Nothing More Than Feelings

Observing the behavior of my students as they interact with other faculty, it occurred to me that Millennials are now running with the torch of hypocrisy with absolutely no hindsight. While the hypocrisy of human beings is nothing new, it seems odd that it doesn’t occur to our social justice warriors, Millennials, that in seeking restitution for hurt feelings (whether anyone meant to hurt their feelings) they take no heed of whose feelings they hurt in the process.

For example, as Millennials go to war over trivialities such as Halloween costumes, college

presidents have to give in to whatever demands their students make in an effort to save their own job. One could scarcely imagine the stress Peter Salovey, the President of Yale University, recently underwent after a campus-wide email detailing how students should deal with Halloween costumes that they deemed offensive. Worse, that situation escalated and in early November 2015, an incident at Yale saw “…students surround[ed] Nicholas Christakis—husband of Erika [Christakis], a professor of sociology and medicine, and master of Silliman. One African-American woman, seemingly speaking for the crowd, told him that his wife’s email [about Halloween costumes] and his failure to apologize for it made her feel “unsafe.” When Christakis earnestly explained that he would need to consider the matter before apologizing, the woman shouted at him, “Be quiet!”; “Why the f--- did you accept the position!”; “If that’s what you think, you should step down!”; and “You should not sleep at night! You are disgusting!” She then turned and walked away” (as reported by Peter Berkowitz). While Millennials are not going to stand for having their feelings hurt, they think nothing of how they make anyone other than a Millennial feel.

One would suppose this failure to apply their ideology equally stems from a lack of shared values. Nonetheless, if the desire to spare the feelings of Millennials only applies amongst themselves, this is an indication of a culturally relativist practice, which surely Millennials do not mind since they go out of their way to respect – almost – all cultures.

The problem is, Millennials don’t respect the cultures they have the ability to usurp or wrest power from. Millennials respect, say, the practices of the Islamic State, since they believe all culture is relative and as such who is to say IS’s murderous tendencies are wrong. Millennials, however, don’t actually have to ever deal with IS directly. If they did, they would quickly find out IS has no respect for the belief of Millennials and getting upset about an email about Halloween costumes would soon be the least of a Millennial’s worries. And that’s just the thing; if all cultures should be respected because their practices are relativistic, there is absolutely no reason for anyone who is not a Millennial to respect the beliefs or practices of Millennials because to not respect the beliefs of Millennials is neither right nor wrong. As many liberals before them, Millennials fail to see this error in their philosophy. As many people before them, Millennials are blinded by ideology.

And so they go to war against the people they can control. Using the fact that colleges are for-profit, Millennials battle against college professors and administrators who don’t want to simply give them a degree without a student actually working for it or with whom they have a difference of opinion. Lost on Millennials is the fact that if colleges were not for-profit, a college administration would never give into their demands. Millennials get their way not because their demands are reasonable or philosophically justifiable, but because college administrators are capitalists. (Also lost on Millennials is that capitalism begets inequality and they fail to realize this because in actuality a Millennial’s smart phone is more important to them than social justice.)

But all of this is a symptom of a more pressing question, one I keep asking for which no Millennial can answer: Why is it more important to spare a person’s feelings* than to have a reasoned, civil debate in which we may have to settle for “agreeing to disagree”? If a person falsely believes that 1 + 1 = 3, why is it worth not correcting them, because it might hurt their feelings? If an attempt is made to build a person’s self-esteem by giving them an award for simply showing up, doesn’t this make it more likely that when that person’s feelings do get hurt, for whatever reason even by accident, that person is going to be ill prepared to deal with it? Why do feelings matter more than the analysis of a situation?

[* By person we should take to mean anyone that agrees with Millennial ideology or that may disagree with Millennial ideology but lives outside of the U.S.]

In my opinion, that is, the opinion of a seasoned thinker experienced in life, I rarely if ever have my feelings hurt because someone said such-and-such about me. I’ve been called plenty of names and shouted out and vehemently disagreed with but all these things amount to are words. Words by themselves have no power. All power lies with the person hearing the word. In order to be insulted or offended by words, one has to internalize them and make the decision for those words to hurt them. If one sees a Halloween costume that offends them, the offended party has to decide that they are offended. Granted, what is deemed an offensive costume may be a symptom of some systematic oppression, but this merely means there is a chance to have a debate with someone and possibly have the offender understand why a costume is offensive. I might add to this that if a certain group currently possesses more power than another group, I do not believe one should be offended by past transgressions such as in the case of a Jew seeing a Nazi Halloween costume. (I am open to debate on this point, though.)

