3 ms·
Sure, lets start with what I can only assume is your premise, that since millennials are very recently the largest adult demographic , that somehow translates i
by gmadsen 4y ago
Sure, lets start with what I can only assume is your premise, that since millennials are very recently the largest adult demographic , that somehow translates into any current issue being implicit agreement by the millennials?
1. millennials are very very marginally above boomers in % of population, when separating each demographic.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/797321/us-population-by-generation/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/797321/us-population-by-...
- this doesn't give millennials majority rule, ie (boomers + gen x ) is larger
2. It is not the case that population numbers are directly proportional to power. Even on paper, this has never been true in the US. It is a democratic republic. A million arguments could be made why this ideal is even barely true.
3. Political power in the US is so far removed from I'm guessing your libertarian? view of politicians. They are not servants of a populace power. It is also not a failing of millennials if politicians are in contradiction with "millennial" belief.
4. The US is not a vaccuum. One trillionaire would have more power than 99.99% of millennials combined. this isn't the french revolution.
I feel like your reply to politicians not being representative of the marginally larger populace of millennials is a moral failing of millennials for not starting a revolution. Which is absurd.
- randomdata 4y ago> Which is absurd. Indeed, it would be quite illogical to experience feelings over consuming information. There is no inherit emotional experience found within information. The fact that security is hard to understand, even for tech professionals, equating to feeling like there is a moral failing of millennials being implied does not compute. If your feelings won't let you participate in good faith, so be it, but ultimately there is no value in those emotions.