6 ms·

First off, I did read it, so a TLDR isn't needed. Second, sure that's his claim, but I'm challenging the premise. If your premise is faulty, then what follows

First off, I did read it, so a TLDR isn't needed. Second, sure that's his claim, but I'm challenging the premise. If your premise is faulty, then what follows is questionable and not proven. Pining for the "good old days" and saying how great they were in your memory does not prove anything about today.

mimixco 5y ago
The TL;DR is for people who didn't read it. I thought the premise was obvious. He didn't go into great detail explaining how selfish, rude, and immature thinking cripples every part of society today from the drive-thru to the emergency room. I thought everyone could see that. Perhaps because I'm old, the change is more obvious, but I can tell you there's been a change.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
xg15 5y ago
The ancient romans were already lamenting "kids these days will be our downfall" and look how the roman empire stands today... oh, wait. More seriously, I agree, the premise is a tired trope, but I still think you need better counter-arguments to disprove it. Saying "this argument is cliche, therefore I can assume it is wrong" is not really sound reasoning.
- mimixco 5y ago
  In fact, that's not what it says. It says the kids of the 60's and 70's who are already adults are already causing problems today because of attitudes and habits they picked up back then. This is not an old argument and a careful reading of the text will show that he starts with the mass movement of children to high school. When Americans lived on farms, we didn't have that. (We had one room schools and my grandmother taught in one as her first job.) The author's premise is that high school changed everything and created a "high school mentality" that's still very much with us -- in people who are now 50 and certainly in people younger than that. He gives numerous examples of how acceptance of this fact is already the norm in popular culture. So he's not bemoaning the kids of today, but the adults of today, and explaining one way we might have got there.

mimixco 5y ago

The TL;DR is for people who didn't read it. I thought the premise was obvious. He didn't go into great detail explaining how selfish, rude, and immature thinking cripples every part of society today from the drive-thru to the emergency room. I thought everyone could see that. Perhaps because I'm old, the change is more obvious, but I can tell you there's been a change.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

xg15 5y ago

The ancient romans were already lamenting "kids these days will be our downfall" and look how the roman empire stands today... oh, wait. More seriously, I agree, the premise is a tired trope, but I still think you need better counter-arguments to disprove it. Saying "this argument is cliche, therefore I can assume it is wrong" is not really sound reasoning.

mimixco 5y ago
In fact, that's not what it says. It says the kids of the 60's and 70's who are already adults are already causing problems today because of attitudes and habits they picked up back then. This is not an old argument and a careful reading of the text will show that he starts with the mass movement of children to high school. When Americans lived on farms, we didn't have that. (We had one room schools and my grandmother taught in one as her first job.) The author's premise is that high school changed everything and created a "high school mentality" that's still very much with us -- in people who are now 50 and certainly in people younger than that. He gives numerous examples of how acceptance of this fact is already the norm in popular culture. So he's not bemoaning the kids of today, but the adults of today, and explaining one way we might have got there.