"Ok, Boomer"

[Terminal Blue]

That's not how it looked to me. Silentpony was bringing up what they saw as a destructive mentality, where they take a reasonable stance (not taunting a vet with BBQ) and make it unreasonable (banning BBQ because it might trigger or offend someone). And you responded with saying that nobody is ever unreasonable and thus Silentpony can't be right.

I want you to understand something very important.

Offending someone and "triggering" them are not the same thing.

When a person has PTSD, the memory associated with a traumatic event is not fully integrated into normal memory, but is instead dissociated. Usually a person can recall what happened, but cannot fully remember how they felt. This allows them, most of the time, to continue functioning normally. However, sometimes environmental cues or "triggers" will cause that person to access the memory, which activates the brain's evolved threat response.

I don't generally care that much if people are offended, which is why I don't care if other people being offended offends you. It's far more weird to me that you care so much about the life of some random Australian woman than that she does, considering it's her life and all. However, when it comes to people being "triggered", when it comes to people who have suffered trauma and who require, to quote Silentpony, "aggressive, intensive daily therapy" (which noone gets, by the way, even if they need it) then I start caring, because mocking mentally ill people for symptoms they literally cannot control, symptoms which are caused by having survived horrifying experiences no healthy person can comprehend, is just a dick move.

But it's also revealing, because it's exactly the kind of dick move we've come to expect.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Okay so if Baby Boomers are so liberal, explain to me the demographic shift leaning further and further left as both the Boomers die out and Millenials become the primary voting block?

Partly, I suspect it's because those boomers who have real experiences of marginalization, of poverty, racism, homophobia and so forth are the ones who died first, because all of those experiences impact life expectancy, especially in the US.

Also, I think some "liberal" boomers have an internalized sense that they're really progressive. They lived through the counterculture, after all. They fought the man and smoked the weed. But I think the problem with liberal boomers is that they mistake this vague anti-authoritarianism they had as young people for actual radicalism.

I'd go so far as to say that a lot of the "fuck you, got mine" attitude stereotypically associated with older boomers is, in fact, a direct outgrowth of the anti-authoritarianism of young boomers. They feel like they fought for everything they got, when in reality they just happened to be born into a time of economic growth to a generation who desperately needed them to fill the empty seats left behind by those who died in the war.

 

[Silvanus]

If I say "Trump has said racist things", that does not prove he and everyone who has ever supported him or associated with him is a hateful racist sexist homophobe who wants to put non-white children into dog cages and kill them. Nothing is ever going to prove your criticisms because your criticisms are nonsense.

No, but continuing support does indicate that the supporter is willing to overlook the racism, homophobia, etc. for whatever reason. Much better.

 

[Saelune]

Because it proves our criticisms of Trump and his supporters right.

No, it doesn't. Your criticisms absurdly exaggerated 100% of the time, and your effort to tie people into a block that you can hate as a whole is reprehensible.

If I say "Trump has said racist things", that does not prove he and everyone who has ever supported him or associated with him is a hateful racist sexist homophobe who wants to put non-white children into dog cages and kill them. Nothing is ever going to prove your criticisms because your criticisms are nonsense.

Me: Trump is racist

You: Trump is not racist, he may do and say racist things, but he is not racist, but he did those things.

 

[Trunkage]

Because it proves our criticisms of Trump and his supporters right.

No, it doesn't. Your criticisms absurdly exaggerated 100% of the time, and your effort to tie people into a block that you can hate as a whole is reprehensible.

If I say "Trump has said racist things", that does not prove he and everyone who has ever supported him or associated with him is a hateful racist sexist homophobe who wants to put non-white children into dog cages and kill them. Nothing is ever going to prove your criticisms because your criticisms are nonsense.

I want to make sure we don't muddy the waters here. Leave all thoughts of supporter aside.

How many times does Trump need to make racist comments to be declared as a Racist?

 

[Avnger]

Because it proves our criticisms of Trump and his supporters right.

No, it doesn't. Your criticisms absurdly exaggerated 100% of the time, and your effort to tie people into a block that you can hate as a whole is reprehensible.

If I say "Trump has said racist things", that does not prove he and everyone who has ever supported him or associated with him is a hateful racist sexist homophobe who wants to put non-white children into dog cages and kill them. Nothing is ever going to prove your criticisms because your criticisms are nonsense.

