This is a very long comment posted on the comment section of the same video. To make this easier, let’s hide this dude (let’s just assume he’s a dude) in the name of Brad.
Brad started by saying: “I am going to explain what is wrong with this video.”
In that case, I will explain what is wrong with his comment.
Brad had said to be 24 and guessed that he was probably a millennial too, which, according to the definition, he is. He claimed that he wasn’t aggravated because he wasn’t the person Mae was describing. Glue this statement in your head, because the rest of his explanation is going to be a bit sketchy.
1st Point: Mae was generalizing a group of people with various statements while not considering kids, adults, and especially old people.
I said it before, and I’ll say it again. Generalizing is an overall opinion about a large number of people based on small groups of people while knowing exactly how other people do not fit in the criteria. If this was in a formal debate, yes, Mae had committed a fallacy. But this is a video expressing her opinions, which are generally true because a lot of people do those things.
And there is certainly no way to disprove her statement by saying “I myself do not lack manners.” If you claim yourself to be a good person who will confirm that? And what if you don’t lack manners, does that make everyone else less disrespectful?
2nd Point: He refutes her statement “We don’t hold the door open for ladies” by saying “I open the door for anybody.”
Anyone can open the door for anybody if they want to, the same thing goes when people don’t want to. But again, the criticizer missed the implications.
You can’t possibly open the door to everyone out of respect because that would be endless. There will always be a point where you should let go of the door and let other ladies open it for themselves because you have your own business to deal with. But if you don’t open the door for ladies because you don’t care if she needed a hand, or you don’t care that the closing door will probably hit her head, even that small hint of apathy is a sign of a selfish generation.
3rd Point: It’s Brad’s personal favorite. He criticizes about millennial’s bad or dirty music choices.
Alright. Your dad likes listening to music like Girls Girls Girls, Drop Dead Legs, songs about drugs, songs about crime. He says it’s fine because they are real stuff happening today. What other real stuff are happening today? Class cutting, parties, sex.
So, okay. They’re all happening today. They’re real stuff. We can’t ignore them.
But does that make them not wrong? We certainly aren’t ignoring them, but in what way are we interacting with those things?
I’ll give you a quote, brought to you by Dawn H.
Majority isn’t always right. If anything, it is often wrong.
It’s an unpopular opinion, but this is what this book is all about. I’d say it’s a truth. You cannot decide something to be good just because majority doesn’t look at it as bad anymore. If everyone looks at murder as an art, it doesn’t lose the fact that it’s still a crime. If Brad’s saying that those kinds of songs are okay just because his dad’s been listening to it, there goes his mistake.
4th Point: What’s wrong with cussing to prove a point exactly?
Another unpopular opinion, but there is. There really is. There is a reason why it is called a “foul” or “bad” word. If you don’t believe it’s provocative then Mae’s just proved her point. If you don’t believe it’s disrespectful then she proved another point. And it’s certainly not cool. Why do you think schools don’t allow those words around campus? Why do you think there are still elders who warns you of your “language” when you cuss?
Moreover, its main point is to provoke. You say “#@<* you!” because someone made you angry and you want to provoke him. It just so happens that it’s been often used that it came to the point where it became a use for emphasis.
Cussing doesn’t emphasize your point. It emphasize your lack of manners.
5th Point: We idolize people like Kim Kardashian. He follows by saying “I have never met a single person in my life that idolizes her.” Then he continues by saying “Tim Tebow is just a celebrity, why should we idolize him?…I don’t understand your logic?”
Let’s talk about logic then, for Brad’s sake.
There are people who idolizes Kim Kardashian (because she never would’ve been a celebrity if she didn’t have any fans—whoever she is) and this does not disprove its fact just because our friend Brad hadn’t met anyone who does—unless he knew everyone, but I don’t even know him.
Now to his big question: “Tim Tebow is just a celebrity, why should we idolize him?”
Here’s what Mae said: “We idolize people like Kim Kardashian and shame people like Tim Tebow.” Did she literally say that we should idolize Tim Tebow over Kim Kardashian? Can’t you see the overlying message of this statement? We prefer to idolize people that pretty much influences our society to a point of moral destruction and shame people who are contributing to the good of society. I did not mean Kim or Tim because I don’t know who these people are, but that’s pretty much the point. And I’d like to answer Brad’s question with a question:
Do you have logic?
6th Point: Laziness. Brad brags about how he went to California and applied to 70 jobs.
How does that disprove the millennials’ laziness? If he had used the evolution of technology and provide facts how it actually helps millennials in a way that it’s not lazy, I’d consider his criticism. But saying how he applied to 70 jobs?
