Casually Bashing Young People
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Justin Mallone
Apr 17, 2014, 8:33:44 PM4/17/14
to FI, FIGG, taking-child...@googlegroups.com
The speed at which people adopt adult role and begin casually denigrating young people is interesting.
Like I came across this bit in a Washington Post article describing a new Trader Joe's opening in Washington, D.C. Author said:
> As a U Street resident, it's not an exaggeration to say this TJ's is LIFE-CHANGING. No longer will locals have to trek to Foggy Bottom to wait in line with the pre-adults supplementing their GW meal plans with Two-Buck Chuck and white bean hummus.
Now long lines are bad and more Trader Joes are definitely a good thing (this will only be the second one in DC proper) but why casually denigrate young people ("pre-adults"), their consumption habits, and think its a burden to stand in line with them? (I've been to the same Foggy Bottom TJ's and my takeaway was not "oh man, young people! *shudder*" but instead "they have a remarkably efficient checkout line! Neat."
(Also note probably like near 100% of GW students are actual legal adults, and 100% of students buying "Two Buck-Chuck" [a cheap wine Trader Joe's sells] should be under the law.)
You might think maybe the author was just trying to provide some kinda personalizing commentary/"color" for her article. But the selection of groups to bash isn't random -- there are some groups that are safe to bash for cultural reasons/the acceptance of certain ideas. And bashing groups isn't necessary to write an interesting article anyways.
Imagine if the author had said similar things and expressed a similar attitude towards some racial minority group. Like about how she was happy she wouldn't have to trek to [majority-minority neighborhood] and wait in line with the [derogatory term for racial group] supplementing their [welfare benefits] with [food stereotypically consumed by minority group]. That would be considered unacceptable. But because it's about young people, it's okay to put on the website of a major national newspaper.
The author herself appears to be between 28-29 when she wrote this (recently). So it's been less than 10 years since she was in the "pre-adult" phase of her life.
Like I came across this bit in a Washington Post article describing a new Trader Joe's opening in Washington, D.C. Author said:
> As a U Street resident, it's not an exaggeration to say this TJ's is LIFE-CHANGING. No longer will locals have to trek to Foggy Bottom to wait in line with the pre-adults supplementing their GW meal plans with Two-Buck Chuck and white bean hummus.
Now long lines are bad and more Trader Joes are definitely a good thing (this will only be the second one in DC proper) but why casually denigrate young people ("pre-adults"), their consumption habits, and think its a burden to stand in line with them? (I've been to the same Foggy Bottom TJ's and my takeaway was not "oh man, young people! *shudder*" but instead "they have a remarkably efficient checkout line! Neat."
(Also note probably like near 100% of GW students are actual legal adults, and 100% of students buying "Two Buck-Chuck" [a cheap wine Trader Joe's sells] should be under the law.)
You might think maybe the author was just trying to provide some kinda personalizing commentary/"color" for her article. But the selection of groups to bash isn't random -- there are some groups that are safe to bash for cultural reasons/the acceptance of certain ideas. And bashing groups isn't necessary to write an interesting article anyways.
Imagine if the author had said similar things and expressed a similar attitude towards some racial minority group. Like about how she was happy she wouldn't have to trek to [majority-minority neighborhood] and wait in line with the [derogatory term for racial group] supplementing their [welfare benefits] with [food stereotypically consumed by minority group]. That would be considered unacceptable. But because it's about young people, it's okay to put on the website of a major national newspaper.
The author herself appears to be between 28-29 when she wrote this (recently). So it's been less than 10 years since she was in the "pre-adult" phase of her life.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages