This article starts from a negative point of view, never explaining the derrogatory associations it makes. Why not open this article with an objective arguement and then go forth to prove it rather than making assumptions? The idea that these people aren't introspective, the generalizations, that they're trying to fit in, and are programmed is bullshit, or at least I don't see a coherent arguement for it.
Why not mention Judd Apatow recently discussing in his NYT magazine profile the trauma of the divorcing boomer parents of the 80s and 90s? Being programmed to acheive does not mean that stability was there as well. I think my generation is starved for a real revolution in intimacy instead of being required to put on a successful face. Making a family of your own is the best way to break with the one you came from, rather than dwelling on it in despair and slackerism. Or how about the persective that trying to heal a family is more revolutionary than detatching from it and creating more damage?
Or how about this as a reaction to the fear mongering of the Bush era? That the world is different than it was in the 60s, we feel we have less control, are more vulnerable to global insecurity and tyrannical leaders? That our votes don't actually count, no one is protecting the environment or soclai security, so you have to do it for yourself.
I could go on and on and on. I think there's a deeper meaning to this beyond the ridicule provided by this article. Picking and choosing quotes to make fun of people, not putting forth an actual arguement so you can examine things from all points of view just ironically propogates the insular selfishness that, I think, the author is obecting to.
This article starts from a negative point of view, never explaining the derrogatory associations it makes. Why not open this article with an objective arguement and then go forth to prove it rather than making assumptions? The idea that these people aren't introspective, the generalizations, that they're trying to fit in, and are programmed is bullshit, or at least I don't see a coherent arguement for it.
Why not mention Judd Apatow recently discussing in his NYT magazine profile the trauma of the divorcing boomer parents of the 80s and 90s? Being programmed to acheive does not mean that stability was there as well. I think my generation is starved for a real revolution in intimacy instead of being required to put on a successful face. Making a family of your own is the best way to break with the one you came from, rather than dwelling on it in despair and slackerism. Or how about the persective that trying to heal a family is more revolutionary than detatching from it and creating more damage?
Or how about this as a reaction to the fear mongering of the Bush era? That the world is different than it was in the 60s, we feel we have less control, are more vulnerable to global insecurity and tyrannical leaders? That our votes don't actually count, no one is protecting the environment or soclai security, so you have to do it for yourself.
I could go on and on and on. I think there's a deeper meaning to this beyond the ridicule provided by this article. Picking and choosing quotes to make fun of people, not putting forth an actual arguement so you can examine things from all points of view just ironically propogates the insular selfishness that, I think, the author is obecting to.