Lets Rant and hate on Millenials!!?!??!?! (1 Viewer)

[abby99]

Sometimes kids just turn out that way no matter how they are raised.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I think people are a mixture of nature, nurture, age (the stage of life), and an inexplicable factor.

@Anthony Martino: The best thing about a thread titled "Let's rant and hate on millennials" is that we've been invited to rant. Rants don't have to make sense, be backed up by facts, or argued rationally. Additionally, it's impossible to explain a large group of people (e.g., millennials) with a few generalizations in a forum post.

I'm going to my safe space now.

 

[Anthony Martino]

I was completely baffled by her behavior because that wasn't how we raised them.

Just one of the many reasons Jenn and I have chosen not to have children. Even if you raise them well, there are so many kids being raised poorly that will influence them it feels like a losing battle. Glad to hear she turned around, sometimes someone has to fail themselves to "get it", rather than taking advice from someone who's been there before.

 

[detroitdad]

I have a 14 year old boy who is going through this right now. It's brutal.

"Brutal" is an understatement. I have three kids. The first two went through this phase. Thank god my third one (my boy) didn't. He was at the other extreme. Dude has been an adult since he was 10. Hell, he is probably more responsible than I am. @jburton9 is a great kid (see if he gets any alerts)

 

[detroitdad]

Just one of the many reasons Jenn and I have chosen not to have children

There are ton of legitimate reasons not to have kids. I don't think this is one of them.

 

[Anthony Martino]

There are ton of legitimate reasons not to have kids. I don't think this is one of them.

Primarily expense, the amount of time they consume and the stress they bring were our reasons.

 

[detroitdad]

Primarily expense, the amount of time they consume and the stress they bring were our reasons.

I had kids at a young age (20). My wife and kids made me into the person I am today. Without them no telling how I would have turned out. Yes, they are expensive, crazy amount of time is consumed (most of it was great experiences). Stress........sure, but you can stress about changing jobs, having a beer with your boss, which gaming system to buy

Have to get back to work.

 

[bergs]

There are ton of legitimate reasons not to have kids. I don't think this is one of them.

Pretty sure it's each person's / couple's choice whether to have children and they can use whatever criteria they want. I don't have kids because I simply don't fucking feel like it.

Every generation says these things about earlier generations. It's like batting stances...my buddy played minor league ball and tried like 8 different batting stances in 3 years, trying to generate more power and get promoted to Triple-A ball. The thing is, regardless of the stance he started at, he always came back to one fundamental "ready" position before starting his swing.

Kids are the same way. This generation is more reliant on friends or is lazier or is more PC or feels entitled, etc....until they meet someone, get married, pump out a couple kids, look to buy a house and put down roots, and advance in their career. We all went through that and that's generally when you're in the "ready" position for the rest of your life (which invariably includes starting threads about Generation <insert name here> on hobbyist boards and bemoaning the idiocy that permeates everything they do).

In any case, I love when a new generation seemingly disappoints the latter generations. It means as I get older it won't be as hard to continue with my career because I won't face as much pressure from younger (read: cheaper) workers. #pragmatism

 

[detroitdad]

Pretty sure it's each person's / couple's choice whether to have children and they can use whatever criteria they want. I don't have kids because I simply don't fucking feel like it.

Every generation says these things about earlier generations. It's like batting stances...my buddy played minor league ball and tried like 8 different batting stances in 3 years, trying to generate more power and get promoted to Triple-A ball. The thing is, regardless of the stance he started at, he always came back to one fundamental "ready" position before starting his swing.

Kids are the same way. This generation is more reliant on friends or is lazier or is more PC or feels entitled, etc....until they meet someone, get married, pump out a couple kids, look to buy a house and put down roots, and advance in their career. We all went through that and that's generally when you're in the "ready" position for the rest of your life (which invariably includes starting threads about Generation <insert name here> on hobbyist boards and bemoaning the idiocy that permeates everything they do).