I want to make sure we don't muddy the waters here. Leave all thoughts of supporter aside.

How many times does Trump need to make racist comments to be declared as a Racist?

Infinite. Because the definition of the word "racist" will always be interpreted in such a way that he doesn't fall within it.

It's really simple, actually:

likes Trump. They're also aware enough to know being a racist is a bad thing. Rather than just reconsidering their support (which would be tantamount to being "wrong") after Trump makes racist comments, just adjusts the definition of "racist" in their mind to ensure Trump never falls into the category. This way they can both not be "wrong" and not support a bad thing. It's the good old tradition of tricking yourself into truly believing you can have your cake and fuck it too.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Because it proves our criticisms of Trump and his supporters right.

No, it doesn't. Your criticisms absurdly exaggerated 100% of the time, and your effort to tie people into a block that you can hate as a whole is reprehensible.

If I say "Trump has said racist things", that does not prove he and everyone who has ever supported him or associated with him is a hateful racist sexist homophobe who wants to put non-white children into dog cages and kill them. Nothing is ever going to prove your criticisms because your criticisms are nonsense.

I want to make sure we don't muddy the waters here. Leave all thoughts of supporter aside.

How many times does Trump need to make racist comments to be declared as a Racist?

Infinite. Because the definition of the word "racist" will always be interpreted in such a way that he doesn't fall within it.

It's really simple, actually:

likes Trump. They're also aware enough to know being a racist is a bad thing. Rather than just reconsidering their support (which would be tantamount to being "wrong") after Trump makes racist comments, just adjusts the definition of "racist" in their mind to ensure Trump never falls into the category. This way they can both not be "wrong" and not support a bad thing. It's the good old tradition of tricking yourself into truly believing you can have your cake and fuck it too.

Can I amend this?

When they feel the weight of the majority is on their side.

Literally the day before 2016, Racists were bubbling over but still laying in the cut. So angry that minorities actually had a modicum of representation that they had to respect, but realizing that public sentiment wasn't on their side.

Or at least it seemed. When Donald Trump won, the outbreak of racial incidents [https://fortune.com/2016/11/13/trump-election-racist-incidents/] came forth like the breaking of the levee.

Like as of today, the Supreme Court is hearing a case that calls to question one of the fundamental Civil Rights Laws [https://fortune.com/2019/11/13/supreme-court-comcast-byron-allen/] passed in 1866.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing one of the most important civil rights cases to come before it this term. Comcast, which is number 32 on the Fortune 500, is poised to take an unprecedented step. Because of a dispute with a black businessman, the company has urged the Supreme Court to roll back the crucial protections of one of the nation?s oldest civil rights laws.

So far this matter has been framed as a simple dispute between two media giants. Yet so much more is at stake. The outcome of this lawsuit could prove perilous for African Americans and other communities of color. Put simply, a win for Comcast could reshape modern laws around racial discrimination. As the nation's oldest and largest nonpartisan civil rights organization, we are prepared to stand strongly against Comcast to make sure this does not happen.

The dispute began when Byron Allen first sued Comcast for $20 billion back in 2015 for refusing to air channels from his company, Entertainment Studios Networks. The NAACP and other civil rights organizations were initially named as defendants in the case, but were dismissed because they had no role in Comcast?s decision not to air the channels. After churning through the legal system for years, the case is finally being heard by the Supreme Court.

Allen alleges that Comcast's decision was tainted by racism, since the television company agreed to carry white-owned channels with similar audience sizes at the time it rejected Allen, who says his channel is 100% African American-owned. Comcast calls the lawsuit "meritless," pointing to what it calls an "outstanding record of supporting and fostering diverse programming from African American-owned channels."

The Supreme Court?s decision will hinge on its interpretation of a bedrock civil rights statute, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Immediately following the Civil War and the ratification of the 13th Amendment, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a wide-ranging ban on race discrimination. Section 1981 is one of the statute's most critical provisions, ensuring that "[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right ... to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens." The goal of this section was to free the contracting process from the burdens of discrimination and ensure that newly freed slaves were guaranteed the same opportunity to contract as whites.

