The Generation They Cannot Forgive
On Gen Z, the Myth of Unseriousness, and a World That Keeps Proving Them Right
The Complaint That Never Changes
Every generation inherits, along with the world it did not build, a verdict from the one that came before. The young are lazy. The young are entitled. The young do not understand how things work. The young lack respect, lack discipline, lack the particular brand of silent endurance that the previous generation has decided constitutes maturity. The words shift slightly across decades. “Hippies” becomes “slackers” becomes “snowflakes” becomes whatever the current insult is. But the architecture of the complaint is identical every time: we suffered, and you will not suffer in the way we did, and this makes you lesser.
What changes is not the complaint. What changes is the evidence against it. And the evidence, by now, has become so overwhelming that maintaining the accusation requires a kind of willful blindness that borders on ideology.
On the 25th of October, in Belgrade, a leaderless student movement that had spent nearly two years in the streets won 53 percent of the Serbian parliament. Not a protest vote. Not a symbolic gesture. A governing majority. The Student List, a coalition of young people who had organized in response to the Novi Sad railway station collapse that killed sixteen people in 2024, defeated Aleksandar Vučić’s fourteen-year authoritarian hold on the country. Tens of thousands flooded the streets of Belgrade in celebration. The generation that had been called unserious had just done the most serious thing a citizen can do: they replaced a government.
Just weeks earlier, France, the Gen Z-led Bloquons Tout movement (with their famous motto ‘Bismillah c les ténèbres’) erupted as young protesters took to the streets, only to face reports of unprovoked arrests, severe injuries, and demonstrators blinded or mutilated by police weapons. Nepal, Bangladesh, Kenya, Philippines, Morocco, this is not a list of complaints, This is a list of victories.
And yet the people who cannot forgive this generation continue to speak about them as if they spend their days making TikToks and crying about pronouns.
The World That Made Them and the World That Judges Them
The hostility directed at Gen Z is not, despite its presentation, a disagreement about work ethic or manners or screen time. It is a confrontation between people who were shaped by fundamentally different economic realities and who cannot, or will not, recognize that the difference matters.
The baby boomers came of age inside a historical anomaly. The postwar Fordist-Keynesian settlement was, by any honest measure, the most generous arrangement that capitalism has ever offered to ordinary people. Wages tracked productivity. Unions were powerful enough to negotiate real concessions. A single income could sustain a mortgage, a car, a family, a retirement. Public universities were affordable or free. Healthcare systems were expanding. The welfare state, built partly out of genuine conviction and partly out of terror that the working class might look east and like what it saw, provided a floor beneath which almost no one fell.
This was not normal. This was not the natural state of markets. This was a fifty-year parenthesis in the history of capital, sustained by a specific geopolitical configuration that no longer exists. And the people who grew up inside that parenthesis, who experienced its comforts as the baseline of reality rather than as the exception they actually were, are now judging a generation that arrived after the parenthesis closed. They are comparing their trajectory, a trajectory made possible by conditions that have been systematically dismantled, with the trajectory of people who entered the workforce into debt, precarity, unaffordable housing, and a labor market that treats human beings as disposable inputs. And they are concluding, with the confidence of people who have never questioned the structural conditions of their own success, that the difference must be a moral failing in the young.
It is not. It is an economic one. And the refusal to see it is not ignorance. It is comfort protecting itself from the implications of its own history.
The Generation in the Middle
Gen X and the older millennials occupy a different position, but the resentment produces the same verdict.
These are the generations that absorbed the transition. They entered the workforce as the postwar settlement was collapsing but before the collapse was fully visible. They worked the long hours. They accepted the unpaid internships. They endured the open-plan offices and the mandatory overtime and the performance reviews designed to justify withholding the raise that inflation had already eaten. They did this not because they enjoyed it but because the cultural apparatus around them, the meritocratic mythology, the grind-culture sermons, the promise that suffering now would yield security later, told them that compliance was the only path. And many of them, having paid that price, feel something close to betrayal when they see a generation that refuses to pay it.
The twenty-four-year-old who leaves at five o’clock because her contract says five o’clock is not, in any rational sense, doing something wrong. She is doing something that previous generations were too afraid or too captured to do: she is enforcing the terms of her own employment. But to the thirty-eight-year-old who spent a decade answering emails at midnight and missed his children’s bedtimes for a promotion that barely covered the increase in his rent, that enforcement feels like an accusation. If she can say no, then he could have said no. And if he could have said no, then the years he spent saying yes were not sacrifice. They were submission. That is not a comfortable thing to realize. And so instead of realizing it, he calls her lazy.
The resentment is not about the younger generation’s behavior. It is about what that behavior reveals about the older generation’s choices. Gen Z did not invent workers’ rights. They simply decided to use them. And the fury this generates is proportional not to the offence but to the mirror it holds up.
Get zakaria nasraoui’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
There is also a technological cruelty to this divide that older workers struggle to metabolize. When Gen X and early millennials were entering corporate life, grievance was structurally solitary. If a manager humiliated you, or forced uncompensated weekend labor, or violated labor norms, the humiliation died within the perimeter of the cubicle. You had no distribution channel. Traditional corporate media, controlled by the very managerial class that enforced the abuse, offered only platitudes about paying dues and climbing ladders. You swallowed the degradation in silence because isolation made resistance look like personal incompetence.
