about this boomer thing

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

3 minutes ago, Dano Seale said:

Same place as "bye Felicia" I think!

I'm not all that hip, but didn't that come from some movie like Boyz in the Hood?

I had never heard that phrase, so had to look it up.  Apparently, it came from a scene in Friday - something I never saw, hence why I never heard this phrase.

 

[LittleMe Jewell]

4 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

6 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

I'm not all that hip, but didn't that come from some movie like Boyz in the Hood?

No, it came from Bye Felipe, which itself came from online messages in which men become abusive after women turn them down. There was a particularly famous one from some plank called Felipe, if memory serves.

And they say millennials don't know anything useful.

Everything I can find about the phrase, says that it did indeed come from the movie Friday.  I can't find any other origin.

[Tolya Ugajin]

2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Everything I can find about the phrase, says that it did indeed come from the movie Friday.  I can't find any other origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye,_Felicia

[Amina Sopwith]

Just now, LittleMe Jewell said:

Everything I can find about the phrase, says that it did indeed come from the movie Friday.  I can't find any other origin.

Hmm, seems to be the case, yes. All I ever saw about it was horrible online dating experiences (even a book) but a quick Google now shows that does appear to be the origin. I don't remember seeing any of that when I first came across it a few years ago, but I didn't spend a lot of time on it. Thank you all.

[Tolya Ugajin]

7 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

No, it came from Bye Felipe, which itself came from online messages in which men become abusive after women turn them down. There was a particularly famous one from some plank called Felipe, if memory serves.

And they say millennials don't know anything useful.

Lol except in this case, as so often with millennials when they think they're being smart, you appear to be incorrect 😛

To paraphrase a great American philosopher, it's not that millennials don't know anything, it's that so much of what they know just isn't so.

You may be an exception to the typical millennial

[Tolya Ugajin]

13 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Considering that you used the term "Junior" and said that I was speaking like a member of group of people defined by their chronological age...

Not an unreasonable inference...

and besides, you were right

[Tolya Ugajin]

Not that I generally credit Vox with much usefulness, but they were the first result when I googled "Karen".  Kinda funny, and those sorts of people certainly deserve mockery.

Maybe "You're such a Tolya" will become a thing some day...

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/5/21079162/karen-name-insult-meme-manager

[Amina Sopwith]

1 minute ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Lol except in this case, as so often with millennials when they think they're being smart, you appear to be incorrect 😛

To paraphrase a great American philosopher, it's not that millennials don't know anything, it's that so much of what they know just isn't so.

You may be an exception to the typical millennial

I'm a very typical millennial. I'm in my 30s with a mortgage, child, partner, occasional lumbago and a shaky knowledge of the origins of a crap meme from a couple of years ago.

Confession time: in discussions, I have sometimes let it be known that I'm a millennial just to see if someone will take the bait. They always have. 

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

10 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Molly is dead-on here. "Ok Boomer" was, originally at least, almost always used as a response to someone from that generation acting in a condescending manner to someone younger. It's not, or was not in its inception, as Molly says, an attack on all Boomers: it's a response to a particular kind of behaviour.

I don't know if that's changed at all . . . but my basic advice to any Boomer: if you don't want to hear this directed at you, stop being insulting, condescending, and dismissive to "Millennials" or others younger than yourself. Treat them with the respect they merit, and I'm fairly confident you won't find this flung back in your face.

Maybe you can help me on this question I'm struggling to understand: What's the point of the interaction supposed to be?

If it's to change attitudes, why use language which requires the recipient to understand this non-obvious redefinition of a word that already has a meaning? Do those who use this honestly think they're changing minds with it?

If it's to change behaviour without changing attitude, that's just a form of intimidation, or shouting over someone, bullying even. Which is one way of ending an argument and feeling like you've won. Is that the goal? Unfortunately bullying and intimidation become self-perpetuating cycles because they often do succeed in silencing the target.

Is it to nuture the sense of being in the know,  an insider taking a chunk out of a foolish, unknowledgeable outsider?

It certainly works for putting someone down. The dismissive, "you're not even worth talking to" tone shines through loud and clear, whether it's intended or not. And what of passersby who were born in that generation but haven't followed the whole exchange and just see the put down? That kind of thing can wear on a person, even if they're in the know enough to go through the mental process of seeing it as referring to someone else. We understand this with every day sexism and how word choice can demean and dismiss women. Why is it excused here?