For more than a century, Section 1981 has been used as an important tool to combat race discrimination, particularly for employment discrimination claimants. Throughout the NAACP?s history, standard-bearers of justice like Thurgood Marshall have harnessed the power of Section 1981 to fight various forms of discrimination. Yet now, in a situation that has become all too familiar during the Trump era, an upcoming Supreme Court decision has the potential to reject these lessons of history by rolling back the clock on basic civil rights?rendering Section 1981 a toothless tiger.

Comcast, supported by the Trump administration, is proposing a radical change to the legal interpretation of Section 1981. The company is arguing that the litigant in the underlying case, Byron Allen, must prove not only that his race was a significant motivating factor in Comcast?s decision not to contract with him, but that it was the only factor. By this logic, Section 1981 allows some amount of racial discrimination in contracting. Moreover, if Comcast's argument holds, Allen would need to be able to parse all of Comcast's considerations in its decision-making process ? a nearly impossible task.

This narrower discrimination standard has been applied by the Supreme Court to other civil rights statutes, but never has the court used it for a claim under Section 1981. Given the language and purposes of Section 1981, and the fact that it was passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, it stands on a different footing than more recent civil rights statutes to which the narrower causation standard has been applied.

If Mr. Allen wins this, then the racists will kick and scoff and get more upset that they can't be outright with their bigotry.

If Comcast wins... they would have put such a crack of fundamental human rights for all American citizens to avoid a lawsuit.

Please, everyone take a moment to think about it. Millions of Senior Citizens think Millennials are terrible people because of the toast and the phrase 'Ok, Boomer'. And a company has enough power in this "United States" to start reversing the tide on Civil Rights because they don't want to show black channels.

If Comcast wins, the amount of shit companies will try to get away with due to this ruling will take minorities from second class citizens to third or fourth. And the Racists will then come out yelling "You're damn right Trump is a Racist. And I support him because I'm a Racist. And we're back to a time that you can't do a damn thing about it because I have rights and apparently the Supreme Courts is on its way to limit yours."

 

[crimson5pheonix]

That's not how it looked to me. Silentpony was bringing up what they saw as a destructive mentality, where they take a reasonable stance (not taunting a vet with BBQ) and make it unreasonable (banning BBQ because it might trigger or offend someone). And you responded with saying that nobody is ever unreasonable and thus Silentpony can't be right.

I want you to understand something very important.

Offending someone and "triggering" them are not the same thing.

When a person has PTSD, the memory associated with a traumatic event is not fully integrated into normal memory, but is instead dissociated. Usually a person can recall what happened, but cannot fully remember how they felt. This allows them, most of the time, to continue functioning normally. However, sometimes environmental cues or "triggers" will cause that person to access the memory, which activates the brain's evolved threat response.

I don't generally care that much if people are offended, which is why I don't care if other people being offended offends you. It's far more weird to me that you care so much about the life of some random Australian woman than that she does, considering it's her life and all. However, when it comes to people being "triggered", when it comes to people who have suffered trauma and who require, to quote Silentpony, "aggressive, intensive daily therapy" (which noone gets, by the way, even if they need it) then I start caring, because mocking mentally ill people for symptoms they literally cannot control, symptoms which are caused by having survived horrifying experiences no healthy person can comprehend, is just a dick move.

But it's also revealing, because it's exactly the kind of dick move we've come to expect.

And Silentpony was laying blame at the people who take it to an extreme, where some people try to force others to act even when they aren't dealing with someone with real deep seated issues. Because it looks very authoritarian when you start trying to dictate people's lives. Because we aren't talking about the vet who avoids BBQs for a very good reason, we're talking about the vegans who try to bring the legal system in to shut down other people's fun.

 

[CaitSeith]

The company is arguing that the litigant in the underlying case, Byron Allen, must prove not only that his race was a significant motivating factor in Comcast's decision not to contract with him, but that it was the only factor.

This rubs me the wrong way. Comcast... you don't fucking get to say what the litigant must or must not prove! That's the judge's job.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

The company is arguing that the litigant in the underlying case, Byron Allen, must prove not only that his race was a significant motivating factor in Comcast's decision not to contract with him, but that it was the only factor.

This rubs me the wrong way. Comcast... you don't fucking get to say what the litigant must or must not prove! That's the judge's job.

Which is really the point of the matter, anyway you slice it.

