Skip to navigationSkip to content

Don’t Trust Anyone Over 21

By The Wall Street Journal

Read full story

Comments

  • Also share to
  • Good lord, this is a bizarre take. First off, I'm not sure how anyone born in 1997 or later can claim to be more influenced (at age 10) by the 2007 financial crisis than the generation that entered the workforce in its immediate aftermath.

    This is an insane level millennial bashing full of stereotypical vitriol about the most trivial things - Plaid-clad? God forbid. Chia-seed fetish? That's a new one. At least it's supplemented by a classic self-impressed college-student call to authority - I'm

    Good lord, this is a bizarre take. First off, I'm not sure how anyone born in 1997 or later can claim to be more influenced (at age 10) by the 2007 financial crisis than the generation that entered the workforce in its immediate aftermath.

    This is an insane level millennial bashing full of stereotypical vitriol about the most trivial things - Plaid-clad? God forbid. Chia-seed fetish? That's a new one. At least it's supplemented by a classic self-impressed college-student call to authority - I'm sure we can all learn from Baudelaire's well-cataloged opinions on millennials. It certainly provides factual basis for the author's point that iGen's "passions" and "causes" and "political activism" are far superior to millennials' because they won't burn out (has a 21-year old even had time to burn out yet?).

    All this from a self-proclaimed spokesperson of a generation of people under the age of 21. But that's just what happens when national media outlets give a mouthpiece to arrogant youth... I wonder if, when Nicole Ault looks back on this op-ed in 5 or 10 years time, she'll chuckle at how idiotic her convictions sounded.

  • This writer says: “Labels are dangerous, and with something as complex as a generation—defined more fairly by cultural context than the growing pains of its youthful members—they’re probably wrong.” And then immediately proceeds to bash an entire group based on its label: “Not even mayonnaise-killing millennials are wholly deserving of the grief they’re given.”

    What I would say about this individual (not her “generation”) is that her chosen method to defend perceived insults on her peers is by attacking

    This writer says: “Labels are dangerous, and with something as complex as a generation—defined more fairly by cultural context than the growing pains of its youthful members—they’re probably wrong.” And then immediately proceeds to bash an entire group based on its label: “Not even mayonnaise-killing millennials are wholly deserving of the grief they’re given.”

    What I would say about this individual (not her “generation”) is that her chosen method to defend perceived insults on her peers is by attacking another group. This reveals a lot about how she approaches problems — lashing out and going immediately on the offensive, directing vitriol toward another group. Perhaps she believes that by dumping on millennials in a condescending manner ingratiates her to the older generations who do so, and therefore allots her in-group status with those. In other words, she can’t take being bullied, so she joins the bullies. Definitely demonstrates her “practical orientation,” which millennials apparently lack.

Want more conversations like this?

Join the Quartz community for all the intelligence, without the noise.

App Store BadgeGoogle Play Badge
Leaderboard Screenshot

A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.

Editors' Picks Screenshot

No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.

Share Screenshot

Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.