I know it didn't. You seem to skim read a lot, based on your responses. You don't seem to get what the word 'offended' actually means. Annoyed and offended aren't the same thing. Offence is taken at something that is in conflict with your moral stance on the subject. I get annoyed if a bird ****s on my newly washed car, I don't get offended by it. When people say 'oh they're offended', what they actually mean is 'it's mental that they don't get what it is I'm saying, how come they don't think like I do?'. Like you actually sort of want them to be offended so you can scald them for it.
I said that your generation were, for the most part, happy to stand aside in the name of social acceptance and allow gay people, BAME and others to be marginalised and harassed. The current generation coming through as adults don't stand for that. It isn't because they're offended, it's because it's a ****ing ****ty thing to allow to happen and had more people had the balls to tackle it in the 60s and 70s, it probably would have gone a long way to sorting the problem sooner. My generation doesn't stand for it, not one jot. Neither does the generation beneath mine. These kids aren't soppy or soft, they're the exact opposite. There are kids at my school who would happily sit and watch 'It' or play GTA until 2am. There are also kids who go to City and prefer playing football. Any road down, they're smarter, more progressive, more tolerant and more clued in to society than we ever were. The idea that they're 'easily offended' stems from the generation above being shocked that they don't like racist jokes or digs at LGBT people. It doesn't offend them, it annoys them. And so it should. And it should have done 40 years ago.
I was born in the late 80s, I grew up playing outside and video games, I had a nice balance between the two. I first went to City in 1993, so I've been going a decent chunk of my life, I wouldn't chuck the towel in because our owners are dicks. But, I respect those that choose not to go; as the old adage says 'you pay your money, you take your choice'. It doesn't make their opinion on the club any less valid than yours. Now, if you went to a match and they didn't and they said a player was ****, then you're a more reliable source. But I don't think that's what you were alluding to. I didn't fight in the Boer War, but I can have an opinion on it based on historical fact. I would of course concede any incorrect points to somebody who was there or an expert who was more knowledgeable. So if you were telling me about the club in the late 60s, I'd trust what you're saying over somebody that wasn't there. But I'd still listen to the person that wasn't there, because as you alluded to, they're entitled to an opinion and I'd respect that.