In any case, I love when a new generation seemingly disappoints the latter generations. It means as I get older it won't be as hard to continue with my career because I won't face as much pressure from younger (read: cheaper) workers. #pragmatism

yep..........I'm just sharing my opinion that I don't think its good reason not to have kids because of how they "might" turn out. I'm not saying my criteria is gold, or that it means anything more or less than the .02's its worth. Just stating my opinion.

 

[CraigT78]

"Brutal" is an understatement. I have three kids. The first two went through this phase. Thank god my third one (my boy) didn't. He was at the other extreme. Dude has been an adult since he was 10. Hell, he is probably more responsible than I am. @jburton9 is a great kid (see if he gets any alerts)

I have 5 (blended family) my oldest is the 14 year old, youngest is 8. I am not looking forward to the next 10 years.

 

[detroitdad]

I have 5 (blended family) my oldest is the 14 year old, youngest is 8. I am not looking forward to the next 10 years.

Whiskey, neat helps.....................

 

[CraigT78]

Whiskey, neat helps.....................

So does the two kegs of beer in my mancave

 

[jbutler]

To be fair, I think people are overly hard on Millennium, but the criticisms seem to come from two separate camps: those who can't get past the production style and those who unfairly require it to top their self-titled US debut and their first two international albums. I don't think either argument is fair.

First, regarding the production, we've heard this kind of thing before. People still criticize Springsteen's production on Born in the USA, saying it was too synth heavy. But if you're willing to embrace the era, it's truly great and likewise, Millennium is a real gem. At the very least one should try to put aside the bias against the production and listen to the songwriting and the artistry in the vocals in order to enjoy it despite the perceived shortcomings in production.

But I actually take the complete opposite view: that pop albums in circa-1999 were in their absolute prime. It was before autotune, but after protools and so you get the best of both worlds: perfect rhythm and a tight musical sound paired with a casual, naturalistic vocal. Sure, it doesn't have the flourishes it might have if someone like T-Pain or Timbaland had been involved, but it has its own charm for sure.

Second, regarding the comparisons to their previous work, I'm not sure how that's fair at all. Artists can't be required to replicate their previous work. They need to be allowed to grow. I have no doubt that a group as talented as the Backstreet Boys could rest on their laurels and put out an album full of tracks that match the fire of "Everybody (Backstreet's Back)". They should focus on putting out the most honest music that reflects where they are in their development as artists. To the Boys's credit, that's exactly what they did.

Millennium is full of songs that express a mature view of relationships. In fact, their maturation is so striking that I'd actually argue, if anything, it actually eclipses what came before it rather than falls short of their previous hits. Sure, "Quite Playing Games With My Heart" and "As Long As You Love Me" were great songs, but they were fairly straightforward in their view of love. I could hear any number of pop singers doing those tracks justice. But no other artist on the planet could possibly give the depth of meaning the Boys gave to "I Want It That Way" and "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely." I could parse the lyrics all day for the subtle shades of experience, but the fact that they were drawn to this material shows how they had grown and that's what makes Millennium so special.

So give it another chance. If you have the time, listen to the self-titled US debut and Millennium one after the other. If you still think that Millennium is a disappointment, fair enough, but I think if you have an open mind you'll have a hard time pressing stop on your Discman.

 

[manamongkids]

yep..........I'm just sharing my opinion that I don't think its good reason not to have kids because of how they "might" turn out. I'm not saying my criteria is gold, or that it means anything more or less than the .02's its worth. Just stating my opinion.

isnt that like saying you dont want a pet because how they might turn out, you dont want to grow a garden because of how it might turn out, you wont invest in stocks because of how they might turn out

 

[manamongkids]

To be fair, I think people are overly hard on Millennium, but the criticisms seem to come from two separate camps: those who can't get past the production style and those who unfairly require it to top their self-titled US debut and their first two international albums. I don't think either argument is fair.

