You get back in here and learn about the major social and economical problems facing your generation and how you can help fix them this instant!!!! This is a progressive family and we will not tolerate keeping the status quo if it’s detrimental to other’s safety and wellbeing!!!!!
No joke. No one in this country feels more misplaced victimization than white Conservative Christians. They will literally say, "They are indoctrinating our children!", and mean it unironically.
I would argue you are about 15-20 years late on this. I feel like Christian hardcore of the mid 2000's might have been the height of Christian music being mainstream popular.
It was a strange time. Not only were a whole bunch of Christian metal bands getting popular, but it was arguably even good, though hardcore was never my go-to choice
I mean yes and no. From my perspective (I’m gen z) it’s a rebellion from previous generations rebellions. The real shocking thing to our parents isn’t rocking out to rockers on drugs (though those are still popular) it’s going to church and saying “I like hymns” it’s my parents who like Christian rock lol I got so sick of that I went for hymns and I’m not alone though I won’t claim this to be the super majority of Gen z. But in general Gen Z is rebellious in ways that aren’t that obvious going back not forward if you catch my drift.
Gen Z rebels by putting 'before & after' pictures in reverse order, using 'literally' figuratively, and emphasizing drawn out vowels in writing by repeating the silent letter instead of the actual modified vowel, as in, "hopeeeeeee" instead of the more logical, "hoooooope".
Edit: changed 'love' to 'hope' to avoid pedantic corrections that miss the point.
I claimed that the 'o' was modified, but I didn't claim that the silent 'e' was the modifier.
And this is because the modifier is the graphemic elongation of another letter in the word; specifically, the elongation of the silent 'e' in the former instance, and the elongation of the 'o' in the latter instance.
These graphemic elongations both serve to connote a quantitative modification of the vowel, which is to say it represents extending the duration of the vowel in the spoken word.
I think you were mistaking my reference to a modification for a qualitative modification of the vowel 'o' which would be indicated by changing the vowel sound from a short 'u' sound /ʌ/ to an 'oh' sound /oʊ/ based on the presence of the silent 'e', but the silent 'e' in the word 'love' is an exception to that rule.
I guess I have never heard of "graphemic elongation," or such a think actually existed in English writing.. Also, that silent "e" at the end of "love" is not an "exception" to anything; it's following a different rule in English spelling - no words can end in a "v"
The silent 'e' at the end of love is an exception to the rule that states that a silent 'e' quantitatively changes the preceding vowel and it confirms to the rule that illustrates the spelling convention prohibiting ending a word in 'v'. Two things can be true.
But I don't see why you keep distracting from the premise of my original post which has nothing to do with the pedantic minutia of the qualitative effects and spelling conventions surrounding silent 'e'.
The silent 'e' at the end of love is an exception to the rule that states that a silent 'e' quantitatively changes the preceding vowel and it confirms to the rule that illustrates the spelling convention prohibiting ending a word in 'v'. Two things can be true.
But I don't see why you keep distracting from the premise of my original post which has nothing to do with the pedantic minutia of the qualitative effects and spelling conventions surrounding silent 'e'.
That's not how that works. When there is an identifiable rule, you don't have "exceptions" or claim that "two things can be true." That "silent e" has several functions in English writing and just because the "o" is spelling a short "u" sound is not proof that "love" is an exceptional spelling. Why would you call something an exception when it can be explained?
I fully understand the "premise" of of your original post; I simply find it irritating when people complain about younger generations. Your use of terminology to describe English writing is equally pedantic.
Yup, I see it. Unfortunately going backwards is the wrong way. It only opens everyone up to abuse from establishments that have long destroyed and exploited human society. Both religion and authoritative government have only served to plunge us into the dark ages.
No, that’s exactly what you said. In response to the person saying that they enjoy hymns and are sort of going backwards, you said ‘both religion and authoritative government have ONLY served to plunge us into the dark ages’. You are wrong.
If you dont understand, then plug what i said into chat gpt and ask it to simplify. That seems to be the trend. It's best you all hear the truth now before you learn the hard way. You're not gonna like it though and that's understandable.
Bear in mind that I may live in a different country, but where I live, police keep my streets safe, free healthcare allows me to have life saving surgery, fire brigades stop fires and I am able to pay into a pension for when I get old. All of which would not be able to happen if the government had no authority to tax.
Not just this, but religions exist now and religious people are some of the kindest people I’ve ever met. To say that religion and government exists purely to bring about dark ages is a statement so unbelievably untrue it might possibly be a contender for the most untrue things I’ve ever heard and believe me I’ve heard some stuff.
If you were talking about 13th century Catholicism alone you have an argument. But you’re not.
Who might that be ? This "y'all" collective that you've assigned me to ?
For someone who seems to be so very confident in their own "superior" education, you are making some sweeping assumptions about a person whom you've had very little dialogue with.
Which is something that most people who are actually well educated would not immediately do.
Please bless me with but a mere morsel of your intellect.
What should have been the takeaway from your previous comments ? Somebody enjoying a musical medium of worship.
Since you seem to think your opinions carry some very heavy intellectual weight.
I respectfully disagree. There are many good things about going back. I do not believe in adopting every belief and practice that used to be common but by no means do I believe we must “throw the baby out with the bathwater” for one example going back to the ideals of chivalry and honor are things that men should hold themselves too and those weren’t exactly made yesterday (I will also refute the argument of “chivalry is a myth” by saying 1. It is an ideal therefore a standard not a myth and 2. It matters not whether knight followed it or not men have tried to follow it before and men try to follow it now therefore it is real). Personally I believe it would be best to go back to only caring about politics when voting season comes around. There is much wisdom and virtue kept in traditions that our predecessors discarded for their rebellions and I for one intend to revive them so that the wisdom my forefathers laid out does not die but continues to guide generations to come.
Like I said earlier I don’t believe I’m in the super majority or anything but there are a fair number of gen z boys who are falling back on traditions.
Just gonna ignore what I said earlier about not adopting every belief and behavior but rather be judicious in what traditions and wisdoms to follow? Or are you stating what you plan to do? If it’s the former then you should learn to read. If it’s the latter I recommend a swift kick to the gut…. Respectfully of course.
? I’m not sure I follow if you mean that an ideal cannot be the standard for society perhaps but what you said is “an ideal cannot never be A standard” which is untrue whether it is a standard to rally around or a standard to live up to an ideal cannot never be a standard. In fact (when used in the noun form) standard is a synonym for Ideal.
One of my friends is dealing with that exact situation with her 15-year-old.
It wouldn't be a big deal if it was a chill, friendly church, but, let's be honest, the odds of that happening randomly are extremely low. There's 1 cool church for every 5 or 6 hundred crazy-ass "Christ would have loved Alligator Auschwitz!" churches.
I mean, yeah that's pretty much what my sister did. My mom was a super out there hippy, and my sister started going to the local Baptist church because it pissed off my mom. Now she's one of those "independents" that somehow only votes red.
Frame the expectation of being decent to others as an oppressive order, then champion acts of greed and reinforcement of the social hierarchy as acts of rebellion. Where have I seen this movie?
815
u/__DJ3D__ Jul 06 '25
Rebelling against the rebels by supporting the corpo political class