Feelings are irrelevant in the face of more pressing concerns. IS, economic inequality and climate change do not care about the feelings of their victims. Nor is everyone special; it is quite clear the opposite is true as we see it again and again every day and there would be no CEOs or celebrities if everyone actually were important. I certainly understand the desire to ignore inconvenient truths, but this doesn’t make feelings more important than anything else out of necessity. While I would agree that it is basically cruel to hurt someone’s feelings intentionally, there should not be consequences for unintentional harm, as Millennials would have it. While we can never know someone’s true intention, neither can we know whether someone is truly having their feelings hurt or trying to manipulate others to their advantage. Millennials should beware the trappings of power; power corrupts and that corruption will wind up hurting someone’s feelings. Don’t be a hypocrite by refusing to examine your own beliefs, Millennials. If you want to be the stewards of the future, try to avoid operating from false premises like all of your predecessors. 

Who Are You? Who, Who? Who, Who?

Whereas the narrative of American liberals once tried to convince us that one’s identity, particularly in regards to race, is not very important, that narrative has since been abandoned as minority populations increase in numbers and presence. Currently, the liberal narrative sees Caucasians as agents of the Devil, as if white liberals should be going out of their way to admit the faults of their ancestors in hopes that some admission of institutionalized wrong-doing will allow them to avoid being lynched themselves when Caucasians finally become a minority in the United States. Moreover, social media in America is currently abuzz with sexual politics calling for freedom for the female nipple and to repeal slut shaming. Social media among Millennials is humming with the need to acknowledge cultural appropriation and a demand that Columbus Day be repealed. And everyone, regardless of whether their candidates are actually for changing the status quo, Democrats and Republicans both blindly vote along party lines. In short, America is awash in identity politics. But a sense of identity cuts across all cultures and in part, an identity is in fact how anyone would know that they do belong to a culture.

Why is identity so important? Why does anyone struggle to “find themselves”? It has long been assumed that a personal identity is a close to an inherent right as one can get, but is it possible that the need for an identity isn’t as important as it is made out to be? Is group identity more important? Is it possible we have been sold on a social construct that doesn’t exist in reality, but instead serves as a wedge between individual people and groups?

Let’s try to answer the first two questions: The answer as to why identity is so important varies from source to source. As we grow from infancy, we begin to form an identity, setting ourselves apart from the world around us. The formulation of an identity is born out of the human tendency to compartmentalize information in hopes of understanding the world. It allows us to set ourselves apart from other objects in the world and allows us to compare ourselves against those objects. An identity also helps us to know our likes and dislikes and detects who is going to be like us, physically and culturally speaking, so that we may form groups in the interest of self-preservation and procreation – whereas the inclusion in a group potentially gives one access to safety in numbers and resources. To have such an identity enables self-esteem and feelings of superiority over another person or group; in this way we use identity for social comparisons and may be used as a yardstick for success (which is itself a social construct). Crucially, an identity will largely dictate how we behave towards others and the world around us.

Being aware that having an identity will strongly influence how we behave may make us aware to the shortcomings of possessing an identity (or at least diminish its importance to ourselves). For instance, Governments rely on identities to know who to keep accountable for crimes or who to oppress. Capitalism relies on people having a sense of identity so that companies know who to market their products and services to. Individuals often employ the No True Scotsman logical fallacy in order to cast group members an individual doesn’t like in an unfavorable light. (For example, a Republican Christian stating that a true Christian would never register as or vote for a Democrat.) As mentioned before and I will mention again because it’s important, identities serve as a wedge between people which leaders are all too willing to capitalize on when they want to declare war on another country or worse, attempt the genocide of another group of people.

