Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Generation Z is the most conservative since WW2 Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    As it says clearly in the article, only 14 and 15-year-olds were surveyed.

    Its a rather silly piece, as you'd expect. I wasn't impressed.

    But the premise is (coincidentally) correct, imo.

    Demographers often define Generation Z to be those who were born after the mid 1990s, the DM's definition is not unique. And young people certainly do hold political opinions...
    Well it wouldn't surprise me too much. The internet, it radicalises Muslims as much as little white kids.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ative-WW2.html

    Generation Z (people born after 2000) have more conservative views on gay marriage, drugs, tattoos and social norms than the two previous generations.
    I was born in 97'

    I am very much anti gay marriage, drugs and immigration and fighting other peoples wars
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by לזייןהאיסלאם)
    Your choices are either authoritarian leftism and authoritarian right-wing conservatism. "Liberal" as an option appears to be have been left by the wayside, which is a shame because, as a liberal, I think it means we're screwed. The enlightenment is dead.
    It was overrated anyway.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vesniep)
    It's sad, but true
    Liberalism is dying
    Liberalism and conservatism are not incompatible

    You'll find that a lot of the Gen Z folks will grow out of this stuff, it's just a reaction to the crap they see coming from the left. The old saying goes that as you grow up you grow more conservative. The truth is as you grow up you grow more centrist, but because kids previously were almost always left they were seen as becoming more right wing.

    The generation will likely become more socially liberal as they go through their late teens and early twenties, as they get a job and start having a more international outlook, as they themselves go through hard times.

    The general trend is that kids are reactionary to the cultural forces in power. Right now the left is culturally dominant - hollywood, silicon valley the media (no matter what people say, the majority of the MSM is socially left of centre, especially in the UK). That's what they're rebelling against.

    What I think we'll see is more libertarian generation than anything
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Oh Christ, here we go again with the misunderstanding of statistics. And it wasn't the Daily Mail which conducted the poll.

    This is a huge problem with TSR, we have GCSE commentators who have just learnt about sample sizes and source bias, and parrot it all back without any understanding.

    How can a sample of only 800 or 1,200 truly reflect the opinions of 200 million Americans within a few percentage points?

    Sampling methods and measures of sample reliability or precision are derived from a mathematical science called statistics. Statistics is a subject taught in colleges and some high schools. Text books on the subject are available in most libraries.

    At the root of statistical reliability is probability; i.e., the odds of obtaining a particular outcome by chance alone. As an example, the chances of having a coin come up heads in a single toss is 50%. Heads is one of only two possible outcomes. The chance of getting two heads in two coin tosses is less because two heads are now only one of four possible outcomes; i.e., a head/head, head/tail, tail/head and tail/tail. As the number of coin tosses increases, it becomes increasingly more likely to get outcomes that are either very close to half heads or exactly half because, as with two coin tosses, there are more ways to get such outcomes.

    Sample survey reliability works the same way -- but on a much larger scale. As in coin tosses, the most likely sample outcome is the true percentage of whatever it is we are measuring across the total population. Next most likely are outcomes very close to this true percentage. A statement of potential margin of error or sample precision reflects this and often appears in poll stories. Using a sample of 1,000 as an example, the statement could read: the chances are 95% of coming within +/- 3% of a hypothetical survey conducted among all members of the population. This means that 95% of all samples that could possibly be drawn will yield an outcome within 3 percentage points of the true percentage among the population.

    Keep in mind that estimates of potential sample error always assume random samples. But even in true random samples, precision can be compromised by other factors, such as the wording of questions or the order in which questions were asked.

    There is no single ideal sample size. Samples of any size have some degree of precision. The question is always whether there is sufficient precision to draw conclusions as determined by statistical formulae.
    Are these the same completely unbiased and 100% accurate pollsters who correctly predicted the voting intentions of the UK and US elections?

    All I'm saying is that there is no infallible technique in taking 2,000 people's results from one survey and immediately assuming it represents the views of almost a billion.

