W
hen
“The
Kissing
Booth 3” came out
last year, it became
the perfect finale to a horribly-
reviewed trilogy, with clips such
as this one going viral for how
painful they were to watch. This
kind of dramatized interpretation
of how Generation Z speaks to
each other persistently appears
in media centered around today’s
teenagers as older writers try
to grasp how we communicate.
As modern TV shows continue
to portray the generation as
one-dimensional,
self-obsessed
teenagers absorbed by social
media, they make it increasingly
difficult for Gen Z to connect
with the characters we are
supposed to relate to.
What it means to be a
teenager continues to evolve,
and film writers are working
to incorporate the new norms
of being a teenager into their
media. However, they are not
succeeding. Take the new remake
of “He’s All That,” for example.
Instead of a trained actress, this
film stars TikTok star Addison
Rae, and embodies every modern
teenager cliché possible. The
characters are mean, addicted
to social media and primarily
focused on popularity and fame.
Productions
such
as
“Riverdale” and “The Kissing
Booth” have gained popularity
with our generation, but instead
of being recognized for what
they got right, they’ve gained
attention for how much they get
wrong. Standout issues range
from the actors that are 5 to 15
years older than their characters
to the agitating dialogue that
makes you wonder, who thinks
we actually speak like that?
The issue is that these shows
encompass all of the stereotypes
of today’s teenagers that older
generations perceive, and little
to none of the depth that actually
is present in Gen Z, such as their
adamant
political
activism,
advocacy for social causes or
transparency
surrounding
issues such as mental health or
diversity.
In
contrast,
one
movie
that
portrays
an
accurate
representation
of
teenagers
is
“The
Perks
of
Being
a
Wallflower.” Unique for its raw
(and sometimes uncomfortable)
discussions on mental health,
this 2012 film encapsulates the
more realistic parts of being
a teenager, such as struggling
with mental health, drug abuse,
sexuality, academic hardships,
anxiety, sexual abuse and suicide.
Although they are intimate and
challenging topics, these are
some of the issues that consume
our generation’s daily lives, drive
our conflicts and heavily impact
our relationships. This honesty
is what has led to this film’s
lasting impact and the precedent
it has set for other meaningfully
relatable films in the future.
Gen
Z
experiences
heavy
battles with mental health. This
generation is the most anxiety-
prone yet, with 90% reporting
having experienced psychological
or physical symptoms due to
stress in the past year, and 70%
saying anxiety and depression are
significant issues among peers.
Although our heavy use of social
media is criticized and ridiculed
by older generations, our instinct
to turn to social media platforms
like TikTok for advice isn’t due to
some deep-rooted narcissism or
desire to “go viral.” Instead, people
struggling with mental health
turn to social media to share
experiences,
seek
information
about getting help and find and
give support.
So where does this lack of
understanding of how Gen Z
interacts with society come from?
Well, for starters, the majority of
film writers in the U.S. are over
40 years old, and are additionally
primarily
white,
straight
and
male. The homogenous nature of
the writers leads to the repetitive
misinterpretation of minorities.
Gen Z is more racially and ethnically
diverse than other generations.
We have the largest LGBTQ+
population, with approximately
21% of Gen Z over 18 identifying as
a part of this community. Yet, in a
survey conducted by VICE media,
50% of Gen Z respondents said
they felt that the current level of
diversity in media does not reflect
modern audiences.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
10 — Wednesday, December 7, 2022
“H
e
hasn’t
slept
in
probably uh seven
days” was the only
phrase of hip-hop artist Baby
Keem’s song “naked freestyle” my
speaker system was able to output
before my parents turned it off.
Admittedly, I should have known
the next words, namely “these
hoes,” would have gone over badly
with them, considering their general
distaste for vulgarity.
Interestingly
enough,
as
pervasive as expletives are within
modern music, and within life
in general, the distaste that my
parents hold does not exist within
a vacuum. Swear words are held as
a persistent taboo throughout daily
life, and social customs throughout
the world look down upon swearing.
Unknown to many people, though,
is that there are clear psychological,
physiological
and
sociological
benefits to using curse words
properly. Furthermore, these effects
are representative of the greater
power of breaking “taboo.”
