I would seriously like to punch the person who had the brilliant idea of turning birthdates into an identitarian political wedge issue. Maybe it wasn't clear before, but artificial marketing...
I would seriously like to punch the person who had the brilliant idea of turning birthdates into an identitarian political wedge issue.
Maybe it wasn't clear before, but artificial marketing segmentation of the populace into "generations" doesn't say anything about who's responsible for what, and therefore deserving of blame and scorn.
The tendencies to hoard advantages and resist externally imposed sacrifice are practically baked into our genes, regardless of age, race, class, gender, or any other evident marker that might be called out. If fortunate, the current younger generations will become elders as well, and can be held to account for their own shortcomings. As the article points out, it's basically "judge not, lest ye be judged".
Despite our genetic inclinations toward selfishness and narcissism, it's belief systems, which are more mutable, that determine how intelligently and altruistically we actually treat each other and the environment. The whole "OK Boomer" "OK Millennial" thing is an attempt to reinforce individual selfishness and narcissism, divide us into ever smaller tribes, and ensure that we don't respect each other enough to allow joint action on the things that matter.
The "OK Boomer" fad started as a response to attacks that boomers made on the younger generations. It may not be so obvious in the United States because there are a sizeable amount of millennials...
The "OK Boomer" fad started as a response to attacks that boomers made on the younger generations.
It may not be so obvious in the United States because there are a sizeable amount of millennials who are hardline Republicans, but here in Britain there really is a generational gap between voters and their political beliefs. Young people overwhelmingly vote for left wing parties while the older generations progressively swing further to the right.
Brexit was also a really divisive issue where the older generations voted overwhelmingly to leave while younger voters who understood what was at stake voted overwhelmingly to remain.
All I'll add is... if the economy, the climate and Brexit go tits-up as people predict, I wouldn't be surprised if these hostilities between generations intensified.
I'm not saying there's no differential in the life experiences that people had, depending on when they were born. There's a real difference in beliefs about expectations - people born before 1965...
I'm not saying there's no differential in the life experiences that people had, depending on when they were born.
There's a real difference in beliefs about expectations - people born before 1965 had a basis to believe they had secure futures, with work available for anyone who wanted it; education just meant less manual labor. The current situation violates those expectations, and they're trying to hold on to what they've gained as tightly as possible. They're fearful and being told to blame everything except the people actually threatening their gains.
People born after the early 1960's have grown up in the midst of drastically declining expectations, starting with the 1970's energy crisis, inflation, deindustrialization, and subsequent destruction of generous welfare states. They're working far more than their parents did, if they can find steady employment, and getting much smaller rewards for their efforts.
There is a generational comprehension gap - older people just don't quite understand, at an emotional level, how blighted the lives and opportunities of younger ones are, compared to their own recollections. Younger people don't comprehend how different their elders' experience of the world is, and how those elders are directing their sense of betrayal at the way the world has changed. Everyone is suffering from the same things, but there are different explanatory frameworks for what's wrong.
These hypotheticals (if only X group voted) strike me as wholly undemocratic. I'm kind of frustrated with the rhetoric people use to pretend that people who disagree with them don't exist. Lots of...
These hypotheticals (if only X group voted) strike me as wholly undemocratic. I'm kind of frustrated with the rhetoric people use to pretend that people who disagree with them don't exist. Lots of people do this. It's a human thing as best as I can tell. Doesn't mean it doesn't get under my skin.
And this topic strikes at what I find so distasteful about the "OK Boomer" meme. It's overtly and intentionally hurtful in a way that most memes aren't, with the intent to silence people based on their age. That's not even a little bit better than the ageist "you'll understand when you're older" nonsense that elders love to say as a shorthand for "I'm not going to engage your point." It serves only to shut down the conversation.
How are is anyone going to convince anyone that their view is the right one if they start the conversation by ignoring a large segment of the persuadable population? Or maybe they think they can get 50%+1 by alienating moderates and old people.
More likely, people are getting lulled by social media into thinking the extreme is acceptable and a viable path to political success. And so, OK Boomer adds to the laundry list of alienating forces that prevent people from actually talking to one another honestly, genuinely, and with the required willingness to listen that social research is increasingly demonstrating is the most effective way to change people's minds about political issues.