First, regarding the production, we've heard this kind of thing before. People still criticize Springsteen's production on Born in the USA, saying it was too synth heavy. But if you're willing to embrace the era, it's truly great and likewise, Millennium is a real gem. At the very least one should try to put aside the bias against the production and listen to the songwriting and the artistry in the vocals in order to enjoy it despite the perceived shortcomings in production.

But I actually take the complete opposite view: that pop albums in circa-1999 were in their absolute prime. It was before autotune, but after protools and so you get the best of both worlds: perfect rhythm and a tight musical sound paired with a casual, naturalistic vocal. Sure, it doesn't have the flourishes it might have if someone like T-Pain or Timbaland had been involved, but it has its own charm for sure.

Second, regarding the comparisons to their previous work, I'm not sure how that's fair at all. Artists can't be required to replicate their previous work. They need to be allowed to grow. I have no doubt that a group as talented as the Backstreet Boys could rest on their laurels and put out an album full of tracks that match the fire of "Everybody (Backstreet's Back)". They should focus on putting out the most honest music that reflects where they are in their development as artists. To the Boys's credit, that's exactly what they did.

Millennium is full of songs that express a mature view of relationships. In fact, their maturation is so striking that I'd actually argue, if anything, it actually eclipses what came before it rather than falls short of their previous hits. Sure, "Quite Playing Games With My Heart" and "As Long As You Love Me" were great songs, but they were fairly straightforward in their view of love. I could hear any number of pop singers doing those tracks justice. But no other artist on the planet could possibly give the depth of meaning the Boys gave to "I Want It That Way" and "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely." I could parse the lyrics all day for the subtle shades of experience, but the fact that they were drawn to this material shows how they had grown and that's what makes Millennium so special.

So give it another chance. If you have the time, listen to the self-titled US debut and Millennium one after the other. If you still think that Millennium is a disappointment, fair enough, but I think if you have an open mind you'll have a hard time pressing stop on your Discman.

I love BSB

 

[slisk250]

Trying to raise a 16 year old (and soon another 14) from across the planet just sucks. Sure, I don't have to complain about his laundry and room, but so much other things are hard. I bitch about the digital age kids plenty but at least I can use the tech to somehow connect when I need to...if they aren't playing minecraft with friends in place of giving dear old dad some Facetime.

 

[Chicken Rob]

To be fair, I think people are overly hard on Millennium, but the criticisms seem to come from two separate camps: those who can't get past the production style and those who unfairly require it to top their self-titled US debut and their first two international albums. I don't think either argument is fair.

First, regarding the production, we've heard this kind of thing before. People still criticize Springsteen's production on Born in the USA, saying it was too synth heavy. But if you're willing to embrace the era, it's truly great and likewise, Millennium is a real gem. At the very least one should try to put aside the bias against the production and listen to the songwriting and the artistry in the vocals in order to enjoy it despite the perceived shortcomings in production.

But I actually take the complete opposite view: that pop albums in circa-1999 were in their absolute prime. It was before autotune, but after protools and so you get the best of both worlds: perfect rhythm and a tight musical sound paired with a casual, naturalistic vocal. Sure, it doesn't have the flourishes it might have if someone like T-Pain or Timbaland had been involved, but it has its own charm for sure.

Second, regarding the comparisons to their previous work, I'm not sure how that's fair at all. Artists can't be required to replicate their previous work. They need to be allowed to grow. I have no doubt that a group as talented as the Backstreet Boys could rest on their laurels and put out an album full of tracks that match the fire of "Everybody (Backstreet's Back)". They should focus on putting out the most honest music that reflects where they are in their development as artists. To the Boys's credit, that's exactly what they did.

Millennium is full of songs that express a mature view of relationships. In fact, their maturation is so striking that I'd actually argue, if anything, it actually eclipses what came before it rather than falls short of their previous hits. Sure, "Quite Playing Games With My Heart" and "As Long As You Love Me" were great songs, but they were fairly straightforward in their view of love. I could hear any number of pop singers doing those tracks justice. But no other artist on the planet could possibly give the depth of meaning the Boys gave to "I Want It That Way" and "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely." I could parse the lyrics all day for the subtle shades of experience, but the fact that they were drawn to this material shows how they had grown and that's what makes Millennium so special.