If Comcast wins this on those grounds, then it's open to every company to discriminate and then say to the discriminated against "Ok, Prove to us and the Court that the only reason we didn't hire you is because of race". Any company can make up a myriad of reasons why not.

It can be just the fact that you are a minority. But since average people without a cadre of lawyers don't have the resources or the inner workings of these companies... That's game, set and match.

 

[tstorm823]

I want to make sure we don't muddy the waters here. Leave all thoughts of supporter aside.

How many times does Trump need to make racist comments to be declared as a Racist?

Let me put it this way: I don't care about this question. Not even a little bit. Declaring him a racist doesn't matter. There is no good tree that bears bad fruit, nor is there a bad tree that bears good fruit. All that matters is the outcome.

People act like they can read Trump's thoughts and know he's really a hateful bigot. But the man's thoughts don't matter, the outcome matters. Minorities are doing better economically. The pay gap is continuing to close. We actually have more resources dedicated to handling asylum claims. Why should I care if he's prejudiced deep down if the fruits are good.

Some people look at the country chugging along exactly the way it did before Trump and exactly the way it will after, but declare it based on racism because Donald Trump is apparently super dooper racist. They infer bigoted motives (whether real or imagined), then see literally anything bad happen and blame it on that motive, which confirms to them that they were right about the motive to begin with. It's circular logic at best, malicious self-deception at worst.

Of all the comments Trump has made and been accused of racism for, probably 1% are actually racist and the other 99% are people trying to prove to themselves how right they were. That could still be enough to call him a racist. I've made that comment myself before. But it just doesn't matter. People are sinful, Trump is no exception there, but outcome is what matters.

 

[Silvanus]

People act like they can read Trump's thoughts and know he's really a hateful bigot. But the man's thoughts don't matter, the outcome matters. Minorities are doing better economically. The pay gap is continuing to close. We actually have more resources dedicated to handling asylum claims. Why should I care if he's prejudiced deep down if the fruits are good.

Where's the line of causation? Trump's administration has done nada to advance those causes, and in many cases has hamstrung efforts to improve the asylum process, the economic standing of minorities, etc.

You cannot point to certain positive indicators in a society of hundreds of millions of people and hold that up as evidence of the success of the President's strategy. That's immensely simplistic; there's a thousand other factors. You have to actually draw a line of causation from elements of the President's strategy to conclude that it was instrumental (or even if it played any part at all).

One of the major issues with electoral politics in a country with terms as short as 4 years is that economic policy takes several years to bear fruit. So, currently strong performance is tremendously unlikely to be down to the whims of the current administration; the seeds will have been sown years ago, if federal policy is even at the root of it at all. Hell, even the prior administration may not be truly responsible: this is not to say we should thank Obama. It's more complex than that. The take-away should be that you draw a line of causation in policy, and that attributing it to whoever's ass is currently in the Oval Office is lazy and misleading.

 

[Terminal Blue]

And Silentpony was laying blame at the people who take it to an extreme, where some people try to force others to act even when they aren't dealing with someone with real deep seated issues.

Except that literally nothing Silentpony actually said indicates as much.

Silentpony talked about people being 'triggered' by things that remind them of past experiences. The only evidence that this is not a literal point is that some of those examples of traumatising events are a little absurd, but some are not. Being "molested" by a family member, for example, is literally one of the worst things that can happen to you in terms of your long term outcomes.

Also, while it is unlikely that a single non-violent hate incident is going to cause someone to develop trauma symptoms, there are very real and demonstrable mental health consequences to hate crime which really don't deserve to be trivialised. So yeah, still kind of a shitty move.

Because it looks very authoritarian when you start trying to dictate people's lives. Because we aren't talking about the vet who avoids BBQs for a very good reason, we're talking about the vegans who try to bring the legal system in to shut down other people's fun.

Honestly, if you have the time or mental energy to be worried about a civil court case that doesn't even remotely affect you, then I don't think you should be throwing stones about people's supposed fragility.

 

[tstorm823]

Where's the line of causation? Trump's administration has done nada to advance those causes, and in many cases has hamstrung efforts to improve the asylum process, the economic standing of minorities, etc.