With the current liberal narrative in the U.S. contemplating identities as a way of knowing when we are wronged – assuming you are non-white – other Western narratives are attempting to dispense with identity nearly altogether, presumably to make up for the long, long history of crimes by white people, even against themselves. One example is taking place in Sweden where a boy or girl is now being referred to as a ‘hen,’ a gender neutral term meant to help children grow up free from the impact of being identified with a particular gender. While there is an obvious downside for one gender in patriarchal cultures (which most Western nations practice), is there any downside to abandoning identities such as the Swedes are attempting? It is inviting to contemplate a Slippery Slope argument here as one wonders what will follow from the abandonment of gender identities as it is clear there are differences between males and females. Will one’s family identity fall next? Will their national identity and their European identity follow suit until all they’re left with is to identify themselves as human beings? Might even that succumb to the notion that human beings are not a distinct entity from the animal kingdom or the universe itself? At what point will the Swedes decide it is okay to have an identity or will they decide identities are largely a bad thing? This seems to be the direction many progressively Left countries are headed.*

[* There is currently an effort to rebrand progressive liberals as ‘regressive leftists’ by moderate liberals who recognize that going to extremes usually ends in the oppression of someone. Again, identities help us identify threats or dangerous ideas.]

Here we may ask our third question; are identities actually as important as they’ve been made out to be? While we have an idea as to why we form identities, perhaps the Swedes have recognized that there seems to be a lot of harm that comes from having them. Should we abandon our identities within a family, a nation, or even as human beings? We might hypothesize that if human beings stopped regarding themselves as entities distinct from the world around themselves, the world wouldn’t be quite the ecological disaster it is. If we recognized that our interactions with other people had far reaching implications for better or worse, it is possible we might behave in a manner that would have ‘better’ implications. Unfortunately, most identities do not include such vision among their qualities or practices. Case in point, the #blacklivesmatter movement which seeks to end ‘white privilege’ may allow for the eventual equal treatment of blacks, but there is no indication that once equality is achieved black people are going to abandon their collective identity. So, there will always be a division, a division that will always allow for potential negative effects (usually negative effects).

It appears we may have been sold a bill of false goods as far as identities are concerned. The desire or need for identities make little sense from an evolutionary standpoint. This is to say that while identities may help forge bonds which allow for safety in numbers and access to resources such as food and shelter, identities actually work against human beings when it comes to the most important resource of all, mates. We’ve known for some time that restricting a gene pool to lesser and lesser variety results in mutation (this is presumably why it is not safe to mate with a close family relative, even a first cousin). In this way, having an identity works against the human race by limiting the people we might otherwise mate with; gene variety is the key to surviving a disease that might otherwise wipe out the entire species. It is another presumption that this may be why some of us are tantalized by foreigners as these ‘outsiders’ would provide offspring with a ‘superior’ set of genes. (As Richard Dawkins said, our genes use us, not the other way around.) It appears as though having an identity may have individual short term advantages, but for the human race as a whole, identities seem to be detrimental. Imagine the disconnect when one’s identity is threatened or attacked and this causes people extreme stress or depression, for what if they learn they are not who they thought they were? Is even this remote possibility worth the price of investing in an identity?

Before writing this blog entry, I counted all the things that were characteristic of my identity. Without even trying, I racked up more than 40 characteristics. What does this mean? I may be a teacher on one hand but I am a musician on the other. Or, I am all these things at once? Again, identities allow for the compartmentalization of information so that it is understandable, or in this case, identifiable. But we all know – if we allow for a few moments of reflection – that the truth is far more complicated than a person either being black or white, so why do so many people reduce identities to such common denominators? Because it is easy and most human minds do not like investing the energy to think about it. (This is not a slight but simply the way the human brain works; use as little energy as possible to understand what is going on. Unfortunately, the result is little understanding of an entire situation.)

I would argue that the need to ‘find oneself’ or wrap oneself up entirely within an unshakable identity is the hallmark of a weak mind and follower. Few leaders are elected on the strength of their group inclusion alone (if they are, it's simply because there are more people in a particular voting block). President Obama would not have been elected if he only appealed to blacks or only appealed to Democrats. Great leaders have other qualities besides their basic identity that allows them to lead and it is these qualities that should be remarked upon as the make for the entirety of an identity, something that is going to vary greatly from person to person. Lacking a diversity of characteristics means one is a caricature. So we should either give the totality of identities their due or give little weight to such concepts, for now we know that superficial identities are not the whole picture. In the words of Dr. Seuss, “Today you are you. That is truer than true. There is no one alive who is you-er than you.” I judge people on their individual merits, not on the color of their skin.*

[* To which some minorities will remark that such a comment is a distinctly ‘white’ thing to say.]

Millennials: Spoiled Brats Meme Edition

I think I feel a micro-aggression coming on. 