I fail to see how redefining a word connected with an intrinsic identity (you can't change when you were born) to an insider meaning isn't problematic.

As for your advice, it doesn't work. Disagreeing, having a different point of view is enough to be dismissed with whatever terse put down someone's inclined to throw. In the end, it doesn't matter whether it's "deserved" or not, it will be used by those who'd rather assume you're wrong than consider a different point of view.

So as tidy as the redefinition sounds, I think it's quite a damaging mode of discourse.

 

[Tolya Ugajin]

1 minute ago, Amina Sopwith said:

I'm a very typical millennial. I'm in my 30s with a mortgage, child, partner, occasional lumbago and a shaky knowledge of the origins of a crap meme from a couple of years ago.

Confession time: in discussions, I have sometimes let it be known that I'm a millennial just to see if someone will take the bait. They always have. 

Good Lord, millennials are in their 30's now?  I'm feeling old.  Pretty soon you'll be joining forces against the new wave of young punks.

[Amina Sopwith]

3 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Good Lord, millennials are in their 30's now?  

About two thirds of us were born in the 80s, so yes, for quite a while now. Do you see now why we're starting to get a bit tired of it all? 

[Tolya Ugajin]

1 minute ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

Maybe you can help me on this question I'm struggling to understand: What's the point of the interaction supposed to be?

If it's to change attitudes, why use language which requires the recipient to understand this non-obvious redefinition of a word that already has a meaning? Do those who use this honestly think they're changing minds with it?

If it's to change behaviour without changing attitude, that's just a form of intimidation, or shouting over someone, bullying even. Which is one way of ending an argument and feeling like you've won. Is that the goal? Unfortunately bullying and intimidation become self-perpetuating cycles because they often do succeed in silencing the target.

Is it to nuture the sense of being in the know,  an insider taking a chunk out of a foolish, unknowledgeable outsider?

It certainly works for putting someone down. The dismissive, "you're not even worth talking to" tone shines through loud and clear, whether it's intended or not. And what of passersby who were born in that generation but haven't followed the whole exchange and just see the put down? That kind of thing can wear on a person, even if they're in the know enough to go through the mental process of seeing it as referring to someone else. We understand this with every day sexism and how word choice can demean and dismiss women. Why is it excused here?

I fail to see how redefining a word connected with an intrinsic identity (you can't change when you were born) to an insider meaning isn't problematic.

As for your advice, it doesn't work. Disagreeing, having a different point of view is enough to be dismissed with whatever terse put down someone's inclined to throw. In the end, it doesn't matter whether it's "deserved" or not, it will be used by those who'd rather assume you're wrong than consider a different point of view.

So as tidy as the redefinition sounds, I think it's quite a damaging mode of discourse.

'

Bitsy, haven't you been paying attention?  Redefinition is all the rage, because so many people would rather muddle debates or stifle dissent by turning the language on its head and resort to emotionalism, rather than debate honestly.  This is merely a use of it to end any discussion at all.

[Tolya Ugajin]

7 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

About two thirds of us were born in the 80s, so yes, for quite a while now. Do you see now why we're starting to get a bit tired of it all? 

Yep, I've been there, but it should also demonstrate to you how "ok boomer" is received by older folks.  Imagine, for instance, how you would perceive a teenager today using such a term for people in their 30's?

[Amina Sopwith]

4 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Yep, I've been there, but it should also demonstrate to you how "ok boomer" is received by older folks.  Imagine, for instance, how you would perceive a teenager today using such a term for people in their 30's?

I know exactly how it's received. Why wouldn't I? 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

42 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

Maybe you can help me on this question I'm struggling to understand: What's the point of the interaction supposed to be?

If it's to change attitudes, why use language which requires the recipient to understand this non-obvious redefinition of a word that already has a meaning? Do those who use this honestly think they're changing minds with it?

If it's to change behaviour without changing attitude, that's just a form of intimidation, or shouting over someone, bullying even. Which is one way of ending an argument and feeling like you've won. Is that the goal? Unfortunately bullying and intimidation become self-perpetuating cycles because they often do succeed in silencing the target.

Is it to nuture the sense of being in the know,  an insider taking a chunk out of a foolish, unknowledgeable outsider?

It certainly works for putting someone down. The dismissive, "you're not even worth talking to" tone shines through loud and clear, whether it's intended or not. And what of passersby who were born in that generation but haven't followed the whole exchange and just see the put down? That kind of thing can wear on a person, even if they're in the know enough to go through the mental process of seeing it as referring to someone else. We understand this with every day sexism and how word choice can demean and dismiss women. Why is it excused here?

