(no title)
shortcake27 | 2 years ago
To anyone downvoting my original comment, take a look at CATO, the style of writing used in their blog posts, their other studies, and their mission statement, and decide for yourself - are they trying to accurately represent gen z, or are they pushing an agenda?
It seems like far-right-wing organisations are expending extensive effort in an attempt to discredit gen z as a generation who are happy to have all their rights sold away and/or eroded. Yet if you speak to a young person today, it doesn’t line up.
“I read a study that said X about gen z” isn’t evidence that gen z believes / does those things.
abduhl|2 years ago
Regardless, the study highlights exactly the difference the GP was saying: gen z is much more likely to be okay with the surveillance state. Even if the study question is worded in a way you disagree with or that you think is biased, you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond.
shortcake27|2 years ago
You admit to CATO being biased but you still believe their studies are concrete proof of a hypothesis?
> you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond.
I don’t see why it’s relevant to prove the mechanism CATO uses to get its results, when their data doesn’t line up with the real world.
I’m still looking for the exact link which has details/numbers (I’m currently on my phone on patchy 4g) but my counterpoint to CATO is that in Dunedin, either the University or DCC wanted to install surveillance cameras, and after consulting with the students, the number of cameras was reduced. So in this scenario, you have an older generation wanting more surveillance and the younger generation pushing back. This is not only completely opposite to CATOs study, but is also real opposed to hypothetical.