Putting the taboo aside, multiple
studies have shown that the surface-
level benefits of curse words are
many. One 2015 study showed that
the better use of curse words was
related to the education level and
vocabulary of the speaker. The idea
that people who swear do so because
they lack the ability to find the right,
non-taboo word to use was proven
a myth, and, generally, people who
swear more actually tend to be more
fluent in their language than people
who do not.
Aside
from
the
connection
between curse words and language
fluency,
there
exists
a
clear
connection between cursing and
pain tolerance. In terms of physical
pain, it is found that swearing can
help alleviate and distract people
from pain. The cognitive process of
swearing allows people to perceive
harmful stimuli as being less painful
because of the attention the process
requires.
A
sports
psychology
study also found that swearing can
increase performance in strength-
related and physical tasks.
While the psychological and
physiological benefits to swearing
are numerous, a certain amount
of attention should be paid with
respect to the negative consequences
it can have. Gone unchecked,
simple cursing can undergo an ugly
transition into what University of
Michigan sociology professor Fatma
Göçek called in a Michigan Daily
interview “verbal violence.”
According to Göçek, “verbal
violence”
can
undermine
the
inherent
respect
and
empathy
during social interaction needed in
order to sustain a healthy society.
Violence begets more violence,
which is a vicious negative feedback
loop that can be detrimental to
society.
This is where a discernment
needs to be made in order to
emphasize the positive effects of
swear words. Not all taboo words
are non-harmful. For example, slurs
and stereotypical terms have been
used throughout much of human
history in order to hurt and oppress
marginalized groups.
There is a clear difference
between copulatory and excretory
swearing and divisive, harmful
speech. The use of the former can
come with many positive effects,
while the latter has the capacity
to cause great harm. There is also
a difference between swearing
at someone and swearing with
someone.
Furthermore,
it
is
the
responsibility of the speaker to
determine what swear words to use
and when to use them. Using swear
words at the right time and not with
a wanton mouth can actually prove
you to be more aware and educated
to the person you are speaking to.
When
one
can
distinguish
between the proper use of swear
words and the improper use of
swear words, it can help you connect
with people at levels that would have
otherwise been impossible to reach.
When someone breaks a social norm
in front of another person, they
break down an invisible barrier.
Shattering the linguistic norm of
politeness has been shown to prove
honesty and authenticity to the
person one is speaking with.
When a societal norm is broken
down, especially in scenarios where
conformity is omnipresent, it gives a
covert prestige to the speaker — that
is, a connection between speaker
and audience due to the words they
choose to use. When asked how
she would feel if a job interviewer
cursed in front of her, LSA freshman
Elizabeth Harrington details how
she would feel more comfortable,
saying she “would relax and feel like
the workplace had a more casual
environment.”
The thing is, using swear words
shows an inherent honesty. One
2017 study found a clear positive
correlation between honesty and
the use of expletives. A certain
authenticity is needed in order
to break down societal norms,
and when that authenticity is
shared with people, it can make
them feel more human. When a
professor curses in their lecture,
it, in the words of LSA Freshman
Meredith Knight, “humanizes the
information” and shows that “the
professor respects us as humans
before students.”
At the end of the day, we are
all real people. We are not the
societal standards that we feel
pressured by and we are also not
the demonization we might receive
for breaking those standards. While
societal expectations might exist for
a good reason, the importance of
people supersedes the importance
of the expectations.
Even though the taboo of swear
words is not a global issue or a cause
that requires global campaigning
against, the issue is representative
of the general human state. If we can
break down the societal standards
that bind us, even in little ways
such as “expanding” our public
vocabulary, we can move one step
closer to a world that’s a little more
honest and a little more authentic.
The true power of swear words
comes from their ability to bring us,
even if a little bit, closer as people.
That’s the fucking point.
Zhane Yamin is an Opinion
Columnist and can be reached at
zhane@umich.edu.
What’s the f***ing
point: “Bad” words
aren’t that bad
ZHANE YAMIN
Opinion Columnist
We can’t afford to lose animal experimentation
CLAUDIA FLYNN
Opinion Columnist
Why does TV get Gen Z so wrong?
D
eep
beneath
the
Chemistry Building, East
Hall,
Undergraduate
Science
Building,
College
of
Pharmacy, and School of Public
Health — staple buildings and
second homes to STEM students
— lies a relatively unknown
operation. Walking down a few
flights below ground level, your
nose will pinch, skin will bead
from the humidity and pupils will
dilate to adjust to the low lighting.
