Young people today are breathtakingly stupid.

[IndigoSkies 168]

http://www.observer.com/2010/culture/new-stupidity

Lol

[one...two...tree 2,762]

An editorial piece on fashion?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

An editorial piece on fashion?

Indica Skies, I think.

Edited June 10, 2010 by ##########

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

[Fandango 1,439]

Holy smokes!

[Heracles 417]

You really have to wonder about the education system in that state. Between the Kendras, Botox and silicon, the average brain size has "like" shrunk.

[IndigoSkies 168]

Is that Debrahlee Lorenza?

hhahahhahahhahahah

[Nagishkaw 510]

Maybe the reason that they are breathtakingly stupid is because they hold their breath too long.

[Niels Bohr 72]

If young people have become stupid, then, why are older generation stupid about technology?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

If young people have become stupid, then, why are older generation stupid about technology?

You mean stupid like most console gamers?

- PC Gamer FTW

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Maybe the reason that they are breathtakingly stupid is because they hold their breath too long.

:rofl: Someone should have taught them how to breath. :rofl:

[Niels Bohr 72]

LOL

It does sound right. I mean, back in the day console systems were pretty much the savvys of the youth. But, back in the days the adults thinks the youth are getting stupid for playing video games.

Pretty much same thing happening with the newer generation. The older people always think the young ones are getting dumber. This belief is somehow linked to their nostalgic culture back when they were young.

You mean stupid like most console gamers?

- PC Gamer FTW

[SMR 368]

http://www.observer.com/2010/culture/new-stupidity

Lol

It seems to me that the author simply grasps at the fact that he knows some things that are now pretty much irrelevant and uses that to assert his own superiority. Regardless of the origin of codpieces, I think we all know what they were about in the 16th century and not much has changed. The fact that people in the 16th century stuffed their pants, too, doesn't make it any less ridiculous today.

The only reason Jackie Onassis was ever really more than a footnote is that she was also Jackie Kennedy. If you say Jackie Kennedy (or even Jackie Kennedy Onassis), I doubt you'll get many blank stares, even from the high school crowd.

I know who Margaret Thatcher is but since I was 4 when she left office I have no idea what type of purse she carried. No matter what kind of purse it was, 20 years after she left office, it's not exactly relevant except in trivial pursuit (it's not like her major legacy was in the fashion industry).

Most people have a field of expertise but that doesn't make them smarter than people that don't know that field. Citing some pretty irrelevant details about things like renaissance style and using this to declare that people that don't know it are stupid, comes off as neither educated nor intelligent but rather snobbish.

[IndigoSkies 168]

He wasn't asserting his superiority. The author of the article calls himself stupid. Judging from the way he composes his prose, I would call himself far better than average Joe. I took the comparison of Margaret Thatcher with the bag as young people's inability to be eloquent in speech. There are a million ways to define a bag and its characteristics, functionalities, and features. Watch the posted video to get a glimpse of how awful and incapable people are in expressing their views. The lady had a perfectly legitimate argument, one that most of us would support, but not because of her ineloquent argument. That is the crux of the matter, IMO. The article is about fashion knowledge; but, it is a comprehensive commentary of society.

[BishopM 114]

Young people today do seem 'different' than they did when I was their age but I wouldn't say that they're less or more intelligent.

In fact, I wouldn't say that 'people' in general are any more/less intelligent than they have been for the past 500+ years. Our surroundings are different, but I suspect that the overall level of intelligence is about the same at its base level.