So give it another chance. If you have the time, listen to the self-titled US debut and Millennium one after the other. If you still think that Millennium is a disappointment, fair enough, but I think if you have an open mind you'll have a hard time pressing stop on your Discman.

Btw - auto tune was in pretty widespread use by 1999. The Cher debacle occurred in '98 I think. It wasn't being used on every record produced yet, but it was gaining significant ground.

I also am a big pro tools fan. In '98 I had a 24 bit pro tools setup with 3 DSP farms. It was pretty awesome. Now you can practically replace that $20k setup with a cell phone and a 99 cent app.

Dispute this I have found most mainstream music production to be unlistenable for about 10-15 years. Everything is so over compressed, pitch corrected and homogenized as to sound bland and unpalatable. We need music to have more flaws in it. More humanity. More wabi-sabi.

 

[the3rd]

Where was the trigger warning! I am traumatized. I will be seeing you all in court.

I think a distinction can be made between Millenials and previous generations. Parents of any generation don't want to see their children suffer. It's natural. Today there is not much to protect our children from, so over-protection becomes the order of the day. I found this article very interesting. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

Entitlement culture isn't just a Millenial problem. They are just the loudest so they get the headlines. Any group that has ever been marginalized in the US has individuals of all ages seeking entitlements even if that particular individual has never suffered.

 

[the3rd]

I think it's been engineered purposely, rather than an accidental failure of our system. The people in power want us to give our government more power, more control, more money. They want us to depend on government so it can continue to grow and bloat.

Everyone in power wants to stay there. That's a given. Various elements of society want to be taken care of by the government. That costs money. We know the ultra-wealthy conspire with the political class so as not to pay their fair share so the middle and upper-middle classes pick up the tab. The resources of the latter two classes are finite. As more and more people within those classes demand hand-outs as they are now and get them, they cease contributing to the government coffers and the burden on the remaining tax payers increases. Eventually they run out of money. Revolution ensues and the oligarchy loses power and wealth. The mafia have a code about not squeezing people too hard or they fight back or go to the cops.

If a guy like me can figure this out, those in power have as well. I think life has just become a little to easy for many so they overreact to any slight.

 

[jbutler]

Where was the trigger warning! I am traumatized. I will be seeing you all in court.

I think a distinction can be made between Millenials and previous generations. Parents of any generation don't want to see their children suffer. It's natural. Today there is not much to protect our children from, so over-protection becomes the order of the day. I found this article very interesting. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

I remember reading that article when it came out last year and being frustrated by the end of it when the author didn't attempt to trace the roots of the problem using some facet or underlying premise of the argument contained in the book from which the article's author obviously cribbed the title: The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. There are many problems co-morbid in both millennial victim culture and the relativist views Bloom complained of back in the 1980s. The book was original mostly dismissed by the left, but I remember reading it when I was not invested in any meaningful way in a viable political culture and thinking it made a lot of good and reasonable points, though I remember there was plenty I disagreed with as well.

The trigger warning bullshit pretty much parodies itself and should. For a pretty great example of the self-parody see this "Geek Feminism wiki" article on trigger warning which itself has a trigger warning. Soon enough people who buy into this nonsense will have decided that so little of language is acceptable that they'll have to just shut the fuck up about everything and we won't have to listen to them bitch anymore.

Entitlement culture isn't just a Millenial problem. They are just the loudest so they get the headlines. Any group that has ever been marginalized in the US has individuals of all ages seeking entitlements even if that particular individual has never suffered.

I agree with this but there are also plenty of people who continue to be limited in some way by the treatment of their ancestors and we have less credibility on the subject if we pretend that current problems aren't the result of past action because the person complaining isn't himself suffering from some action directly motivated by the same factor that caused his ancestor's treatment.