    Every pollster has an agenda - if you bothered to look at any other surveys on any other issue you would notice that results vary wildly from one survey group to another depending on the agenda of the company running it and the desired outcome of the poll.
    • Offline

      20
      (Original post by yudothis)
      Well it wouldn't surprise me too much. The internet, it radicalises Muslims as much as little white kids.
      Not sure how much muslims are radicalised over the internet. But the internet certainly does radicalise whites.
      • Offline

        20
        (Original post by rolaah)
        Are these the same completely unbiased and 100% accurate pollsters who correctly predicted the voting intentions of the UK and US elections?

        All I'm saying is that there is no infallible technique in taking 2,000 people's results from one survey and immediately assuming it represents the views of almost a billion.
        Yeah, there's this thing called a margin of error, and the results of most surveys were within that.

        The main thing with Brexit and Trump was the "Shy Tory" effect, and if anything accounting for that effect would exacerbate the findings of this survey.

        (Original post by rolaah)
        Every pollster has an agenda - if you bothered to look at any other surveys on any other issue you would notice that results vary wildly from one survey group to another depending on the agenda of the company running it and the desired outcome of the poll.
        Every user has an agenda - if you bothered to look at any other posts on any other issue you would notice that posts vary wildly from one user to another depending on the agenda of the user posting it and the desired outcome of the post.

        Hence I will disregard your post.
        Offline

        20
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Mathemagicien)
        Oh Christ, here we go again with the misunderstanding of statistics. And it wasn't the Daily Mail which conducted the poll.

        This is a huge problem with TSR, we have GCSE commentators who have just learnt about sample sizes and source bias, and parrot it all back without any understanding.

        How can a sample of only 800 or 1,200 truly reflect the opinions of 200 million Americans within a few percentage points?

        Sampling methods and measures of sample reliability or precision are derived from a mathematical science called statistics. Statistics is a subject taught in colleges and some high schools. Text books on the subject are available in most libraries.

        At the root of statistical reliability is probability; i.e., the odds of obtaining a particular outcome by chance alone. As an example, the chances of having a coin come up heads in a single toss is 50%. Heads is one of only two possible outcomes. The chance of getting two heads in two coin tosses is less because two heads are now only one of four possible outcomes; i.e., a head/head, head/tail, tail/head and tail/tail. As the number of coin tosses increases, it becomes increasingly more likely to get outcomes that are either very close to half heads or exactly half because, as with two coin tosses, there are more ways to get such outcomes.

        Sample survey reliability works the same way -- but on a much larger scale. As in coin tosses, the most likely sample outcome is the true percentage of whatever it is we are measuring across the total population. Next most likely are outcomes very close to this true percentage. A statement of potential margin of error or sample precision reflects this and often appears in poll stories. Using a sample of 1,000 as an example, the statement could read: the chances are 95% of coming within +/- 3% of a hypothetical survey conducted among all members of the population. This means that 95% of all samples that could possibly be drawn will yield an outcome within 3 percentage points of the true percentage among the population.

        Keep in mind that estimates of potential sample error always assume random samples. But even in true random samples, precision can be compromised by other factors, such as the wording of questions or the order in which questions were asked.

        There is no single ideal sample size. Samples of any size have some degree of precision. The question is always whether there is sufficient precision to draw conclusions as determined by statistical formulae.
        We've had enough of experts

        :fuhrer:
        :mob:
        Offline

        20
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Unistudent77)
        Interesting you thought that.

        Under 16 i said i'd never have a cigarette. Barely drink.
        Never contemplated any of the other drugs.

        I would believe all the propaganda, steroids is a good one for example ie they're the devil when in reality, no they're not. (And no i don't use them and don't plan to in the medium-term, probably ever)
        Oh no. I was terrified of drugs I believed all the propaganda from stuff like Talk to Frank. I didn't drink and thought it would kill me I just didn't see why cigs can be legal and something that seems comparatively a lot less harmful like weed be illegal. Plus there is the addiction, it is possible to be a recreational moderate or low weed user. Cigs are just addictive as ****. Cigs are evil.

