3 ms·
The lesson here is that there’s no meaningful conversations to be had between 60 year olds and teenagers. So just avoid them. I know I seem like an old person,
by prepend 6y ago
The lesson here is that there’s no meaningful conversations to be had between 60 year olds and teenagers. So just avoid them.
I know I seem like an old person, but there’s situations where I’ve had to talk to teenagers and the experience is surreal how different our realities are. And it’s definitely worse when the teenagers are rich. It’s all one can do to not freak out and start screaming like Annie Wilkes from Misery or Holden Caufield from Catcher in the Rye.
I was sitting in a classroom and the sentence I remember was “My dad says a [Mercedes] E Class is just the poor man’s S Class, I would never drive one even if you gave it to me.”
The mistake this person made was going on the trip. Trying to be “open minded” with teenage rich girls who chose to go on a Peruvian shaman vacation shows poor judgement.
Author says he was trying to do his friend a favor, but a $300/day upside compared with just the mental pain of eating meals with teenagers for days is just not worth it.
This seems like NYT just using an excuse to fire him and the ideological madness is just cover.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chrisshroba 6y ago> The lesson here is that there’s no meaningful conversations to be had between 60 year olds and teenagers. > the mental pain of eating meals with teenagers for days I really think this incorrectly stereotypes an entire generation as this set of unreasonable and irrational fools. While the teenagers on the trip misjudged the author's intentions, it is the Times that are at fault for using those complaints as grounds for discipline.
- prepend 6y agoI think it definitely stereotypes, but it’s a defense mechanism. I think it’s possible, but too risky to attempt. It’s a situation where the Times is clearly in the wrong, but this guy is out of a job. Because of the thoroughness of these posts and the references to lawyers, the best case is this guy gets millions after a few years of litigation. But that’s why the reasonable action is to just avoid the risk. That’s easier than trying to fix teenagers, large orgs, etc
- mikeg8 6y agoA life lived avoiding all risks would be a miserable existence. Risk and vulnerability should be embraced, within reason. If we can't have discussion, what the hell is the point?
- asciident 6y agoIt's not black or white. You can have discussions with friends and family, in anonymous forums, in low-stakes social situations. Not at the workplace with sensitive colleagues, or in public on social media.
- prepend 6y agoDefinitely, I’m not suggesting avoiding all risks, just risks that are high and have minimal positive outcomes. We can have discussion, but trying to talk to privileged, rich teenagers about topics that require context and understanding falls into the high risk, low reward.
- asciident 6y agoIs this mindset similar to the "Pence rule" of "never dine alone with a woman"? It seems like this could carry over to topics about race or politics. Basically, avoid potentially problematic situations that can be misinterpreted, regardless of your actual intent or beliefs?
- prepend 6y agoProbably something similar. What’s sad is that it’s a defeatist tactic that misses out on lots of great things. I would be pretty angry if my boss wouldn’t have dinner or private conversations with me just because of my sex.