South Park takes on Safe Spaces

Safe from...reality?

FYI: It's the new high school diploma.

He dealt with macro-aggressions.

I'm all for free college; strings attached.

Tell me again why feelings should supersede thinking?

And Finally...

Alan Dershowitz & Peggy Noonan Epically Destroy the Regressive Left ON FOX NEWS! GOLD!

The Curious Case of Microaggressions

The universe hates me, indicated by its microaggression towards me that caused me to stumble upon this gem a few days ago…

Click to Enlarge

Microaggressions, a term coined by psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce in 1970, are described by UCLA as the “…everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.” This description was originally intended to describe the subtle behavior of white people towards minorities in the U.S. – notice that the word applies nowhere else in the world – the word has been taken up by the Millennial generation to mean any slight that makes a person feel remotely ill at ease.

The cartoon illustrates the problem with these perceived slights vividly. We know what the artist was trying to say, but if we think about the instances illustrated for us, do they really stand out as ‘aggressions’? 1 – In the second panel, there could be any number of reasons for cabs passing you by. It could be they have someone to pick up or already have a passenger you’re not aware of. Or the driver is going off duty. Or they driver is the same race and gender and decide not to pick you up because they know their own kind doesn’t tip well. There could be a billion reasons why you don’t get picked up. I’m a white male; I’ve been passed up by cabs before. It’s not a microaggression. 2 – In the third panel, a young white woman looks cautiously towards our protagonist, because minorities are never seen taking the subway. Could be that our protagonist is playing some crappy music that offends the delicate ear of the little white devil. 3 – The protagonist expects a lowly educated white male to pronounce her name correctly because she has taken the time to master every language. Moreover, maybe he was asking her where she was from because he’d like her number and Brooklyn is a disqualifier for him. It was a disqualifier for the Giants and Dodgers, after all. 4 – The losing weight comment in the fifth panel is something everyone suffers from all kinds of people. Well, almost everyone. My mother remarks that I eat like a bird. Should I get offended? No, I am comfortable with my svelte weight and don’t need to answer to anyone for it. I may be lean but it’s not like my life’s in danger, Mom. So, she’s the one who needs to get over it, not me. 5 – In the sixth panel, yeah, that guy’s a dick. If there was a need to be old-fashioned, why was our protagonist given the project in the first place? But this isn’t necessarily an ‘aggression;’ it’s stupidity on part of her manager. 6 – The seventh panel doesn’t even happen. Why would the caller expect a designer to be answering the phone anyway? 7 – The burger comment is probably coming from some vegan dipshit and has nothing to do with the person suspecting our protagonist is a vegetarian because of her ethnicity. This would be a case of ‘aggression’ but there’s a quick come back for that: Hum favorably while biting into the burger. 8 – In panels nine and ten, yes, these guys are being assholes and our protagonist is right to be upset. But such a situation can happen to anyone. Panel eleven implies one has to be accepted by their peers. This bit is ridiculous. 9 – Why would anyone assume someone wanted something sugar-free? This seems like it would be a case of someone just not doing their job right, not an intentional or even unintentional attack. 10 – In panel fourteen, the cashier may be unintentionally profiling but as I always say, stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. 11 – In panel fifteen, the police are looking for a suspect; could be anyone so they’re going to ask everyone who they are. If the suspect is an ethnic woman, of course they’re going to say something to her.

Look, I know what it is to have a bad day, when it seems like the entire universe and everyone in it is out to get you. Llelena certainly should be irritated by her work situation, in which case I would start working on my resume. But just about everything else, Llelena has to give permission from within herself to be offended. Words are only words and one has to internalize them in order for them to impact us negatively. So, when people remark that sensitive people should grow thicker skin, they’re right. If a person hasn’t realized by now the world is full of idiots and assholes – and idiots and assholes are not exclusive to any group of people – they should expect the hurt that is coming your way. But it doesn’t have to hurt. They only one letting themselves get hurt is themselves. If you think you don’t deserve to be hurt, then don’t be. Getting hurt implies you do in fact deserve it. In the final panel, Llelena recognized she doesn’t deserve it and is going to kick ass tomorrow, too. That’s why she’s the protagonist.

Microaggressions are often not what Millennials think they are. If we scratch the surface of their psychology, we’re sure to find a lot of self-loathing. They protect themselves from it by imagining everyone else is the enemy. Like people of every generation before them, the real enemy lies within. 