Gen Z entered the economy armed with instantaneous, decentralized broadcasting infrastructure. They did not just learn their legal rights, they built a global algorithmic megaphone that turned quiet exploitation into public corporate liability. A twenty-year-old being handed an illegal unpaid shift does not weep in the breakroom, they document it, stream it, and mobilize thousands of peers before the end of the business day. For older cohorts who endured decades of quiet submission under the illusion that no alternative existed, witnessing that level of public leverage induces a bitter cognitive dissonance. They mistake generational vocal power for insolence, unable to admit that they spent their youth acting as silent accomplices to their own exploitation.
The Accusation as Confession
There is a pattern in the way older generations describe Gen Z that reveals more about the accuser than the accused.
They are called unserious by people who watched the housing market devour their children’s futures and treated it as an investment opportunity. They are called lazy by people who designed gig economies that eliminated every protection their own careers depended on. They are called disrespectful by people who respected institutions so thoroughly that they never questioned what those institutions were doing to the next generation’s prospects. They are called fragile by people who cannot tolerate the emotional vocabulary that would allow them to name their own damage.
The accusation of unseriousness is particularly instructive, because it arrives at the exact moment when the generation being accused has achieved things that the accusers never attempted. No boomer generation organized a leaderless movement on Discord and overthrew a government. No Gen X cohort forced a sitting president to withdraw legislation through coordinated digital protest. No millennial workforce collectively refused to accept sixty-hour weeks as a condition of employment with enough consistency to force companies to publicly reconsider their return-to-office policies.
Gen Z did all of these things. And they did them while being told, continuously and from every direction, that they were not serious enough to matter. The accusation was never a description. It was a wish. A hope that the generation inheriting the ruins would be too distracted or too demoralized to notice who built them.
What They Actually Did
Serbia. A concrete canopy falls on a railway station because fourteen years of corruption hollowed out the infrastructure. Students walk out of universities. They do not stop. For nearly two years, in winter and summer, across hundreds of towns, they march. They are tear-gassed. They are smeared by state media. They are called foreign agents and destabilizers. On the 25th of October 2026, they win 53 percent of the national vote and end the regime.
France. October of 2026, high school students refuse to sit inside crumbling classrooms with black mold, freezing radiators, and broken infrastructure while billions are routed elsewhere. Fifteen-year-olds barricade the gates of hundreds of lycées nationwide in an coordinated blocus that paralyzes the secondary education system. They face riot police, tear gas, and stun grenades in the streets, drawing hundreds of thousands of striking workers into a unified front. Rather than backing down, their unyielding mobilization forces emergency state negotiations, a four-billion-euro national repair package, and a formal suspension of police crowd munitions against minors.
Nepal. The government bans social media. Young people organize on the platforms the government forgot to ban. The protests escalate until the prime minister resigns. In March 2026, a thirty-five-year-old former rapper wins the largest parliamentary majority in a generation, defeating the former prime minister in his own constituency.
Bangladesh. Students protest discriminatory civil service quotas. The government responds with violence. The students do not stop. The prime minister flees the country. A Nobel laureate is asked to lead the transition.
Kenya. The government introduces a finance bill that would raise taxes on basic goods. Gen Z mobilises digitally. The marches force the president to withdraw the bill entirely.
Morocco. A child dies from hospital neglect. Young people connect the death to billions spent on sports infrastructure while the healthcare system collapses. The movement permanently alters state spending priorities.
Philippines. Corruption scandals involving flood-control projects are exposed. Youth mobilisation forces the resignation of the Speaker of the House.
This is the generation that does not understand how things work. This is the generation that lacks discipline. This is the generation that is too fragile, too distracted, too absorbed in its screens to accomplish anything of consequence. The screens, it turns out, were the organising tool. The fragility was the willingness to say, publicly and without apology, that something was wrong. And the distraction was the refusal to be distracted by the same lies that kept previous generations compliant.
The Real Divide
The generational conflict is not, at its core, about generational identity. It is about the recognition, still incomplete and still resisted, that the economic and political order that older generations accepted as permanent was neither permanent nor just. Gen Z did not reject that order because they are lazy. They rejected it because they arrived after the bribe had been withdrawn.
The postwar middle class was a concession, not a conquest. It was offered to prevent a revolution and dismantled when the threat of revolution passed. The generation that grew up inside the concession experienced it as reality. The generation that arrived after it was withdrawn experienced reality. And the distance between those two experiences is the source of every accusation of laziness, every complaint about work ethic, every lecture about how the young do not understand sacrifice.
They understand sacrifice. They simply refuse to sacrifice for a system that has made clear, in every metric that matters, that it will not reciprocate. And when, instead of accepting that refusal quietly, they organised and marched and voted and won, the accusation shifted from “they cannot do anything” to “they should not have done that.” The goalposts moved because the game was never about what Gen Z could or could not accomplish. It was about whether they would remain quiet enough to let the people who benefited from the old arrangement continue to benefit undisturbed.
This is the generation that does not understand how things work. This is the generation that lacks discipline. This is the generation that is too fragile, too distracted, too absorbed in its screens to accomplish anything of consequence. The screens, it turns out, were not an opiate but an alternative distribution channel. The fragility was the courage to speak plainly without deference to toxic authority. And the distraction was simply the refusal to accept the obsolete myths that kept previous generations obedient and voiceless behind locked school gates and corporate doors.