As decayed as these conditions
may sound, these basements are
rigorously monitored to uphold
an atmosphere for the beings that
know this place to be their primary
and forever home: rodents. Here,
hundreds to thousands of rats
and mice are kept in cages that
line special containment rooms
— either awaiting, in the middle
of, or having gone through
experimentation.
The University of Michigan
has a vast Animal Care and
Use Program that sets and
disseminates ethical standards
for the use of animals for both
education and research purposes.
In addition to ACUP’s 41-page
website that details (ad nauseam)
the roles and responsibilities
necessary
to
ensure
animal
welfare,
the
University
of
Michigan also has a publicly
available
and
transparent
database of all the laws, policies
and guidelines researchers are
required to follow.
In
combing
through
the
resources and precautions put
in place for everything from
fish eggs to primate hair, a
common theme emerges: our
institution ensures the highest
standard of care and attention
to animals. As documented in
the official position statement
of the University of Michigan,
the universal “Three Rs” of
biomedical research — Reduce,
Replace and Refine — are at the
heart of the whole endeavor.
Spelled out in context, the three
Rs stipulate that whenever a
non-animal
replacement
isn’t
available, the least amount of
animals necessary should be used,
and they should receive the best
animal welfare.
Yet animal experimentation
strikes
a
nerve
with
many
people on campus — such as
the U-M Animal Ethics Society
and Michigan Animal Respect
Society — and no meticulous list
of regulations will change that.
Irrespective of the exhaustive
measures that research-intensive
universities like the University
of Michigan undertake to ensure
best animal use practice, many
consider
the
non-consensual,
abrasive and unknown outcomes
of experimentation on sentient
beings to be grounds for the
complete separation of animals
from research. Period.
An attainable and realistic
middle ground between animal
rights
activists
and
animal
researchers simply cannot exist.
The discrepancy lies in the value
system each party subscribes to.
The core belief that a mouse’s life
is as important and precious as a
human’s cannot be altered with
data showing, for example, that
countless life-saving drugs have
been developed rapidly because
of rodent experimentation, and
that thousands of students learn
best from tangible manipulation
of animal models.
Little progress has been made
to reach peace with animal
experimentation
abolitionists
because scientists often view
activists’ fundamental beliefs as
malleable ideas — as if crunching
the
numbers
about
in-vivo
productivity can shift entire
ideologies rooted in deep cultural,
religious and ancestral ways of life.
Nonetheless, the closest anyone
has been to harmony lies in novel
alternatives to animal testing. The
National Institute of Health, the
blueprint for biomedical research
practices in America, syndicates
various
research
endeavors
to develop, scale and test new
methods
of
replicating
live,
multi-organ environments. The
most promising models involve
artificial intelligence prediction
of chemical toxicology, embryonic
stem cell culture and the use of
invertebrate creatures.
While
these
cost-effective
alternatives would relieve the
burden
of
skilled
manpower
required
to
conduct
animal
experiments,
research
labs
have little incentive to fully
switch to animal-free models.
The observability with which
gene therapy technologies, drug
administration and physiological
change occur in live animals
— which go on to yield results
that appeal to medical journals,
funding committees and Big
Pharma on the cusp of a new
drug rollout — supersedes the
alternatives that would really only
work for projects vaguely related
to the main research question.
With the threat of pandemics
persistent, human drug resistance
and
other
health
challenges
that demand quick output of
biomedical solutions now more
than ever, pushback from animal
rights activists and their demand
for complete conversion to animal
alternatives is something the
world cannot afford at this time.
The NIH notes, for example, that
in addition to the use of animal
models that greatly aided their
own COVID-19 vaccine efforts,
Moderna’s
lightning-speed
rollout of their mRNA vaccine was
the result of preclinical data in
thousands of genetically-altered
mice. And as of summer 2022,
more than 223 million doses of the
Moderna COVID-19 vaccine have
been administered in the U.S.
NAMRATHA NELAPUDI
Opinion Columnist
Opinion
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
You’ve got this.
Everything fine?
Take a deep breath. There’s a lot going on in your life
right now. Connect with tools and resources at
U-M that can help you manage stress — from
wellness classes and apps to useful information and
counseling options.
Helping Leaders Feel Their Best:
wellbeing.umich.edu
Read more at MichiganDaily.com