You cannot point to certain positive indicators in a society of hundreds of millions of people and hold that up as evidence of the success of the President's strategy. That's immensely simplistic; there's a thousand other factors. You have to actually draw a line of causation from elements of the President's strategy to conclude that it was instrumental (or even if it played any part at all).

One of the major issues with electoral politics in a country with terms as short as 4 years is that economic policy takes several years to bear fruit. So, currently strong performance is tremendously unlikely to be down to the whims of the current administration; the seeds will have been sown years ago, if federal policy is even at the root of it at all. Hell, even the prior administration may not be truly responsible: this is not to say we should thank Obama. It's more complex than that. The take-away should be that you draw a line of causation in policy, and that attributing it to whoever's ass is currently in the Oval Office is lazy and misleading.

I do not need a line of causation here. The lack of line of causation is plenty enough. If people say that Trump's destroying the country, and I look around and see the country doing pretty well, and you tell me that Trump doesn't deserve credit for that wellness, you've already conceded that Trump isn't destroying the country. Do you believe there's going to be a 5 year lag and then women will all get pay cuts and racial minorities will suffer economic problems? Cause I don't think so, and you'd need to find a reason that would be coming because of Trump.

 

[Silvanus]

I do not need a line of causation here. The lack of line of causation is plenty enough. If people say that Trump's destroying the country, and I look around and see the country doing pretty well, and you tell me that Trump doesn't deserve credit for that wellness, you've already conceded that Trump isn't destroying the country.

Uhrm, conceded that? I didn't claim it. You, however, claimed that those positive indicators were "fruits"-- outcomes-- of his administration.

So, yes, you need a line of causation.

Do you believe there's going to be a 5 year lag and then women will all get pay cuts and racial minorities will suffer economic problems? Cause I don't think so, and you'd need to find a reason that would be coming because of Trump.

Once again, this is just the most simplistic analysis possible. This isn't how federal policy works; you don't just have a policy change and then a switch somewhere goes from "good" to "bad", whether now or 5 years down the line. The state of pay parity and economic performance are the result of a hundred myriad factors, interconnected in hundreds of ways.

Take as an example the cut in the rate of corporation tax (which took place in 2017). One of Trump's own advisors claimed the positive results of this wouldn't be felt for 3 - 5 years (because the impact of large-scale economic policy on general wellbeing and performance is obviously delayed). In 2018, business investment was up, which led simplistic analysts to claim a connection between the two. The IMF pointed out that aggregate demand was rising anyway, quite unrelated to the policy: it was the result of an end-point of an existing trend, predating the policy. Now we come to 2019, and business investment has taken a downturn, and is lower than it was in 2017 when the policy was announced.

Are we to conclude that the policy itself led to this? No. It's one of a hundred factors. The take-away is simply that correlation is bollocks for economic wellbeing. You need something solid.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

And Silentpony was laying blame at the people who take it to an extreme, where some people try to force others to act even when they aren't dealing with someone with real deep seated issues.

Except that literally nothing Silentpony actually said indicates as much.

Silentpony talked about people being 'triggered' by things that remind them of past experiences. The only evidence that this is not a literal point is that some of those examples of traumatising events are a little absurd, but some are not. Being "molested" by a family member, for example, is literally one of the worst things that can happen to you in terms of your long term outcomes.

Also, while it is unlikely that a single non-violent hate incident is going to cause someone to develop trauma symptoms, there are very real and demonstrable mental health consequences to hate crime which really don't deserve to be trivialised. So yeah, still kind of a shitty move.

It also doesn't deserve to be overblown.

Because it looks very authoritarian when you start trying to dictate people's lives. Because we aren't talking about the vet who avoids BBQs for a very good reason, we're talking about the vegans who try to bring the legal system in to shut down other people's fun.

Honestly, if you have the time or mental energy to be worried about a civil court case that doesn't even remotely affect you, then I don't think you should be throwing stones about people's supposed fragility.

CurrentEvents.txt

No, it's an example of what's being talked about, not an outrage post of 'YOU GOTTA SEE THIS', so you continually trying to reframe it isn't meaningful.

 

[tstorm823]

Are we to conclude that the policy itself led to this? No. It's one of a hundred factors. The take-away is simply that correlation is bollocks for economic wellbeing. You need something solid.

Sure. You need something solid. Give me something solid that Donald Trump's racism is hurting American minorities through policy.

