I'm baffled that this sort of discourse is considered acceptable. Not in an "I-feel-appalled" sort of way, but in a very literal, "why doesn't society treat this like racism or sexism" sort of way.
If someone wanted to argue that intergenerational differences are significant, they'd have to contend with the fact that the ratio of intragenerational:intergenerational variance is far smaller than intrasex:intersex or intraracial:interracial variance, and commit themselves to also being a racist or a sexist.
It's routinely taught in org-psych and related fields, for example, that different generations have X characteristic that makes them better or worse suited to a particular role. Imagine the uproar that would ensue if we taught that "women are better at teaching professions while men are better at science", or "you should prefer asian employees in STEM roles vs black employees".
Maybe someone would then say, "hey, our condemnation of racism isn't based upon some ANOVA or arbitrary significance test- we aren't racist because Every Human has intrinsic worth." In which case, we can stop promulgating this antiscientific ingroup/outgroup hysteria and just focus on the Every Human part.
I've never considered an association between intergenerational conflict and it's typical blanket statements, as being in line with interracial and sexist prejudice.
Though now you've brought it to my attention. Intergenerational conflict really is just another form of bigotry, why isn't is condemned publicly as such?
I think societal condemnation is inconsistent, poorly calibrated, and largely rooted in exogenous/historical factors.
The outrage over isolated killings of charismatic megafauna is matched only by the indifference to extraordinarily large-scale habitat destruction that sees multiple species go extinct every day. See also factory farming.
The incredible revulsion we feel toward an individual pedophile is diluted over an entire industry of child sex trafficking until it reaches homeopathic levels.
I think the condemnation of racism and sexism were basically gavaged into society by social movements and brave people fighting for their rights. While this was definitely an incredible step forward, it did little to neuter our base instincts for prejudice; we were instead outfitted with a sort of pattern-matching, Pavlovian hair-trigger that fires whenever someone says the word "black".
It's said that society progresses one funeral at a time, and that could be the reason why intergenerational prejudice has had no champion. Who will fight for Gen Z once they're dead?
I'm not capable of putting words together to express how much your comments rang true on the discussion of prejudice (though societies whimsical nature towards one mega fauna dying vs deforestation, a sexual assault vs. the Catholic Churches paedophile circles) was far too raw.
So instead, I'll digress to the stereotype of my generation and settle for a hasthag.
The one photograph shown of the writer, in a suit, on a rooftop bar in Manhattan looking perplexed at life. Shows us his privilege and/or success, neither of which come easy to the majority of his peers within what he calls a self entitled generation.
The writer, as some one who allegedly is '... Interested in other people'; has an extremely elitist attitude with a matching level of arrogance. He's an old soul, eh? He looks and sounds like a straight down the line dickhead from my perspective.
Though I'd gladly see less selfie sticks and Kardashians from my generation. The consumers of those products are hardly just us. Have you seen what media our teens now consume? Our parents are more than capable of zoning out at the next Stupid Shore. Is that the responsibility of social media? Our parents? The schooling system?
Articles on generational discussion are deliberately polarising. In the same light as left vs right, secularism vs. religion, socialism vs. capitalism.
The intergenerational complaining seems wrong regardless of direction: The millenials complaining that the boomers ruined their world, and the boomers complaining about the Gen X slacking and millenials' self-absorption.
Take any group that's large enough and you can create stereotypes to make them ugly in your eyes.
Each generation brought and brings new things, discards things valued by earlier generations, and moves forward as best it can.
Help, contribute, learn to love those outside your age group and outside your values and we'll all be better off.
The Baby Boomer's didn't invent the transitor, first computer, first personal computer (Altair), the cell phone or the basic internet protocols. That claim rightly belongs to the previous generation.
Oh boy! Another well-written and carefully-reasoned piece from the NY Post!
What a crock of shit. There's always been social cachet available for people willing to piss on their own generation; this is neither novel nor particularly well executed.
A double crock even - I'm a slacker member of Generation X.
I'm used to being ignored by Boomers, who think our arts and culture were nothing like the glory of the 1960s. But this article doesn't even acknowledge we exist!
It characterizes Millennials as: "entitlement, dependency, nonstop complaining, laziness, Kardashians"
Except for the last, those are our stereotypes.
Joking aside, there's indeed nothing novel. People in the 1940s make the same complaint about the youth of their time; who expected everything to be given to them on a silver platter.
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint".
Hesiod, 8th century BC
[Edit - possibly a mis-attributed quote according to wikiquote]
If someone wanted to argue that intergenerational differences are significant, they'd have to contend with the fact that the ratio of intragenerational:intergenerational variance is far smaller than intrasex:intersex or intraracial:interracial variance, and commit themselves to also being a racist or a sexist.
It's routinely taught in org-psych and related fields, for example, that different generations have X characteristic that makes them better or worse suited to a particular role. Imagine the uproar that would ensue if we taught that "women are better at teaching professions while men are better at science", or "you should prefer asian employees in STEM roles vs black employees".
Maybe someone would then say, "hey, our condemnation of racism isn't based upon some ANOVA or arbitrary significance test- we aren't racist because Every Human has intrinsic worth." In which case, we can stop promulgating this antiscientific ingroup/outgroup hysteria and just focus on the Every Human part.