The Problem With The Problem of Cultural Appropriation

The Rachel Dolezal problem just won’t go away, mostly because Millennials won’t let it go away. Dolezal, the former NAACP leader discovered to be biologically white while she groomed herself to appear black – both figuratively and literally – said in an interview two days ago “I was biologically born white,” saying in effect that despite this fact she still doesn’t identify herself as a white person. This has Millennials – those kids always looking for something to be offended by – up in arms (again).

By now, we are already familiar with the glaring inconsistencies of the Millennial thought process as it is perfectly okay for Bruce Jenner to feel like he is actually a she and grooming himself to appear this way despite being biologically born a man. Now, perhaps this was okay for Jenner because he/she was a celebrity (celebrities get away with anything as long as an apology is issued when outrage is of a sufficient degree) or that the guardians of social justice feel like Dolezal disguised the fact she was ever white, but what you never find these supposed guardians doing is asking tough questions about their beliefs. For instance, what exactly constitutes a black person? According to African-America writer/director Justin Simien, “Being black in America involves a process of moving through and adopting from many different cultures. To define what's authentically black is virtually impossible, as there are as many ways to be black as there are black people.” Presumably, this would go for nearly every other ethnicity as well. But if one could define a black person within the confines of one singular culture, is a black person then restricted to only behaving as a black person?

If being a black person comes with a built in identity aside from their appearance, then so must every other ethnicity. So, if it is wrong to borrow from the black culture because that culture doesn’t belong to any other ethnicity, it is wrong for any ethnicity to borrow culture from any other ethnicity and the power dynamic that is often used as an accusatory device against, say, white people, has nothing to do with it. Accusers of cultural appropriation have long argued that minorities such as black people have adapted white culture as a matter of survival, but this is no longer a necessity in modern day America. So, this particular argument of theirs is no longer valid as to why black currently engage in any appropriation of any other culture.

Another question that comes to mind about whether it is appropriate to borrow from another culture is whether the culture being borrowed from is the originator of a given practice. In many instances this is simply impossible to know. Even if we were concede that black people invented rap music, they did it by borrowing English and recording technology from white people. As Simien noted earlier, black culture is not “authentic” but rather an amalgamation. (This goes for every culture, as well. There is no completely unique culture since human beings all generally behave the same; this manifests itself in our social practices. This is, for example, why some kind of spiritualism exists in all cultures.)

As a logical extension to the previous question, we might ask if a given practice was indeed invented by one ethnicity, does that ethnicity claim an exclusive right to use such that practice? Let’s take hair-braiding, for instance. According to various sources, this practice originated in Africa anywhere from 5,000-30,000 years ago, spread far and wide, and has undergone many changes depending on the culture that adapted it. One version of hair-braiding, known in black culture as ‘corn-rows’ traces its history back thousands of years and appears to have been a sign of social significance and wealth at some point. So, African Americans cannot claim a ‘right’ to the exclusive use of corn-rows (much to Kylie Jenner’s relief, I’m sure). Or maybe they can claim a right because one is allowed to borrow practices from the people in power, though in this instance I fail to see what adapting corn-rows would have to do with survival.

Furthermore, can one claim a right to the achievements of one’s ancestor? Doing so amounts to thinking ‘we’ won the Superbowl when in fact you, the spectator, had nothing to do with it. It’s basically riding the coattails of someone else. (Naturally, people who view themselves as victims often employ this kind of historical thinking to accuse those who are not a part of their group so that their own underachievements look benign in their own eyes. To be clear, I am NOT accusing any group in particular of this.) At any rate, at this point in evolution, no one is a pure-breed anymore, not that such a thing ever existed for human beings. So, we cannot accept historical usage of a practice as meaning that practice solely belonging to any single group.

Bizarrely, Millennials don’t seem to mind most of the things white people have culturally appropriated from black people as long as it doesn’t have anything to do with appearance.* If Dolezal had only acted black instead of trying to look black, sure, she may not have gotten a leadership job for the NAACP but she would simply have been mocked by black and white alike and forgotten. The fact that she tried to look black without acknowledging her ‘whiteness’ appeared as a mockery of black people. I get that. But the same people vilifying her are the same people on one hand want to think of everyone as special regardless of looks or even achievement, but on the other hand want to demonize whites for simply being white, something no white person ever born had a choice in being. Dolezal took her identity in her own hands – something usually applauded – but because she is really white, this is villainous. And thus, the racism of Millennials is exposed.

