Aldaron
geriatric
So, as any of you moderately active on social media should know by now, this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wait-but-why/generation-y-unhappy_b_3930620.html is currently witnessing a sharing craze, and articles / people advocating have spawned in high quantities, and articles like this: http://aweinstein.kinja.com/fuck-yo..._source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow have spawned in response.
You're more than welcome to give your generalized thoughts / feelings on this...but I have a few issues with both "sides." Well, more an issue with the first article, and confused as to why the second was so serious in trying to debunk it.
First of all, why is the assumption that "we" (I guess I'm considered a generation Y yuppie since I'm employed and was born in 88) are unhappy considered...absolutely true?
It's funny how the main article uses sweeping generalizations as the basis for its following points, but its probably funnier that people are supporting this stuff seriously.
Like honestly, if this was just an arbitrary opinion piece and acknowledged as such, no issue. People can say what they want when they want, and others can agree with that for whatever reason. But people are resharing / "amen"ing this crap and trying to actively justify its claims...
The article starts off with sweeping generalizations about the previous generations, then makes sweeping generalizations about our generation, then (well previously as well) states the main point...that we're unhappy, without any justification for this, then tries to use stuff like social media as evidence for why we would be more unhappy...but doesn't acknowledge the idea that social media simply could have made us aware of this unhappiness now, as opposed to then.
I don't get it...why is this crap the day's gospel???
Since when has it been proven that we as a generation are unhappier (not unhappy, but unhappier) than previous generations? Why are generalizations of how social media might be perceived by our generation used as evidence points and the idea that its simply putting it out there for more of us to observe not being considered?
I really hope you my incredibly intelligent smogonites were not part of the mindless rabble that liked / retweeted / shared this stuff...but if you were, and if it wasn't simply as an arbitrary piece you liked for subjective reasons (totally fine)...please tell me why. Actually, you can just tell me how you feel about the subject in general, and if you agree with it, that's actually fine...but we're all going acnowledge it's just subjective and arbitrary unless you can give me real evidence (something sorely lacking in the article...).
I just do not get it.
BTW, it isn't just our gen retweeting / sharing / liking this...the reason I'm more curious about this than other dumb articles is cause my bosses at work actually mentioned this and agreed with this...both of whom (a male and a female) are 50+ and have graduate degrees from top universities and are director level+ in my company (so figure older generation, "educated" and good with people).
You're more than welcome to give your generalized thoughts / feelings on this...but I have a few issues with both "sides." Well, more an issue with the first article, and confused as to why the second was so serious in trying to debunk it.
First of all, why is the assumption that "we" (I guess I'm considered a generation Y yuppie since I'm employed and was born in 88) are unhappy considered...absolutely true?
It's funny how the main article uses sweeping generalizations as the basis for its following points, but its probably funnier that people are supporting this stuff seriously.
Like honestly, if this was just an arbitrary opinion piece and acknowledged as such, no issue. People can say what they want when they want, and others can agree with that for whatever reason. But people are resharing / "amen"ing this crap and trying to actively justify its claims...
The article starts off with sweeping generalizations about the previous generations, then makes sweeping generalizations about our generation, then (well previously as well) states the main point...that we're unhappy, without any justification for this, then tries to use stuff like social media as evidence for why we would be more unhappy...but doesn't acknowledge the idea that social media simply could have made us aware of this unhappiness now, as opposed to then.
I don't get it...why is this crap the day's gospel???
Since when has it been proven that we as a generation are unhappier (not unhappy, but unhappier) than previous generations? Why are generalizations of how social media might be perceived by our generation used as evidence points and the idea that its simply putting it out there for more of us to observe not being considered?
I really hope you my incredibly intelligent smogonites were not part of the mindless rabble that liked / retweeted / shared this stuff...but if you were, and if it wasn't simply as an arbitrary piece you liked for subjective reasons (totally fine)...please tell me why. Actually, you can just tell me how you feel about the subject in general, and if you agree with it, that's actually fine...but we're all going acnowledge it's just subjective and arbitrary unless you can give me real evidence (something sorely lacking in the article...).
I just do not get it.
BTW, it isn't just our gen retweeting / sharing / liking this...the reason I'm more curious about this than other dumb articles is cause my bosses at work actually mentioned this and agreed with this...both of whom (a male and a female) are 50+ and have graduate degrees from top universities and are director level+ in my company (so figure older generation, "educated" and good with people).