 

[the3rd]

I agree with this but there are also plenty of people who continue to be limited in some way by the treatment of their ancestors and we have less credibility on the subject if we pretend that current problems aren't the result of past action because the person complaining isn't himself suffering from some action directly motivated by the same factor that caused his ancestor's treatment.

I think you've read enough of my posts to know I'm not pretending about current problems, but there are many people out there that have it way better than you and I, whom have never been limited in any way and don't give a damn about those who are still limited, yet they use the plight of others to get further ahead. An example would be women working for a companies in which there is no wage gap using sexism to secure a promotions they are less qualified for or other benefits not available to other employees.

 

[jbutler]

An example would be women working for a companies in which there is no wage gap using sexism to secure a promotions they are less qualified for or other benefits not available to other employees.

How would a woman go about using sexism to secure a promotion? If preferential interviewing or hiring practices are being utilized without good cause I would fault the people doing the hiring and promotion. It would seem particularly appropriate to look to those people actually making the decision since we're talking about taking responsibility.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I agree with this but there are also plenty of people who continue to be limited in some way by the treatment of their ancestors and we have less credibility on the subject if we pretend that current problems aren't the result of past action because the person complaining isn't himself suffering from some action directly motivated by the same factor that caused his ancestor's treatment.

It's about time that I've heard someone (other than myself) identify this problem. While I'm not advocating for reparations, I do see that a person that came to this country against their will had far more obstacles to overcome. The end of slavery didn't result in high paying jobs - in fact tremendously large sections of the country still banned or otherwise hampered educational opportunities for many people.

We realistically strive to be as good or slightly better off than our parents. Sure, I'd like to be a billionaire, but realistically I always knew that even earning a total of $1,000,000 would take the better half of my life. But I've achieved that goal (and spent the better part of it too, of course). While it could have been possible for me to make as much as one of Trump's children, the effort - even finding the path - would be far more difficult for me.

Underprivileged children face the same problem. Their goal a few generations ago was to not be whipped to death. That was doing better than their father. As we move forward, there are more generational opportunities for improvement, but their bar was set lower, and the path to great wealth even more obscured.

I think you've read enough of my posts to know I'm not pretending about current problems, but there are many people out there that have it way better than you and I, whom have never been limited in any way and don't give a damn about those who are still limited, yet they use the plight of others to get further ahead. An example would be women working for a companies in which there is no wage gap using sexism to secure a promotions they are less qualified for or other benefits not available to other employees.

I'm not going to say that occasionally the race or gender card isn't misused. Fighting for promotions is - and always has been - a catalyst for foul play. But gender and racial inequality for pay and promotions is still the status-quo in most of America. This is possibly a factor of favoritism (I admit I would be more likely hire/promote a friend of mine vs a stranger), and a factor of educational barriers that existed a relatively short time ago (most women were homemakers in the 60s, setting their current career bar lower and obscuring the path for advancement).

If you've ever said to a newlywed woman "When are you going to have kids" you are perpetuating an environment that suggests that a woman need take time out of her career to raise a family, obscuring the path even further. If the path is obstructed, the temptation to use a X-card becomes far more tempting.

It's like speeding on an empty stretch of road. It's wrong, but it'll get you to your end-goal.

 

[jja412]

To be fair, I think people are overly hard on Millennium....

Liked it just so I could UNLIKE it.

 

[Chicken Rob]

When did trigger warnings become a thing. I just started seeing them late last year.

 

[abby99]

An example would be women working for a companies in which there is no wage gap using sexism to secure a promotions they are less qualified for or other benefits not available to other employees.

Gee, my experience is that a woman has to be better than her male coworkers and she still will have a difficult time getting promoted to positions she's qualified for.

Other benefits being stuff like maternity leave and the same contributions to health insurance as her male coworkers? It's often the case (although admittedly I provide no proof) that men are allowed to take family leave but generally don't because they feel that doing so would be detrimental to their careers, and they're probably right. Women have no choice in the matter, since they're the ones who give birth, and women do find that maternity leaves often do hold them back in their careers.

