Here's the thing. I actually think this is an interesting article with a sprawling scope which brought together pieces of this puzzle I knew before in clear, bigger-picture ways than I would have ever assembled for myself alone, at least in the span of time it took me to read this article. I think this article, ultimately, has a true, good, and fundamentally different (more evolved and holistic) presentation of the millennial problems of our generation and as such, gave value to me and will do so to others that read it. I think it should absolutely be shared and I think here's a great place for it.
I also think the article would be twice as good if it were half as long, and more effective in making its points while we're at it.
Weak shit like what I cited gets in the way of the true, important, interesting, and elucidating discussion this article makes and desires to foment. Bad filler prevents people from finishing articles. It prevents people from believing them. It prevents people from hearing them.
When you have as complete, basically-accurate, and wide-sweeping a break-down as this article presents, the false-dichotomies and superficial-anecdotes and bad, bad interpretation/misinterpretation/assumption around statistics all alienate readers who are interested, open-minded, listening -- and possibly on the fence but certainly intelligent enough to know it. Instead you attract a shouting crowd of people who already agreed with you before you spoke and will agree with you forever after.
That's not going to help anyone.
If I sound like an entitled Baby Boomer, well, I seem to remember the end of the article definitely went on about how it's not millennials that need convincing to vote for millennial congressmen, senators and laws. Millennials are kind of already down with that concept.
It's everyone else we need to get on our side to fix this shit. So are you gonna do that by telling them they're dismissing people because they point out inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and questions they have with the overall accuracy of your argument? Are you going to acknowledge where there are flaws, clarify where there's misunderstanding, elaborate where context would change an opinion, and in other words actually recognize valid concerns and work to resolve them, or are you going to brow-beat everyone who doesn't "immediately get it" and dares to question things that don't make sense to them? (For lacking empathy, fucking lol)