What do you think of this idea: the “rebellion” of those who have never faced non-negotiable cultural (parental or community) demands is radical conformity to a mutable agenda.
True, not true?
Here is what I would point out: the Bolsheviks were rebelling against an Emperor. The Chinese were trying to foist order from chaos, particularly in the post-Japanese occupation, post-colonial period, but doing so after thousands of years of kings and emperors.
Even the Cubans had Batista, and not so very long before him, Spain.
What are the fat, complacent kids of this country, who have grown up with running water, air conditioning, and too much food and too little physical exertion and too few parental demands, rebelling against?
They are rebelling against not having anything to rebel against. Their fury is sent out, spent, and returned with a cold need to cling to some group, within which their rage again plays a role, and which serves to direct the rage in more directions than any angry young nihilist could ever hope for. Sooner or later everyone and everything becomes a target. What better place for someone angry at the world for not caring enough to shape him or her into something coherent and beautiful?
Here is the thing: simply because someone is not pointing a gun in your face, YET, does not mean they are not seriously mentally ill, and building up the social and legal support to act on it.