Proposition:
“Gen Z is bad at discussion”
Reaction:
“Gen Z isn’t bad at discussion, everyone at the workplace has bad opinions and we shouldn’t have to discuss”
Reality:
Offices aren’t filled to the brim with evil people and yes you do have to talk to people you disagree with on a high level. Gen Z probably really does have issues with actual high level discussion because they’ve grown up their whole life surrounded by Internet echo chambers. This includes right wingers.
This is a continuation of the dance around what’s being talked about. The reaction isn’t that ‘other people’s opinions are bad’. The reaction is that oppressive behavior being passed off as innocuous opinion is not genuine opinion, and cannot be tolerated in a peaceful society. But yeah, let’s minimize the opposing view like a cable TV news anchor.
The reaction isn’t that ‘other people’s opinions are bad’. The reaction is that oppressive behavior being passed off as innocuous opinion
The assumption is that this is about oppressive behavior and you’re entitled to hold firm in this mindset. The reality is that there’s likely a genuine issue here and that issue is happily driven and worsened by these sort of assumptions.
Take some time to read up on the person making the claims. Female CEO of a large news network isn’t exactly part of the old boys club.
Offices aren’t filled to the brim with evil people
It depends on what you mean here. If your politics say that LGTBQ+ people don’t deserve to live, that some children just need to die (school lunches being cut), that it’s ok to force raped children to give birth, then, yeah you’reat least a little evil. If you believe that women or people of a different skin color are less than you you’re at least a little evil. Even if you’re a pleasant conversationalist, even if you donate time and money, are kind to children and animals, if you have evil opinions, or support people who do, you are a little evil.
The article is an opinion piece that is intentionally leaving out what topics they claim are not being debated.
At a time when science has been politicized, it is safe to say these topics are not up for debate. Reality isn’t up for debate. Especially when it is evidence vs opinion.
Just to double check, your stance is that a minority should be forced to be cordial with somebody who hates them simply for existing?
Unfortunately for everybody, businesses will need to recruit and retain Gen Z employees. If that means that they have to change their company culture, then that’s going to have to happen.
My stance is that the people in this thread, and you, are jumping to hilarious conclusions to justify your continued head-up-assery.
your stance is that a minority should be forced to be cordial with somebody who hates them simply for existing?
Like seriously. Read the article and read what I said. Find where exactly I said this.
Hint: I didn’t.
My point is that this inability to debate and handle opinions you don’t like extends well beyond dealing with some random bigot.
businesses will need to recruit and retain Gen Z employees. If that means that they have to change their company culture, then that’s going to have to happen.
They also need to… do business. They need to have debates and discussion and decide on courses of action when two people feel strongly about how the company should behave, and echo chamber natives are very bad at actually articulating their thoughts and defending their points absent their peers backing them up.
I mean it’s a problem with a lot of Gen Z in the west yes. But where I live someone’s opinion does not affect how well you get along with them, probably because people aren’t addicted to the internet as people are in the west. Also if anything you’re the one who isn’t accepting other’s views lol.
Also if anything you’re the one who isn’t accepting other’s views lol.
This is like textbook behavior from people who have a problem with discussion. Phrasing disagreement as if it’s “not accepting my view”.