        My position was that fi such dangerous stuff such as alcohol is available and everybody consumes it why is other stuff also illegal. Even though I am not a drug user beyond drinking a moderate amount of alcohol I have become a lot more open to drug use personally. If I had access to weed I would give it a try.
        • TSR Support Team
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
        Oh no. I was terrified of drugs I believed all the propaganda from stuff like Talk to Frank. I didn't drink and thought it would kill me I just didn't see why cigs can be legal and something that seems comparatively a lot less harmful like weed be illegal. Plus there is the addiction, it is possible to be a recreational moderate or low weed user. Cigs are just addictive as ****. Cigs are evil.

        My position was that fi such dangerous stuff such as alcohol is available and everybody consumes it why is other stuff also illegal. Even though I am not a drug user beyond drinking a moderate amount of alcohol I have become a lot more open to drug use personally. If I had access to weed I would give it a try.
        Yeah i get you.

        I agree that if alcohol is legal then so should weed.

        Cigs are horrible but i do have friends that can smoke and then stop etc.
        However, i've never had a sober cigarette and never want to break that.
        They offer no real 'high' and have so many negative effects over time. However rolled tobacco ie Amber leaf is far better than actual cigs (Lambert and Butler, Marlboro etc).
        Hopefully smoking rates will continue to decline.

        Yeah fair, the uni bubble does/will do that to you. I've seen some states haha

        I always find it funny when people say they don't have access to weed (i believe you) just that i went to school in a nice area (not where i go to uni at all) and in our year people became dealers.
        Yes it is the neds (chavs if you're English) but it's weed so it's fine picking up from them.

        I've never bought off them but everyone who we went to school with knows they sell and could get it if they fb'd them. So easy peasy.

        Uni is way easier as obviously demand is v high
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Ladbants)
        Generation Z (people born after 2000) have more conservative views on gay marriage
        :lol: You wish. This is laughably, patently false.
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Mathemagicien)
        However, you are ignoring the existence of conservative (or anti-Islamic) atheists; just compare Richard Dawkins to the pope, Dawkins is far more islamophobic
        Dawkins is not a conservative. In 2015 he expressed his preference for a Labour government, and has in the past been a very public supporter of the Labour Party. Just like Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz despise Trump. Just as Bill Maher is still a liberal despite being awake to the Islamist threat.

        There are plenty of us who are anti-regressive atheists (often of a moderate Blairite disposition) who haven't felt the need to jump on the mindless alt-reich bandwagon and constantly fight Twitter battles because some neckbeard got triggered by a feminist saying women should be allowed to own property and vote.
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        If you want to see some plausible statistics, here's a start.

        http://www.people-press.org/2015/06/...-sex-marriage/

        Those born after 1980 overwhelmingly favour gay marriage (73%). In fact, in the millenial age bracket even a majority of Republicans support gay marriage. There is a clear relationship between age demographic and likelihood of supporting gay marriage; the generations who largely opposed it tooth and nail are dying off, and those who largely support it are now coming into positions of power.

        Increasingly, people who oppose it are considered weird and eccentric (at best, and crackpot bigots at worst). It goes to show how badly triggered Christian conservatives are by their devastating defeat on this issue that some of them are still trying to fight this issue even as the fact of fighting it ensures they become ever more discredited in the public eye and the churches continue to decline in membership.

        In fact, the number of people who go to church on Sunday is miniscule. 1.4% of the population go to Anglican services on sundays on a regular basis. A similar (though likely smaller) proportion go to Catholic services. I would be surprised if it's more than one-in-twenty, or 5%, who go to any kind of Christian service on a sunday.

        The Christian conservatives like ladbants who desperately want to believe that there is some kind of conservative backlash coming (they've predicted this for every generation since the 1960s) are increasingly like those Japanese soldiers who were still hiding out in the jungles "fighting" the Americans in the 1970s, thirty years after World War 2 ended. The war is over, we won, you lost. Try to get to grips with it. Though either way, we don't really care what you think; we don't live by your warrant and your permission anymore, and your approval is irrelevant to us.