[*Nor do Millenials care if the Chinese, currently the most powerful group of people in the world, all things considered, borrow cultural practices from the U.S. As a matter of social justice, shouldn’t the guardians of social justice berate the Chinese for wearing blue jeans? Americans invented blue jeans so it belongs to us! Right?]

As I often tell conspiracy theorists, if you don’t like it, leave. But they never do that because despite how horrible it is to live in the U.S. these days, no matter how horrible white people unintentionally contribute to white supremacy (? You hear this line often in these kinds of discussion), living in the U.S. it’s still remarkably better than most other places, places where people cannot even begin to have this kind of discussion.

It is certainly one thing to appropriate a look or practice to intentionally mock a culture. Dolezal didn’t do that; if anything she could be considered to be mocking white people, if white people cared about these things. Black people certainly should feel a little angry that they are under- or misrepresented in the workplace and the media and are generally made to feel they need to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. Of this there is no doubt. But the only person that can make you feel like your (natural) identity is being stolen from you is you. Even if white people all started growing afros tomorrow, an afro on a black person wouldn’t make that person any less black. I know minorities feel otherwise, which makes it hard to understand why they don’t invent some other new look or practice and patent it for use by their own group. Remember that it is okay to borrow cultural practices from the group in power, so why not try using the power group’s practices against them. Oh, wait, what? You can’t patent a look or cultural practice? Gee, I wonder why that is…

An Open Letter To Millennials

[Part Three in my recent series skewering the latest generation of young adults in the U.S. Millennials are no exception to the rule that every generation thinks way too much of itself, and as such, need to be talked down off the ledge before they hurt themselves.]

Millennials, you scare me. You have taken self-aggrandizing to heights never before seen in history.

Over the course of the past few years, reports have been rolling in from college professors across America that they can no longer challenge the ideas of their students without endangering their jobs. College campuses, once a place where you as a young student wanted to go in order to learn more about the world now go to college with the expectation that any and all of your beliefs will be confirmed because they are true and not because a college simply wants your money. Meanwhile, professional companies are reporting that when you enter the workforce, you as entry level employees, are expecting exorbitant salaries, corner offices and to come and go as you please simply because you bothered to show up for work in the first place. Granted, you fight for social justice will the zeal common to all young ideologues, but you only do so as long as you don’t actually risk anything such as bodily harm, your source of income or alienating your friends. This last point is most disturbing of all.

Certainly, you have raised your voice and won some important battles such as the right for gays and lesbians to marry. But as I said, you haven’t risked a whole lot in doing so, not unless you yourself are gay or lesbian. While I believe you are right that such an issue is an important one to fight for, there are other issues – non-social, global issues – that need attention that you have not unexpectedly turned a blind eye to such as climate change and the alarming and rise of militant Islam. With that in mind, imagine if you will that your generation has been transported back in time to 1939 to the onset of World War II; how well would you handle a fascist bent on talking over Europe while an Emperor stalked Asia and the Pacific? How well would you handle the entire world being on the brink of war? Would you tweet Hitler out of power or share on Facebook “epic responses” to Japanese propagandists? Or would you dare enter the trenches and provide the enemy with the largest and easiest targets they’ve ever seen? (And would you complain to your commander about the amount of aggression levied at you by the enemy? Your generation cannot even seem to handle even the most innocuous insult much less be asked to physically exert themselves.) I could forgive you for abstaining from violence, electing to stay home and protest a lion killer from the comfort of a café with free wi-fi because like me you have given basically up on humanity, but your tenacity regarding social issues indicates you are not as misanthropic as I am. Maybe you would simply turn over the world to Germany and Japan, alleging that all cultures are equally worthwhile. Maybe then it will dawn on you that these ‘equal’ cultures have no respect for your opinions about social justice when you are incarcerated for dissent (if not summarily executed by your new overseers).