So what if he did?
You just can’t refute a certain thing by evaluating yourself and use those standards to prove a point. Every person is different. Any 24-year-old may have known that by now.
7th Point: We are not entitled—we are human beings.
Choose a person. Make sure he doesn’t like being called a dork. Now call him a dork. What did he do? Denied. Got mad. Saying it’s not true.
People see millennials as entitled. We can’t change what they’ve observed. And we cannot disprove that by denying it. Most people prefer to think that they are a certain kind of person despite what everybody sees. That’s not really a bad thing, but if you deny of being a social-climber and pretend to be the typical nerdy sweet girl, there’s your mistake.
And don’t worry. Titles do not deprive us of being humans. They’re just titles. But if you prove the accuracy of those titles, it’s where we can question our humanity.
8th Point: Free education without putting much work. Brad says, “I personally dropped out of college after 2 years. I believe that if a person is willing to put in the work of getting an education, then they should get it for free.”
I had this personal experience with my classmates. They always complain about homework, projects, and even the expensive school tuitions they don’t pay from their own pockets. And these guys are mostly those who never put on the work.
There’s this existing behavioral pattern. People who mostly complain are those who aren’t even doing anything. They don’t complain because it’s mainly hard (although it’s one of the reasons why they want to back out), but it’s mostly because they don’t even want to start the work.
There are many ways to have education—not everything involves a classroom and a board. If they want something free they can leave the school. It was never like the education system forced everyone to take book-based educations.
Brad brags about being a college dropout. If this was a job interview, those dropouts reveals a lot about a negative behavior. Being a dropout never labels you as someone dumb. Being a dropout is being either intelligent or slow learner who didn’t work up to achieve a passing grade. And you want to brag about being a dropout? Does being a dropout shows how you are willing to put on the work?
If you live your life thinking you deserve free education because you think you are willing to put on the work, how long do you think can you keep that will?
9th Point: What’s wrong with making friends online?
Let’s move on to technology.
What is the difference between making friends online and making friends face-to-face with real conversations and real interactions? Something is wrong of keeping online friendships and neglecting face-to-face interactions, in many ways. It’s one of the disadvantages of technology. The thing about virtual friendship is the big advantage of cheating, pretending, and self-revising. Meeting online is never bad as long as the growth of that relationship lasts because of face-to-face interactions. But online, you have the power to change your identity the way you want. After all, no one can see the real you.
It’s similar to the comparison of your followers online and in real life. The thing about real life followers is the fact that they don’t always see you express in a lot of permanent ways (unlike posting on Facebook), and you can’t always know if they “liked” it or not, certainly not the number of people. Having online followers allows them to see your “framed” identity, and they’ll know every online interaction you made—comments, likes, share, etc.
10th Point: We can respect whoever we want, or not if we don’t want to.
Let’s clear up how respect really works. It doesn’t always work both ways, and it doesn’t mean you have to like the person to let you respect him. It is the understanding you give to a person for a certain behavior, and corrections never have to be revengeful.
Meaning, if you respect an elder and the elder does not respect you back, it does not mean you have to degrade his whole being—he’s still older than you, and at least you have to respect that. Of course, there would be times when things come to the point where the person you once respected did something very outrageous and “you lost all respect to him.” You know, that statement is not entirely literal. If you actually “lost all respect” to a person, the least respect you can extend is to be quiet stay away to at least avoid all trouble.
Please note. You cannot disprove a point by playing dumb. When Mae stated that “We praise people that are fighting each other” or “Everything that is frowned up is no being celebrated,” there is no way to say she is wrong by saying “Do you mean countries? Wrestlers? Pokemon?” It’s not an excuse that the statement wasn’t very specific.
We should actually be old enough to know what exactly it means.
He said that these statements didn’t aggravate him because he knows these things weren’t him (obviously, he’s been bragging himself to the fullest). But he said he got mad when Mae used the word “we”.
What’s wrong with that?
It could’ve been worse if she used ‘you’ or ‘they’. I mean, who is she to say that we are all millennials while she excludes herself? It’s actually a good way of putting it, meaning she’s humble enough to know that she’s part of the infamous group of millennials and she is willing not to deny that—unlike the constant bragging of Brad.
There really is nothing wrong with a bunch of broad statements. If there is truth, broadness or specificity won’t make it less true. People nowadays, along with integrity and morals, just lack common sense.
And it’s a sad truth.
Copyright © All Rights Reserved