        Unistudent77 (thought you might appreciate this viewpoint)
        • TSR Support Team
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by AlexanderHam)
        If you want to see some plausible statistics, here's a start.

        http://www.people-press.org/2015/06/...-sex-marriage/

        Those born after 1980 overwhelmingly favour gay marriage (73%). In fact, in the millenial age bracket even a majority of Republicans support gay marriage. There is a clear relationship between age demographic and likelihood of supporting gay marriage; the generations who largely opposed it tooth and nail are dying off, and those who largely support it are now coming into positions of power.

        Increasingly, people who oppose it are considered weird and eccentric (at best, and crackpot bigots at worst). It goes to show how badly triggered Christian conservatives are by their devastating defeat on this issue that some of them are still trying to fight this issue even as the fact of fighting it ensures they become ever more discredited in the public eye and the churches continue to decline in membership.

        In fact, the number of people who go to church on Sunday is miniscule. 1.4% of the population go to Anglican services on sundays on a regular basis. A similar (though likely smaller) proportion go to Catholic services. I would be surprised if it's more than one-in-twenty, or 5%, who go to any kind of Christian service on a sunday.

        The Christian conservatives like ladbants who desperately want to believe that there is some kind of conservative backlash coming (they've predicted this for every generation since the 1960s) are increasingly like those Japanese soldiers who were still hiding out in the jungles "fighting" the Americans in the 1970s, thirty years after World War 2 ended. The war is over, we won, you lost. Try to get to grips with it. Though either way, we don't really care what you think; we don't live by your warrant and your permission anymore, and your approval is irrelevant to us.

        Unistudent77 (thought you might appreciate this viewpoint)
        Strong post. Indeed.

        This momentum will not be reversed.

        You need a root cause. So like strong religios belief will lead to opposition to Gay marriage, Abortion, drugs, sex before marriage etc.

        People who say they believe has consistently fallen and hence attitudes have liberalised to the above issues. Simple as that
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Unistudent77)
        Strong post. Indeed.

        This momentum will not be reversed.

        You need a root cause. So like strong religios belief will lead to opposition to Gay marriage, Abortion, drugs, sex before marriage etc.

        People who say they believe has consistently fallen and hence attitudes have liberalised to the above issues. Simple as that
        True. Also, the fact that the churches are against sex before marriage, gay marriage, even condoms and contraception, is a big factor in many people deciding to leave the church. They find that the church is just completely out of step and out of touch with normal views on these subjects.

        In the Middle Ages, the church was deeply embedded in the lives of all people; their views on morality, cosmology, philosophy, were universally believed. These days, the churches are marginal organisations; they have very little influence on what people believe in terms of social and sexual morality, in terms of explanations for the origins of the universe. Church morality has been superseded by more logical, and more moral, forms of thinking (such as that gay people should not be persecuted, and that the world was not created in seven days by a sky dictator)
        • TSR Support Team
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by AlexanderHam)
        True. Also, the fact that the churches are against sex before marriage, gay marriage, even condoms and contraception, is a big factor in many people deciding to leave the church. They find that the church is just completely out of step and out of touch with normal views on these subjects.

        In the Middle Ages, the church was deeply embedded in the lives of all people; their views on morality, cosmology, philosophy, were universally believed. These days, the churches are marginal organisations; they have very little influence on what people believe in terms of social and sexual morality, in terms of explanations for the origins of the universe. Church morality has been superseded by more logical, and more moral, forms of thinking (such as that gay people should not be persecuted, and that the world was not created in seven days by a sky dictator)
        Can't rep but agree 100%
        • Offline

          20
          (Original post by AlexanderHam)
          The Christian conservatives like ladbants who desperately want to believe that there is some kind of conservative backlash coming (they've predicted this for every generation since the 1960s) are increasingly like those Japanese soldiers who were still hiding out in the jungles "fighting" the Americans in the 1970s, thirty years after World War 2 ended. The war is over, we won, you lost. Try to get to grips with it. Though either way, we don't really care what you think; we don't live by your warrant and your permission anymore, and your approval is irrelevant to us.
          Huh? Conservatives are the ones who have lost and aren't coming to grips with it?

