I hate this article so much. It's perfect for the zeitgeist, describes the mentality of a generation who never really had to work and are in fact somewhat privi

I hate this article so much. It's perfect for the zeitgeist, describes the mentality of a generation who never really had to work and are in fact somewhat privileged and lucky, who all walk around with a chip on their shoulder because they feel they're not as lucky as someone else. A group who make a virtue of their petty first-world jealousy by pretending to care for the trials of people who are born into truly unlucky circumstances, holding them up as examples of the mean randomness of the world. It's a nihilistic philosophy which excuses every sort of laziness. Why work if all wealth is inherited, and it's mere luck? (Hint: Not all wealth is inherited, or mere luck. The author just assumes it is.) In fact, why volunteer your time to groups that are trying to make the world better? Why work on social programs to end hunger or stop global warming? You can't change luck so what's the point? But it must feel great to just be able to pin all your grievances on chance. It's a wonderful excuse for everyone to hate everyone with a little bit more money than them. Here's a question: Since this author became a writer for Wired by pure luck, why do they deserve the platform? >> In Aeon magazine, Hales wrote, “Luck might not be a genuine quality of the world at all.” Fine. But neither is beauty or justice. How utterly despicable. But if that's true, what is the point of seeking justice or "checking one's privilege"?