I hesitate to bring up the obvious problem with this statement, since I concur with the overall message expressed about entitlement. But in the hopes that a simple misstep in persuasion wouldn’t result in turning off a whole group of readers and critical thinkers, I would suggest a rather simple edit. Don’t weaken your argument with absolute statements such as this. Things and people are rarely all or nothing. Therefore, whatever precedes or follows the word “always” or “never" is, by definition, inaccurate and you lose your credibility with the reader by coming off as either dishonest or misinformed. Worse, the nit-picky debater, were this a face-to-face conversation, would get stuck debating this sub-point in your supporting arguement with you and risk throwing the whole conversation off topic. The easy solution is a change in word selection.
I think we use choose words for emphasis, hoping stronger language would translate as bold strokes of vivid color. The result would be a story or theory so striking it imprints itself on the mind of the reader. However the actual effect is that the facts, those things that give an account the credibility of truth, are washed out, blurred by broad paint strokes of exaggeration.
The facts need not be detailed and cited academically, as with professional research, either. That would metaphorically be a dry, black and white, finely detailed sketch so exact as to be a replica of a photograph. A photo is just a copy of what anyone can see and agree on with the naked eye.
Simply by eliminating false absolutes from the writing, an individual voice with a distinct truth emerges. Unique truths create the opportunity to question the “norm” and whether our invisible beliefs are best or should be accepted as normal.