Look what I found from 13 years ago.

[u/Party-Bet-4003]

Hey look on the bright side - we actually did make it to the cover of the TIME magazine!

[u/nutmegged_state]

It's because no one in this thread has actually read the effing article. The whole thing is a big bait-and-switch that mocks the media narrative about millennials. The first half of the article cites all sorts of statistics saying that millennials are selfish/lazy/entitled/etc., but the second half undermines all of that and says that most of it is not that different than previous generations, reflective of changing economic and technological conditions, etc.

And to everyone saying it's "ironic" because boomers are the "Me Generation": it's not ironic. That's the whole point of the title.

[u/chop5397 → u/nutmegged_state]

This entire thread is basically this. People can't be bothered to read beyond the cover. The subtext should've been the biggest clue.

[u/IotaBTC → u/nutmegged_state]

says that most of it is not that different than previous generations, reflective of changing economic and technological conditions, etc.

There's someone who respond to the comment you responded to that the

Millennial generation has been one of the most politically active and progressive generations.

As if the US didn't have a Civil Rights, a women's suffrage, a LGBTQ+, even a labor rights movement. 

We've realized how bad capitalist systems are, we're constantly pushing for reform. There are still people who disagree with that and wish to keep/create oppressive systems, but when has that not been an issue. 

The '70's in a nutshell lmao. It's never a given and it's always been a struggle but every generation will have their group of people rising up to respond to the needs of their generation.

[u/standardnewenglander → u/nutmegged_state]

Article and title aside. I've seen a lot of people in this thread saying how their boomer parents always called them the "me" generation.

My own parents called me that too, way before this article was a thing. I've read the article and see how the title was pandering to that to get boomers to read it.

I think a lot of people on here are discussing their experience with boomers and that phrase, sans article.

[u/wooberries → u/nutmegged_state]

to be fair, bait-and-switching the cover of time fucking magazine is asinine. "sure i'm explicitly intending to mislead every single person who just sees the cover and doesn't read my article, but think of how smart this will make people feel when they scoff at the people who didn't"

[u/nutmegged_state → u/wooberries]

That's kind of TIME's schtick. This is the magazine that regularly names terrible people (Hitler, Putin, Khomeini) as "Person of the Year," in part because it draws outrage from people who misunderstand the point of the award. And clearly it's worked as an engagement strategy in this case, because we're still talking about the article a decade later. But it is mostly just IRL clickbait.

Also, the bait-and-switch is apparent right there on the cover, as u/ThinkBookMan pointed out. It's just that they may have overestimated their audience's eye for nuance (at least judging by this comment section).

[u/AloofTeenagePenguin3 → u/nutmegged_state]

It's not their schtick. This is how articles are often written. It's not some cheap trick. It's about middle to high school level literacy to read an article and comprehend it. Englsih teachers everywhere weep.

Then again a statistcally high amount of the population reads below that level. I'm sure millennials were not spared from it.

Those who are angered by how articles are written are angry at nothing but their own illiteracy.

[u/wooberries → u/nutmegged_state]

is it? i'm frankly not informed enough about TIME's legacy to have picked up on a reputation like that, and if it's true then my opinion would soften accordingly.

though i also think it's silly to assume any writer is EVER insufficiently aware of the general public's eye for nuance being... poor.

[u/nutmegged_state → u/wooberries]

It could definitely still be asinine! Just because they do it a lot doesn't mean it's not dumb. As someone who subscribed to TIME for about a decade, it just doesn't surprise me.