there's something about this article that i like.

i could say something about the demographics. doesn't the author know the 00s are over, meaning the painful return of the 80s is consequently also over, and it's now the 90s again? the article could have easily been written 20 years ago about jaded gen xers and no doubt at various other points of history as well.

so, this kind of widespread apathy isn't something that is unique to people under 35.

it walks a fine line between suggesting apathy is dangerous and acknowledging that it's a rational reaction to empirical evidence. this is the thing i like about it. i've been reading articles like this in the news for a long time. they've taken every possible approach, from arguing that APATHY IS UNCOOL (which has worked, temporarily, in fact a few times) to condemning it as evil or even idiotic. this is the first time i've seen a level of agreement, even if it is done grudgingly.

you shouldn't tell us anything, michael. if you can't agree with us outright, you should at least recognize us as evidence that the ideals underlying western civilization are deeply flawed. we're either evidence that the system isn't working very well or are evidence that humans actually aren't what you assumed we are. either way, what we provide is a challenge for the system to adjust to, rather than an opponent to be debated with.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/08/suppose_they_threw_an_election_and_nobody_came.html