[*Name here withheld because I hurt this poor, young man's feelings], a Millennial who writes for the Millennialist website Mic.com, defends you by writing, “Young people these days are pigeonholed with all kinds of negative stereotypes: They're lazy. They're unskilled. They're entitled and narcissistic. None of these labels are actually true but they remain conventional wisdom the country over nonetheless.” Leave it to someone who was hand-held throughout their ‘education’ to miss why stereotypes become stereotypes in the first place. Much like any given person anywhere in the world, you tend not to take responsibility for your shortcomings. Or, like any given person anywhere in the world, when you do admit to any shortcomings, you feel as though this admission absolves you of any criticism or worse, you drum up the nerve to play the victim card as if you had endured ten years as a child prostitute in Thailand. I realize this is tough to hear, that you are typical of any given person anywhere in the world, but it’s true. Your Gen X parents may have told you you’re special, possibly due to their own lack of education that allowed for the misinterpretation of the word ‘special,’ but I assure you that your parents are kicking themselves now because they can’t get five minutes of your time before you turn away to coddle a device that you are so dependent on, you literally cannot function without it. Driven to dismiss these nagging faults about yourself you band together and communicating as one, at least when you can tear yourself away from news about a socialite who contributes nothing worthwhile to society other than her very presence.

Maybe someone, possibly a Millennial but more likely a comedian, said that you’re special because you grew up to survive the Great Recession. Do you think this is anything like growing up during WWII, the Vietnam conflict or even the Cold War? If you’re going to complain about, say, the Silent Generation (ask Siri) for feeling entitled to a program such as Social Security, think for a moment the degree to which that generation worked for it. Men went to war and women took over physically demanding factory jobs. Today, you seem to think that perfecting the art of the latte deserves more respect than it is given. As with any generation, you are bound to contribute the occasional genius or two, but I have heard of no genius arising from the slums of Starbucks. Yet you as a generation expect so much while contributing so little. While I agree in part with your overriding principle that life is better spent having fun instead of working, this doesn’t mean that when you are asked to work, you should put as little effort or skill into working as you can. One day your parents might die and leave you with nothing (since Gen X’ers were the first generation to stop saving money), meaning you might have to – gasp! – get a job you don’t like for a little while and be expected to be good at it in order to pay for that little rectangle piece of plastic and metal that serves as your brain. You might also want to consider the necessity of buying food before paying for a tattoo.

If you still think you are at all special, you may be right, but in the negative sense of the word. A special person (that is, intelligent person) would never come to the conclusion that the beliefs they hold are beyond reproach simply because they hold the belief. A ‘special’ person would, perhaps because your parents didn’t give you the tools to prevent mere words from causing you lasting psychological harm. You, as a ‘special’ person, supports socialism and sometimes Communism, though you are usually unable to describe socialism (without the use of a smart phone) or understand that Communism doesn’t work in real life. You, as a ‘special’ person also seem to think that being socially liberal means you are liberal, period, despite data that indicates the more money you make, the more fiscally conservative you become. And although you are rejecting the notion of God en masse, you are also rejecting science. Unfortunately we cannot vaccinate against stupidity.

Lastly, if you’ll notice, no self-respecting minority who doesn’t have a lot of white friends dares to identify themselves as a Millennial. (This should serve as a red flag and make you reconsider some of the things you believe about yourselves.) No minorities identify themselves as Millennials because while you as a white person can talk about injustice ad nauseam, minorities have to actually suffer it. Of course, this is the part where you bemoan the fact that you are white and call for the extermination of Caucasians, so long as it’s not yourself because you’re on the side of the disenfranchised. You don’t seem to realize that it was Renaissance ideals, brought to you by a few boat loads of white people, that allowed for social justice in the U.S. to ever take place. Do not think for a second that if the shoe were on the other foot, any other foot, that another ethnicity in power would think to build into their country’s constitution the idea of social equality. Today, the U.S. Constitution, written by a bunch of old dudes in funny hats – some of whom owned slaves – is what many foreign progressive wish their own countries would model their governments upon. Understandably, you dare not acknowledge this as it would undermine your belief in cultural relativism.

I’m sorry, Millennials, but you’re not quite as special as you think. IOW, omg ur not spcl rofl. You do have the opportunity to prove otherwise, but as a generation unique to the U.S. you come with all the trappings particular to Americans, meaning, you’re not number one in a whole slew of categories. One of those areas is reading comprehension: “Special - Better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.” So, are you special? And if all of you are special, wouldn’t that mean none of you are special? No, no, don’t ponder that for a moment. I don’t want to end up in jail for making you feel a little bit bad about yourself.