 

[Trunkage]

Of all the comments Trump has made and been accused of racism for, probably 1% are actually racist and the other 99% are people trying to prove to themselves how right they were. That could still be enough to call him a racist. I've made that comment myself before. But it just doesn't matter. People are sinful, Trump is no exception there, but outcome is what matters.

So let's look at this because it's answering the question I had. I want to talk about Assumptions. Yours in particular.

1. Trump only says a few racist things.
2. This is already decided. (Thanks for doing all our thinking for us Storm. We cant think for ourselves)
3. You're definition of what is racist should be the only definition. (Because, you know, Lefties cant think for themselves, let alone discuss definitions)
4. !% racist isn't a problem (STRONGLY DISAGREE)
5. Yes. People are sinful. When someone does something wrong, the general process is they try to understand other people's positions, realise they've negatively impacted the other person, apologise and state how they'll be better in the future, and then try to attempt what they say. Trump generally doubles down on sinfulness
6. America got rich off slaves and murdering natives. BUT it doesn't matter because the outcome is the only thing that is important.
It's circular logic at best, malicious self-deception at worst. If the outcome is the only thing that's important, then who cares if people die.

Now, I am very sympatric to governments not being as important or impactful as we pretend they are. America would have travelled how it did despite who won the elevation. If that is the case, why pick the candidate that is, even by your words, racist?

Me personally, I don't actually think Trump is really racist. He knows how to play an audience. He's a virtue signaller. And I'm not talking about just the Left or the media. I'm talking about Republicans. Those guys used to stand for something and now they just stand in line. I can respect the former, even though I disagree with them. I cant for the latter.

I was listening to a Lefty podcast last night. Obama came up. Here's how they described him: liar, corrupt, war criminal. But they were still wistful because even with all that, it was still better than what we got now. Because not only is Trump all that, he's all racist, nepotistic, deliberately chosen industries over others (destroying one to lift another. At least other presidents just let Capitalism do its thing) and sacrificed industries just to have a trade war.

If outcome was the only thing that was important, Bill Clinton would have been one of the best presidents ever. Way better than Trump (so far). I don't think so, but then I think unintended consequences are important.

 

[Saelune]

I want to make sure we don't muddy the waters here. Leave all thoughts of supporter aside.

How many times does Trump need to make racist comments to be declared as a Racist?

Let me put it this way: I don't care about this question. Not even a little bit. Declaring him a racist doesn't matter. There is no good tree that bears bad fruit, nor is there a bad tree that bears good fruit. All that matters is the outcome.

People act like they can read Trump's thoughts and know he's really a hateful bigot. But the man's thoughts don't matter, the outcome matters. Minorities are doing better economically. The pay gap is continuing to close. We actually have more resources dedicated to handling asylum claims. Why should I care if he's prejudiced deep down if the fruits are good.

Some people look at the country chugging along exactly the way it did before Trump and exactly the way it will after, but declare it based on racism because Donald Trump is apparently super dooper racist. They infer bigoted motives (whether real or imagined), then see literally anything bad happen and blame it on that motive, which confirms to them that they were right about the motive to begin with. It's circular logic at best, malicious self-deception at worst.

Of all the comments Trump has made and been accused of racism for, probably 1% are actually racist and the other 99% are people trying to prove to themselves how right they were. That could still be enough to call him a racist. I've made that comment myself before. But it just doesn't matter. People are sinful, Trump is no exception there, but outcome is what matters.

Just admit Trump sucks and supporting him was a mistake. He has done nothing to help you, you owe him nothing. Your excuses to defend him are thinner than air and are just an ever moving goalpost that you do not fairly apply to those you criticize.

Trump is racist, and supporting a racist for the sake of racism is racist.

 

[Agema]

Oh, certainly society has always had silent/invisible/disenfranchised groups, but it seems all the more incongruous in this age of effortless participation in global discourse.

Boomers are silent/invisible/disenfranchised? Are we seriously really going to argue that?

I think I realised what it is about "OK Boomer" that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It's the obvious comeback to comments criticising the naivete of youth, "darn kids don't know they're born", and so on. So is it fair game? Perhaps, but it's asymmetric.

Honestly, I cannot in any way bring myself to accept an argument that age should protect a person from criticism.