Is the term 'Boomer' just ordinary ageism now?

I’m not even a boomer, mate.

And as to oozing entitlement you need to read your own posts with an objective eye. I think you might be reading entitlement into what you read due to your obviously ingrained and bigoted view that I have it.

I suspect also you are mistaking disdain for your tediously predictable and immature ageism, for entitlement.

If it helps, I adopt the same tone when dealing with old people who make tediously predictable and immature ageist comments about the supposed fecklessness of today’s youth.

Oh, okay: you’re just an asshole.

That’s fine. Good luck with that.

When I was in my 20s and 30s, I was afraid for my future and thought my parents’ generation had all the opportunities. Now I’m a “boomer.” When Gen Z or whatever they’re called gets to be my age, they’ll have the same problem.

OK Bo’mer

Remember when the Trump threat emerged and all the condescending boomers were telling us to calm down, and how they lived through the 60s, Kent State,blah blah and then the Republican Party tried to stage a coup?

Trump won the white vote in every age group, including 18-29 year-olds, in 2016. This progressive nirvana that awaits once the evil ‘boomers’ die off is a pipe dream. Hell, that’s what ‘boomers’ thought would happen when their parent’s generation bit the big one.

The concept of generations is simplistic pablum for lazy-thinkers. They’re just too big and diverse to have any meaning. There are around 75 million ‘boomers’ and a similar number of so-called millennials. Just because there was a postwar baby boom that is a statistical fact doesn’t mean that it’s a meaningful grouping beyond that simple commonality. Nor should it have been continued, but Time magazine needed buzz words and shorthand labels.

What even is Generation X? At the end of this ‘generation’ you have kids raised with computers, and at the other, the old guy at the club trying to look cool who grew up with rotary phones.

Cutting generations in half would help drill down to a more sensible grouping. For instance, people who came of age the 60s, those who were born in the late 40s and early 50s, shared some profound social changes that five year-olds completely missed. Civil rights. The MLK./JFK/RFK assassinations. Some of the boys were drafted, some dodged the draft, and others hoped and prayed their number wouldn’t come up. If you were born in 1960, that all went straight over your head. But even narrowing the grouping doesn’t account for American diversity: the black farmerr in Alabama, the white college student in Boston, the Native American sheriff in Arizona, and on and on and on.

One other thing for those confused about this mighty ‘boomer’ juggernaut: do you believe that the Reagan revolution was a boomer phenomenon?

You know, @Snowboarder_Bo , if you replace the word “Boomer” with the word “Jew” in your posts you sound just like an anti-semite. (Obviously not counting banal statements about numerical size)

Yes it makes absolutely no sense. I was born in August of 64. What do I have in common with someone born in 1948? Vietnam, the civil rights movement, the British invasion, the Summer of love? I missed them all. And yet we wou;ld both be boomers, and I would be in a completely different generation than someone born in March of 65.

I can’t believe a board full of allegedly smart people falls for this BS.

Obama was born in 1946? :scream:

I knew there was some controversy about the location he was born, but not the year :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

It was true of marijuana. It wasn’t Gen X and younger people coming into the voting pool with their even more pro-pot feelings than the Boomers, it was [many of the members of] the Reefer Madness generation dying off that let us have a sensible conversation about marijuana.

Trump, W, and Clinton were all born in 1946 - which is actually an interesting bit of trivia.

I believe Donald also won the young white vote this past November. But white yoots are already down to about 50% of that age group and Republicans get clobbered by non-white young voters. It’s not a wash.

I took the post to imply it had been 20 years in a row, rather than just 20 years altogether. I think we also need to consider that when Bill Clinton was elected, he was only 46, so it’s not like he was part of a long string of old people winning the presidency.

I think it was to add some perspective. I mean, we’re still here, ain’t we? And best of all, the internet still works!

I took it that way at first also, which is why I looked it. As to:

He may have been young at the time - but he was still a product of that time, which I think was part of the point of “20 years of 1946”.

Proving my point. White boomers are fine, they’ll be fine. Fuck everyone else.

Agreed. These categories were intended to be loose, usually political and cultural indications of the era with which someone identified. For example, Boomers usually identify with the WWII era and Gen-Xers with the fall of the Berlin wall. I was born in March of 1964 so I’m technically a Boomer, but I have no recollection or connection with WWII. However, I vividly remember the fall of the Berlin wall and how it affected my family. So I rightly consider myself a Gen-Xer.

Clearly:

Your article points to older Gen Xers as Trump supporters.

I think you’re oversimplifying things.