I fail to see how redefining a word connected with an intrinsic identity (you can't change when you were born) to an insider meaning isn't problematic.

As for your advice, it doesn't work. Disagreeing, having a different point of view is enough to be dismissed with whatever terse put down someone's inclined to throw. In the end, it doesn't matter whether it's "deserved" or not, it will be used by those who'd rather assume you're wrong than consider a different point of view.

So as tidy as the redefinition sounds, I think it's quite a damaging mode of discourse.

 

Tolya is quite right, of course: terms like this -- and we can include things like "SJW" or "MRA" or "Karen" in the list -- are intended to shut down discussion, not contribute to it.

I'm in no way advocating it as a useful strategy for engagement. I think the only time I've used it here was in a joking context.

What I was pointing out is that the term was not, originally anyway, a gratuitous insult: it was a response to what was typically itself an ageist attack on the young. The most famous example, when New Zealand's Chlöe Swarbrick used it, was in response to a heckler in Parliament who was interrupting her speech about climate change to needle her about her age. In other words, she was responding to condescension.

So, yeah, I would never use this term "seriously" in a discussion. In fact, for a variety of reasons, I don't think I'd ever use it seriously in any context. But it's important to understand where it comes from, and that it's not merely an example of ageism, but a defensive reaction against it. That doesn't make it "good," but it does maybe make it less "bad," and more understandable.

As a side note, and to repeat something I've said before here, i get really tired and annoyed by the flippant and unjustified put-downs of Millennials and Zoomers that I see here and elsewhere. I work with them, closely, every day. They are "different" than preceding generations, including my own, in many ways -- but they are smart, they're interesting, and they are waaaaay more aware of, and engaged with, social problems and issues than my own cohort, the Gen Xers, ever were. That's a generalization, of course, but on the whole I both really like and actually admire younger people today. They have a lot to learn, of course, from Boomers and Gen Xers -- but we could sure learn a few things from them.

It would be nice if we'd listen to them for a while. Maybe they'd return the favour?

Edited May 9, 2020 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Theresa Tennyson]

12 hours ago, Mollymews said:

OK Boomer is not so much a slur as a response to a behaviour

like a younger person explains a situation from their pov.  An older person then gensplains. Younger person: OK Boomer

gensplaining, like other forms of splaining, is where the older person doesn't actually listen. OK Boomer is a response to the gensplaining

To explain my point of view on this I should tell a little about where I'm coming from.

My birthday puts me at the very beginning of Generation X - as in, the television show "thirtysomething" was cancelled the year before I turned thirty.  I've had plenty of experience being around Baby Boomers throughout my life; always just a bit behind them. There may possibly be a bit of resentment there on my part, but on the other hand I'm very pleased that the number one song on my 14th birthday (supposedly the song that describes your life) was "My Sharona" by the Knack because I know what was on the radio immediately before.

Some time ago I made a decision to radically change my career so I went back to school and was a classmate of and friends with Millennials; now I work and teach at a university where I deal with students from Generation Z.

A lot of voices criticizing Millennials seem to be coming from Baby Boomers, and one of the things they criticize is a sense of self-absorption and entitlement. Okay, tough love time - if any generation should be criticizing another one for self-absorption, it should not be the Baby Boom. From where I'm standing,"Okay, Boomer" as a reply to unsolicited advice is really pretty fair. And when I hear it being angrily criticized part of me translates that to, "What!?!?! You're not paying attention to meeeeeeee!!!!!"

[Scylla Rhiadra]

49 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Redefinition is all the rage, because so many people would rather muddle debates or stifle dissent by turning the language on its head and resort to emotionalism, rather than debate honestly.

Says the man who has been known to pepper his posts with really generous and expansive terms like "SJW" . . .

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Bitsy, haven't you been paying attention?  Redefinition is all the rage, because so many people would rather muddle debates or stifle dissent by turning the language on its head and resort to emotionalism, rather than debate honestly.  This is merely a use of it to end any discussion at all.

Turning it on its head and resorting to emotionalism rather than honest debate is a fair description of what you've just done Tolya

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

38 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm in no way advocating it as a useful strategy for engagement. I think the only time I've used it here was in a joking context.

