your kids

Not just pop culture. It's the skateboard teen to adult who calls the cops on skateboarders pipeline. It was good fun when we did it, but those kids are loitering criminals and need the cops called on them. The "how dare evangelicals call my music Satanic" to "*long Facebook rant about Lil Nas X*" pipeline.

Part of this is growing older and now taking seriously the tangible dangers your parents were nervous about; but a large part of it is that desire hijacked by surging cultural conservatism that sees every little thing in culture besides themselves as a very real threat to their families.

[hellyeahheroes]

Why Are So Many Young People Becoming Socialists? by Second Thought

[dyingroses]

[alexadelphia-official]

I was reading something about "weeping with those who weep" right now (+ this summer reading the book of Job again and realising Job only turned against God when his friends started accusing him) and it felt like the last piece of the puzzle was put into place

I think that's the quickest way to summarise why my relationship with my parents isn't so great anymore: I realised that I didn't really feel their support in my hardest moments.

When I would cry, complain, vent, rant and talk about my suffering (in chronological order, starting from about age 11 to the present, age 21: bullying, not fitting in, arguing with my classmates, feeling rejected by crushes and regular friends alike, people not liking me, not having any sort of real friendship at all, dealing with a lot of pressure from school, anxiety, fears and phobias, worries about things such as the end of the world, dealing with online arguments and the increasing realisation of how much evil there is in the world, doubts about salvation and the like, theological questions, dealing with all sorts of disturbing intrusive thoughts, my abusive teacher, more pressure from school, disappointment towards my extended family, disillusionment with my hometown, the change in our family dynamics, etc) they would not "weep" with me.

Instead, they would, at best, try to find solutions, which given how systemic some issues were, solutions there were none. But sometimes they'd get frustrated at me for talking about the same issue over and over despite their solution. And then they'd even blame me ("maybe you provoked your classmates, that's why they were mean to you" or "you're having these thoughts because you let them into your brain" etc). They would sometimes encourage me with stuff like "they're just like that because they're jealous cause you're smarter" etc. I'm not saying they never even tried, because they obviously did try to help me in my problems. It's just that they, progressively, over the years, lost patience with me to the point where I feel none from them anymore. And for what? Suffering? Is my suffering a burden to them? They told me the problem is that I keep "wallowing" in my misery as if I wanted to get bullied/ abused/ be mentally ill etc. They act like it's a pure act of will to "get over" these things. Or perhaps they had the hope that my issues would be solved quickly and were disappointed they weren't?

But this is why I don't say my parents were "abusive or neglectful", that's too harsh a word, even if they did wrong me in this respect. I think it's a huge mindset problem that plagues their generation and not only theirs. Bootstrap mentality. The worst of the Romanian "I got beaten by my teacher during communist times and I ended up an upstanding citizen" line of thought and the American "the only one responsible for your own happiness is you", with a tinge of toxic positivity/ prosperity Gospel nuance to it. Both cultural traditions can be summed up as "stop having a victim mentality and you won't be a victim anymore". My parents were well intentioned but they were wrong.

It's so unfortunate that they've lost their patience with me. I'm not trying to play victim, I'm just yearning for validation from my own parents. And I'm just having a very hard time with this "long teenagehood (age 11-21)". Am I even allowed to call it suffering? I would, since it does hurt a lot. I think all I really wanted was for my parents to cry with me and say "yes, you are being mistreated, what you're going through is real and tough, we're here for you". I didn't even want solutions.

I really wish things had been better, and that they will become better eventually.