I have to agree with those who don’t think it will last. I think it’s already gaining legs specifically because it makes a certain side angry. “Anger germs” spread better.
It’s a phrase that captures the frustration that the current generation has over the actions of the Boomer generation. That is its appeal. Does it help conversation? Probably not, but that isn’t the point. Memes become popular because they speak to people, not because they are useful conversation strategies.
Do I like it? Not really, as I link it to the same sort of thing being said to me, and thus empathize. But getting mad about it only prolongs its life, and refusing to understand why someone might say it only furthers the feeling that Boomers are out of touch with the concerns of Gen Xers or later.
I think it’s an eternal problem, because our parents did the same things to us. Our gen was constantly criticized and questioned about our values and priorities. And we didn’t ask for a baby boom in the first place, nor – and this is my particular issue – the wholesale decimation of American cities and the promotion of suburbia post World War II.
I’m sorry, in what universe is claiming that the world is not a terrible place *not *a statement that the good outweighs the bad?
The game is merely debating in this thread, and the specific variation is responding to BeagleJesus’ post. however you choose to run up and down it. You choose to play around WWII for whatever reason (nothing to do with what BeagleJesus said AFAICT) and I choose to focus on what they *did *say.
You’re the ones who continued the move out of the cities your parents started. You could have reversed it then. But urban renewal had to wait for the Gen-Xers.
I think that’s much more the answer. Now people can organize globally as easily as they could locally and people can become thought leaders for hundreds or thousands or more followers. Back in the day, how were you going to share your thoughts like that? Monthly newsletter?
Both are dismissive attitudes from members of a certain demographic to members of another demographic based upon the membership of said demographic rather than the content of the point being made.
Both are equally pointless and unhelpful to productive discussion, you might also be under the impression that it is something new. “alright Grandad!” predates “OK Boomer” by some margin but of course it never gained traction in a social-media age.
Already explained it. It is entirely possible to consider a situation “not terrible” or “pretty good” and still have the bad outweigh the good. A lot depends on where you’ve come from and what you choose to compare it to.
Things can be “not terrible” without being perfect, They can be “pretty good” whilst still needing a hell of a lot of work. These woolly terms are open to interpretation, they aren’t logic gates.
What you experience right now may well be a hell of a lot better than in the past in a lot of ways (which is of course the yardstick I’ve used throughout) whilst still (in your own opinion) having the bad outweigh the good.
I think of two jobs I had after leaving school at 16. For both I can make a personal case for the bad outweighing the good overall. In neither case did I come to the conclusion then (or now) that those workplaces were terrible places to be. They were probably “pretty good” and “not terrible” respectively when compared to school, unemployment or any number of random dreadful occupations the world over and historically…which, let me remind you…was kind of my point from the off.
Then choose to debate with them if you think what I’ve said is irrelevant to you. I picked them up on what I think were (and still are) hyperbolic claims.
If you are referring to the book you may have misunderstood it and certainly have missed the multiple times where I state the world is *not *perfect, that it *could *be better and that we should strive to make it so. I certainly don’t deny the evil and problems of the world.
So by the same logic if they had wanted their post to be free from criticism they should have delivered it privately?
I’ll let them speak for themself, you are free to chip in with what you think even if they are irrelevant to my points. I don’t mind.
Not really. I could have been more explicit and said “OK, Candide-from-beginning-of-book”. Or “OK Pangloss”, except he was never enlightened and I still hold out hope for you.
Or gone for “OK, Polyanna”, but that’s too Americana.
Sure, yes. I haven’t faulted you for the fact that you argued against them. Just that you used a flawed irrelevance to do so.
They’ve already indicated they’re up to that task
Well, since your points started the irrelevance cascade, while mine remain relevant to their original point, any minding on your part would be disingenuous, at best.
Nah, not really. Candide had his eyes opened. I’ve *never *thought the world was anything other than coldly indifferent and generally brutal. That’s the base-state of existence. Anything else is a bonus. Pangloss seemed to think everything happened for the best, I consider that flat-out quasi-religious bollocks.
Anyway, my lukewarm optimism, general acceptance that terrible things happen but that compared to previous times we are “fine” and I think things will probably continue to get better overall on the long-term scale would not make for a compelling character and would be the basis for a terribly tedious book.
The thing with boomers is that they’re used to declaring that everything in their own history was the most important X ever and taking credit for everything that happened during their lives even though most of the good stuff was done by people older or younger than them. Turning their badge of honor into a bored dismissal completely invalidates all of that narcissism, which is why I think it hurts to the point that you can see radio hosts comparing “OK, Boomer” to the n-word, companies issuing specific memos forbidding it’s use (when they didn’t with anything Millennial) and columnists in the NYT bemoaning how terrible it is.
While “OK, Boomer” references the name of a demographic, it’s actually about the person’s attitude and not their literal age. That’s why it can be directed at people who are clearly not actually in the demographic and used by people who are in the demographic. All of the discussion talking about it purely as an age-based thing is completely missing the point.
The sort of attitudes that prompt “OK, Boomer” in the first place are unhelpful to productive discussion, “OK, Boomer” is a result of people acknowledging that people in what is becoming known as the “Boomer mindset” refuse to listen to reason or acknowledge real world issues. The whole point of the phrase is, again, not ‘you are X age therefore I’m not going to listen to you’ but ‘you are of a certain mindset that is impervious to thought, therefore I’m not going to waste time repeating myself’.
Again, I will note that “alright Grandad!” has not been compared to a racial slur, has not had companies issue specific policy against it and not similar age-based terms, and has not had multiple articles in prominent publications like the NYT discussing it.
Take the word boomer out of that paragraph and those sort of exchanges are typical at all periods in history and for all age-group interactions between fixed mindsets. It is the fixed mindsets (of whatever age) that are always the problem. No need and no point in trying to affix it to a particular demographic. I do not see how it remotely helps.
Imagine it had never been used before, it could easily become the knee-jerk phrase de-jour, incidentally, working in the corporate world I know exactly which of those terms would get me fired quickest.
I’ve rented apartments in L.A. most of my adult life, though I recently moved out of state. This lifestyle choice was partly a reaction to the choice my parents had made when deciding where to buy a house and raise my brother and me…miles away from everything, including even a bus line, though still within L.A. city limits