          So who elected Trump? Why did we leave the EU? Why are the conservatives with Thatcher-wannabe leading the UK again with huge poll leads above Corbyn? Why were the two favourites for the French election far-right (although one has been hurt by a scandal)? Why was the deeply far-right Norbert Hofer very nearly elected as Austrian president?

          Its (thankfully) becoming a more secular conservatism, yes, but it is still conservatism.
          • TSR Support Team
          Offline

          15
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Mathemagicien)
          Huh? Conservatives are the ones who have lost and aren't coming to grips with it?

          So who elected Trump? Why did we leave the EU? Why are the conservatives with Thatcher-wannabe leading the UK again with huge poll leads above Corbyn? Why were the two favourites for the French election far-right (although one has been hurt by a scandal)? Why was the deeply far-right Norbert Hofer very nearly elected as Austrian president?

          Its (thankfully) becoming a more secular conservatism, yes, but it is still conservatism.
          They aren't the young though. Look at evidence for Brexit re age.

          I agree it is conservatism (some almost further right than that ie National Front, UKIP, Austrian far-right party) but through 'change' politics.

          Our Tory party is 'old establishement', not like Trump.

          Corbyn is pretty left so hardly an appealing alternative for many.

          We should see Lib Dem gains in 2020 (on back of remain voters, see by-election in London for Zack Goldsmith's old seat for an example) and if they gain handsomely enough it may be enough to stop tories short of majority meaning coalition or minority rule. Either way compromise.

          You could argue UKIP could help the tories on that situation but i shudder at that prospect, we must remain optimistic
          Offline

          21
          ReputationRep:
          I was born in 1999 and would say I'm a millennial even though some don't class me as one I've barely missed the bracket and grew up with much the same as the youngest in the generation. I'm not gonna lie the ultra liberalism in recent years has crossed the lines on many events and I can see why younger people might retract against it but if anything it seems the younger people are getting more and more liberal and more socialist I don't think many under 18s are fans of the alt-right and these anti liberal movements or the extreme government cuts, quite the opposite actually.

          I don't think they'll be as progressive as the millennial generation but I think anyone in the UK who went to school under a labour government realised just how much of a great thing it was, we used to decide in a school/year group referendum on how to spend extra money. Now our school looks and asks us how to make cuts and always complains about lack of funding, we don't even get textbooks and many departments won't even give us exercise books insisting we bring our own. The government made a HUGE mistake with these GCSE and a level reforms, the true struggle of schools will come out soon and it'll be a crisis so that generation is screwed, by time the mid bracket gets to university god knows how they'll cope.. the point is that generation Z is still young and is being influenced by the older generations as they diminish their future prospects while milenals were lucky enough to be ruled by a generation concerned about our future, probably the generation with the most investment ever so I think when miliemals start holding key public offices and form most of the electorate, things will change a lot. 10-20 years down the line and things will return to a more community based style of things of sharing, investment and opportunity creation...
          Offline

          21
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Mathemagicien)
          Huh? Conservatives are the ones who have lost and aren't coming to grips with it?

          So who elected Trump? Why did we leave the EU? Why are the conservatives with Thatcher-wannabe leading the UK again with huge poll leads above Corbyn? Why were the two favourites for the French election far-right (although one has been hurt by a scandal)? Why was the deeply far-right Norbert Hofer very nearly elected as Austrian president?

          Its (thankfully) becoming a more secular conservatism, yes, but it is still conservatism.
          It's mainly down to the older generations, I hate saying it but the data shows it. Especially when you look into the reasons for why they voted e.g younger people might've voted trump for his promise of helping the working class, creating jobs, tackle security threats and invest in poor cities while the older generations are likely to have supported his immigration ban, the wall, gun laws and Smaller government. Not all but there's certainly a correlation and I think when people see these policies aren't as pretty and promising as they hoped to be, a new wave of reformed left wing politics will sweep across as it usually does after periods of right wing leadership. I also don't think it'll be long till America elects its first socialist president (do not even try to tell me Obama was a socialist.)
         
         
         
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
        Useful resources
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.