Gen Z can’t work alongside people with different views because they ‘haven’t got the skills to disagree’ says British TV boss
Gen Z can’t work alongside people with different views because they ‘haven’t got the skills to disagree’ says British TV boss
Channel 4's chief exec blames social media and the pandemic for Gen Z’s deficiency in essential workplace diplomacy.
You're viewing a single thread.
It is hilarious that this thread proves the article right.
Cause you're seeing views you disagree with and can't handle it?
It literally does the opposite but ok
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.
Then they should provide examples. And not just talk in big general terms.
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.
Find where exactly I said this.
"yes you do have to talk to people you disagree with on a high level"
Your problem is that you're doing the fun game of pretending that "political differences" these days are still in the realms of disagreeing whether quantitative easing is sound economic practice, rather than disagreeing whether trans people should get to exist or not.
If you vote for a party based on their economic policy, and that party happens to be actively recruiting from the ranks of white supremacists, then congratulations: you've just voted at least in part for white supremacy, whether you realised it or not. If you vote for a party currently trying to win votes by campaigning on the grounds of climate change being a hoax, then congratulations, that's exactly what you voted for.
They need to have debates and discussion and decide on courses of action
Essentially all the discussion in this thread so far has basically been focused around being outspoken against bigotry, so I'd be really interested what industry you work in where there are transferable skills from lively debates on whether racism is a good thing or not.
What's an example of an opinion you think Bill from accounting could hold that your standard Gen-Z employee would find unacceptable?
Essentially all the discussion in this thread so far has basically been focused around being outspoken against bigotry,
Yeah, because the people in this thread didn't read the article and are making excuses for themselves.
What's an example of an opinion you think Bill from accounting could hold that your standard Gen-Z employee
It literally depends entirely on the people and the company, and the disagreements aren't cross generations exclusively. The point is that Gen Z is not equipped to handle disagreement in general. You all are the ones jumping to pin it on politics that are already by large literally illegal and heavily squeezed out of corporate spaces.
the people in this thread didn't read the article
the article is literally just "Gen Z can't hold a difference of opinion" repeated over and over with different phrasing
most people by now understand what that's code for, because the other side understands that giving examples would immediately out them as a bigot
otherwise you'd just, you know, give an example
It literally depends entirely on the people and the company
wow wild that you won't just, you know, give an example
you realise that the narrative of "cancel culture" has been going since long before the pandemic, right? this is the same exact thing just dressed up differently
Bootlicker spotted...
Have you worked in the office?!
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".
I mean, all you're doing is saying anyone who disagrees with you is the problem.
You literally are though, you're acting as if my views are invalid. I fully respect your beliefs but from the way you're writing these replies, it doesn't seem like you're respecting mine
Actually no, this is not true at all. It's just that everyone who disagrees with me is either trolling, completely ignorant about basic, objective scientific facts, or is a hate-filled extermist. Our society will surely be destroyed if I pretend even for a second that these awful people's dangerous views are worth listening to or engaging with or being allowed to exist.
Actually no, this is not true at all. It's just that everyone who disagrees with me is either trolling, completely ignorant about basic, objective scientific facts, or is a hate-filled extermist. Our society will surely be destroyed if I pretend even for a second that these awful people's dangerous views are worth listening to or engaging with or being allowed to exist.
Yeah I agree, the guy who thinks I should solve this database file location issue by standardizing the call and making a change in every class we have to prevent future work, but necessitating lots of testing, is a hate-filled extremist.
Obviously my position that we should take the existing structure and write a simple base-class level method to handle it and then assume future edge cases may pop up is the only ethically correct stance. Maybe he’s trolling.
😁
He's a fucking Nazi that's what he is.
LOL, no lie. Well, let's see how that pans out for them socially and in the workplace. We'll have a Social Darwinism kind of experiment, see who gets along best in the long run.
Social Darwinism- the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.
I don't understand why you're advocating for social darwinism, but it may be my lack of communication skills at fault.
LOL, not that exactly. Just saying that the ability to get along with people, even people with wildly different viewpoints, is a predictor of workplace success.