Perhaps someone else who uses it or one of the others will have answers for some of my questions. I am genuinely flummoxed by those who think it's accomplishing something positive.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

Perhaps someone else who uses it or one of the others will have answers for some of my questions. I am genuinely flummoxed by those who think it's accomplishing something positive.

It's a put-down. It accomplishes what put-downs are supposed to accomplish, I guess: it scores points.

I entirely agree that it doesn't "accomplish" anything very useful. It certainly doesn't contribute to understanding.

BUT, as an index, an outward sign, of the frustration that the young sometimes feel at being dismissed as avocado-toast-eating do-nothing whiners, I think we would do well to pay attention to it. It's a symptom of a bigger problem, perhaps?

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Amina Sopwith said:

1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Yep, I've been there, but it should also demonstrate to you how "ok boomer" is received by older folks.  Imagine, for instance, how you would perceive a teenager today using such a term for people in their 30's?

I know exactly how it's received. Why wouldn't I? 

If you are not in the 'boomer' age group, with the dismissive phrase directed at you, how could you truly know how it is received.  Heaven forbid someone not in the millennial age group make a comment about 'knowing how the millennials feel' about something.  

[Lindal Kidd]

"OK Boomer".  "Shut up, Karen".  "Millenial".  And endless other categorizations like "k1ke", "wop", "spick", etc.

ALL of these terms are insults, put-downs, a basic statement that "you and your whole group are lazy, stupid, and ignorant, and I'm not listening to you."

They lump the recipient into a group, and that group is "them".  "Them" is anyone not like the speaker, not like "us".  "Us" are the intelligent, smart, good looking, right-thinking people.

Anyone who uses any of these terms is guilty of attempting to dehumanize their opponent, in order to not have to consider anything they might say.

Being on the receiving end of one of these put-downs is infuriating, because it says "you are of no significance, and you never can be.  You are less than nothing in my eyes."

Their widespread use is an indication of our society's increasing polarization, de-personalization, and downright rudeness.  Anyone who uses them, especially with a feeling of unholy glee or righteousness, is contributing to the problem.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Lindal Kidd

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

9 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

It's a put-down. It accomplishes what put-downs are supposed to accomplish, I guess: it scores points.

I entirely agree that it doesn't "accomplish" anything very useful. It certainly doesn't contribute to understanding.

BUT, as an index, an outward sign, of the frustration that the young sometimes feel at being dismissed as avocado-toast-eating do-nothing whiners, I think we would do well to pay attention to it. It's a symptom of a bigger problem, perhaps?

Scylla, with all respect, that wasn't a request for you to elucidate your position further. I understood you and in my mind at least was acknowledging that you don't have the answers I'm looking for because you're not one who thinks it's accomplishing something.

I'm running out of spoons here (used to replying during the quiet hours while the Americans are still in bed ), so let's just say I'm not writing clearly and leave it at that. Thank you for trying to help.

[Amina Sopwith]

15 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

If you are not in the 'boomer' age group, with the dismissive phrase directed at you, how could you truly know how it is received.  Heaven forbid someone not in the millennial age group make a comment about 'knowing how the millennials feel' about something.  

I'm sorry, LittleMe, but I honestly don't see how that post of mine was offensive. Tolya was.... explaining to me that the term was meant to be dismissive towards something said by a boomer and implying that they're out of touch. I already understood this concept and didn't need it to be...explained to me. I don't actually know what I've said on this thread or anywhere else that might give that impression. I've been concerned with the Bye Felipe meme.

As it happens, I do know what it's like to be insulted for your generation. Millennial, after all. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

16 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

"OK Boomer".  "Shut up, Karen".  "Millenial".  And endless other categorizations like "k1ke", "wop", "spick", etc.

ALL of these terms are insults, put-downs, a basic statement that "you and your whole group are lazy, stupid, and ignorant, and I'm not listening to you."

They lump the recipient into a group, and that group is "them".  "Them" is anyone not like the speaker, not like "us".  "Us" are the intelligent, smart, good looking, right-thinking people.

Anyone who uses any of these terms is guilty of attempting to dehumanize their opponent, in order to not have to consider anything they might say.

Being on the receiving end of one of these put-downs is infuriating, because it says "you are of no significance, and you never can be.  You are less than nothing in my eyes."

Their widespread use is an indication of our society's increasing polarization, de-personalization, and downright rudeness.  Anyone who uses them, especially with a feeling of unholy glee or righteousness, is contributing to the problem.