If you've ever said to a newlywed woman "When are you going to have kids" you are perpetuating an environment that suggests that a woman need take time out of her career to raise a family, obscuring the path even further. If the path is obstructed, the temptation to use a X-card becomes far more tempting.

Asking that question during an interview or any time thereafter could result in a lawsuit. It's high on the list of no-nos.

There are many reasons for the wage gap in addition to plain old-fashioned discrimination, but that's fodder for another post/thread.

 

[Chicken Rob]

Gee, my experience is that a woman has to be better than her male coworkers and she still will have a difficult time getting promoted to positions she's qualified for.

Other benefits being stuff like maternity leave and the same contributions to health insurance as her male coworkers? It's often the case (although admittedly I provide no proof) that men are allowed to take family leave but generally don't because they feel that doing so would be detrimental to their careers, and they're probably right. Women have no choice in the matter, since they're the ones who give birth, and women do find that maternity leaves often do hold them back in their careers.



Asking that question during an interview or any time thereafter could result in a lawsuit. It's high on the list of no-nos.

There are many reasons for the wage gap in addition to plain old-fashioned discrimination, but that's fodder for another post/thread.

I'll admit I have a pretty narrow perspective. I work in a field where a PhD is required, and there are more jobs than qualified people, and 50% or more of them are women (at a guess). In my previous role, the director of our department (my boss) and the vice president of our department (her boss) are both women. I know women in our field with less experience, both in years and substantive work experience, and lesser skills in key technical areas, with higher salaries and titles than I have.

I'm not bitter in the least. I have carved out a specialty position that caters exactly to my strengths and interests and I still make a very good living. Quality of life and work life balance is definitely high for me, and I think a lot of these women are quite good at their jobs, and they're doing jobs I don't want.

 

[the3rd]

How would a woman go about using sexism to secure a promotion? If preferential interviewing or hiring practices are being utilized without good cause I would fault the people doing the hiring and promotion. It would seem particularly appropriate to look to those people actually making the decision since we're talking about taking responsibility.

When someone is passed up for promotion, lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits. "I was passed over because I was a woman." So it is an NFL franchises fault that they have to interview a number of minority coaches. The DOD isn't abiding by affirmative action when they promote less qualified minorities faster.

 

[jbutler]

When someone is passed up for promotion, lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits. "I was passed over because I was a woman." So it is an NFL franchises fault that they have to interview a number of minority coaches. The DOD isn't abiding by affirmative action when they promote less qualified minorities faster.

I can't speak specifically to the NFL's or DOD's hiring practices but you're extremely mistaken if you think there are significant numbers of women who have been offered a job or a promotion because they sued or threatened to sue an employer. If someone makes a hiring or interviewing decision because they're afraid of being sued that's certainly not the fault of an individual candidate.

 

[KingZilla]

I will refrain from posting comments on topics such as this because when I do, (verbal) hair covered knuckles rain down upon me. It's so nice to be politically incorrect - as long as you remain silent

 

[Poker Zombie]

Asking that question during an interview or any time thereafter could result in a lawsuit. It's high on the list of no-nos.

There are many reasons for the wage gap in addition to plain old-fashioned discrimination, but that's fodder for another post/thread.

Yikes! Yes, that would definitely be a no-no in an interview. I'm talking about regular life. We heard it a ton when Mrs Zombie and I got married - "When are you going to have kids?" Society puts pressure on people to get married and have children. As you noted, Men can take FMLA time off, but rarely do. Women have no choice.

I don't think it's intentional or malicious. It's simply generations upon generations of expectations, and that's the crux of my point. Are "millennials" overly sensitive, or are we fighting change and unwittingly maintaining the status quo - a status built upon hundreds of years of repression?

Some carry "politically incorrect" like a badge of honor. I get that. They speak their mind and freedom of speech. What they need to realize is that they're also oppressing others. A line needs to be drawn to separate "acceptable" from "unacceptable", and we each draw this line ourselves. Where our forefathers drew the line would make us cringe, as future generations will balk at what we deem acceptable.