"Ok, Boomer"
- Thread starter ObsidianJones_v1legacy
- Start date
I was talking to someone the other day saying some of these forty year olds just have old fashion ideas. I was quick to point out millenials are 40 next year and that most Baby Boomers are headin into retirement. So, your nonsense meme makes as much sense as attacking all young people as Millennialststorm823 said:
I mean, if you want to get back into what the actual generations are, boomers and millenials are basically the same people, with the surrounding generations all quietly hoping boomers and millenials will shut the hell up. The over-inflated sense of importance seems to skip every other generation.trunkage said:
What exactly is this thing that can be taken to an unreasonable degree?crimson5pheonix said:
In Silentpony's original post, the problem was people not being able to handle "normal" interactions without displaying symptoms, which was in and of itself held up as examples of people making unreasonable demands.
Then we moved on to people supposedly making unreasonable demands on society as a whole. But the people Silentpony was actually talking about aren't doing that, at least not in any kind of way which is actually unreasonable.
So now we've moved on again to this case. But again, if this is an example of a person making unreasonable demands on society, then it's still just not very good example of that. What it's an example of is a person who believes she is being targeted or persecuted out of malice by her neighbours, and that such behaviour violates existing residential laws. One of the issues she has raised, which is not even the primary complaint, concerns the positioning of a barbecue in such a way that the smell impacts her use of the property. She has, in fact, issued statements to the effect that she does not condemn meat eating or oppose people having barbecues in general.
Is she overreacting? Quite possibly. The tribunal certainly accepted that there was little substance to her allegations, but this was after her neighbours had already taken some steps on their own, so it's not clear if there actually was a genuine problem which the neighbours had corrected. But, even if we assume there was never any substance and this is pure overreaction, this is still a person who took the time to assemble hundreds of pages of "evidence" to support their claims, and who (naively) put themselves into the public eye, and thus into a considerable ammount of psychological and physical danger. Even in the worst case scenario, this is a person who is clearly suffering and who genuinely believes themselves to be a victim. Even if they are a victim of themselves, that is worthy of sympathy. Even the tribunal hinted towards this.
Compare this to the organiser of the "protest" described in the article you linked, a person who is apparently so upset by the possibility that "militant vegans" may be sabotaging Australian farmers (a phenomenon for which I can find no evidence in a couple of minutes I can be bothered to look for it) that they decided to raise awareness of this by staging a mass demonstration (with no mention of the actual political issue at hand) targeting a single woman who has nothing to do with it but who happens to be vegan. Compare it with the thousands of people who came out in support, or who were duped into believing that their right to have barbecues was under attack or that their Australian identity was at stake. Ask yourself how this incredibly minor incident between two neighbouring households became part of this enormous, utterly manufactured culture war against vegan aggression which I'm willing to bet few or none of the people who involved themselves have ever actually experienced. Ask yourself how this got to the point of people making death threats.
That's unreasonable.
It's very unreasonable.
What is your excuse for it?
Boomers and millennials are not real things. They are sociological constructs we use to describe a real thing, the fact that people born at the same time will live in a similar cultural setting and thus be likely to share demographic and cultural similarities. But what actually counts as a generation is arbitrary.tstorm823 said:
Gen Z are "quiet" because they are literally children. However, those few gen Z kids who are old enough to have a distinct political voice are, in a truly shocking and mind-blowing twist, very similar to young milennials in terms of their cultural reference points and attitudes.
Gen X are not quietly waiting for anything. They're too busy posting the same facebook meme about how their Gen Z kid said "okay boomer" to them and they launched into a dramatic, totally unscripted monologue about how cool and nihilistic Gen X are and how they'll totally drown you in student debt or something. Look, it really happened, okay. Everybody stood up and clapped. How does the internet work again?
Yes they can.crimson5pheonix said:
They literally can.
That is what the courts are for.
That is why you can sue your neighbours.
So that if they are doing something unreasonable they can be forced to stop.
It is how the whole system works.
I directly addressed this. You cut it out.crimson5pheonix said:
As I've stated previously, I wouldn't be surprised if Gen Xers get skipped for the US presidency. It looks like Boomers are going to stay in til their 80s (both Dems and Rep) and since most presidents start in their mid 40s, Millennials will field candidates in 2024. Gen X might not even get a look intstorm823 said:
As a Gen Xer I'm wondering if that is a BAD thing. Maybe passing the torch quickly will be my generation's gift to the world. Of course its is as much a cop out as anything, "we didn't screw up as bad as the boomers, we handed things off to you to screw up." As it is many people don't realize there is a generation separating millennials and boomers, making us kind of quiet and forgotten anyway. "Ok Boomer" had been in the news for a whole week before I found out some millennials were calling Xers "Karens." Like the old and out of touch person I am I had to look that up...trunkage said:
That's fair.
Anyway; if that's the worst they can come up with for us, maybe stepping aside before we deserve worse isn't the worst idea. So many of the people I went to high school and college with are massive hypocrites, idiots, and assholes when I find them via social media. So much of Boomer behavior (in the US anyway) can be blamed on poisoning from leaded gasoline... maybe it wasn't banned soon enough to save the older Xers like me.
(looks at lead effects)
-Lead exposure has been linked with various types of brain damage. These include
-Problems with thinking (cognition)
-Difficulties with organizing actions, decisions, and behaviors (executive functions)
-Abnormal social behavior (including aggression)
-Decreased IQ
-Lower academic achievement
Children suffer neurological effects from lead at much lower blood lead levels than adults.
(looks at U.S. lead policy)
-The EPA discussed a total ban on leaded gasoline by 1988. 1990: In amendments to the Clean Air Act, lead was banned from gasoline. The measures would take effect in 1995.
Oh yeah, we were totally still screwed.
Bitching about the next generation is as old as ancient Greece, probably older, but they're the first in our historical record to write down their bitching about it.
Well as point of fact, the tribunal said they couldn't, and then the supreme court agreed. Though she says she'll appeal again.evilthecat said:
Did you now?
The courts said she couldn't force them to stop. They never said she couldn't ask to have them forced to stop. That seems to be what evil is getting at.crimson5pheonix said:
Whether one is allowed to ask an unreasonable question is different than the yes/no/somewhat answer to said question.
That's about as pedantic as it gets. The courts said they can't be reasonably asked to stop. Her requests aren't reasonable ones.Avnger said:
Are you suggesting that in order to act "reasonably", a person has to know the outcome of an event, for example a court case, before it actually happens? Because that's a rare skill. In fact, it's a non-existent skill.crimson5pheonix said:
There's also a detail you left out, which is weird because again I specifically mentioned it previously in regard to the ruling made in the tribunal, which is that said ruling was made after the neighbours had made efforts to address some of the complaints made, and that their doing so was specifically acknowledged as a factor in the outcome.
How many times are these goalposts going to move? Because I can't help but notice that we're down to the question of whether or not an individual woman was justified in believing her individual neighbours had breached residential laws, and no part of me is capable of understanding why it's in any way "reasonable" for you to care.