I don't like the phrase "OK Boomer" simply because, as you say, it catches an entire group in the crossfire and there's no way it can fairly apply to all of them. The thing is, I do understand why...
I don't like the phrase "OK Boomer" simply because, as you say, it catches an entire group in the crossfire and there's no way it can fairly apply to all of them.
The thing is, I do understand why it exists as a phrase and the frustration behind it. You say it shuts down the conversation - that's what it's designed to do.
Imagine you're trying to explain why climate change, or racism, or the far right, or enormous wealth inequality are a risk to our society and people across the planet. You've channeled all your effort into staying calm and respectful, you've gathered your facts, and you presented them clearly. The response is being screamed at for your disrespect, or a smirking dismissal as a snowflake, or sometimes even the threat of physical violence. Just take a look through #MAGA if you think I'm exaggerating about those responses.
Now remember that the phrase was first popularised on TikTok, a platform for younger users - most of whom live at home, and may have to deal with these people in real life, not just on social media.
Having a shorthand for "this person is so wrong that I can't even talk to them" suddenly becomes much more understandable.
I'll end with someone's explanation of the phrase that went viral in and of itself earlier in the year. Again, I really do not like the generalisation, but it does give some voice to where these people are coming from:
Millennials tried for so long to explain using facts and evidence that they don't actually have it that easy and they aren't just lazy, but it became very clear that boomers don't care about facts, evidence, or reality for that matter. So this is what has resulted. We've given up. I feel like "ok boomer" is kind of the equivalent of "Wow, you're so horribly wrong, but I don't have the time or the energy to repeatedly explain something to you that you're not going to listen to anyway."
Oh I get exactly why it exists as a phrase. I do not forgive the people from my generation who use it to undercut the very people they need to persuade to their side. It is asinine pettiness, not...
Oh I get exactly why it exists as a phrase. I do not forgive the people from my generation who use it to undercut the very people they need to persuade to their side. It is asinine pettiness, not unlike this political moment more generally.
It sucks to do a bunch of work to try to fashion a compelling argument only to find out the people you're trying to talk to don't care. But the appropriate reaction to that lack of concern isn't to say "okay, well fuck you then." You're still the minority. You, as the activist trying to address these issues, must be the bigger person to be effective. To engage in that behavior is to admit you will never be effective. It is defeatist and makes it that much harder for the next person who comes along.
Edit: The especially important thing when it comes to this behavior on social media is that the person you or I are talking to on, say, Twitter, is decidedly NOT the only person who can see the exchange. There's a general audience for everything. And by retreating to their wings rudely because they don't know how to engage causes that audience to form bad opinions about the people who were rude. It is important, if anyone is at all concerned about the "hearts and minds" nature of social media, that they avoid being rude just to get that cathartic feeling when someone shows up you can't reasonably deal with. People have memories, even if the audiences that engage our content has a bit of turnover. They remember the rudeness, even if they don't remember where they saw it.
Ok boomer is a way of saying,"Ok, I'm done". The fact that you don't understand this is an example of the endemic problem of boomers needing to have a last work. And, I'm saying this as someone...
Ok boomer is a way of saying,"Ok, I'm done". The fact that you don't understand this is an example of the endemic problem of boomers needing to have a last work.
And, I'm saying this as someone one the cusp of Gen Y and Millenial, or something, being born in the mid 70's.
I don't think you heard my point. And the fact you assume I'm a boomer is hilarious--and that's an actual fact as opposed to your interpretation of what's going on here. But since you seem to need...
I don't think you heard my point. And the fact you assume I'm a boomer is hilarious--and that's an actual fact as opposed to your interpretation of what's going on here.
But since you seem to need me to say it explicitly, I'm 31 dude. Maybe calm down with your own ageism and listen. Or if you have no spoons, you could try just walking away and doing something else. Having no spoons is not an excuse to be rude.
In your opinion, was "don't trust anyone over 30" simple ageism, or is there more to it? I just finished rereading Cory Doctorow's (fictional) book Little Brother, and in that book they make a...
In your opinion, was "don't trust anyone over 30" simple ageism, or is there more to it?
I just finished rereading Cory Doctorow's (fictional) book Little Brother, and in that book they make a point of lowering that to "Don't trust anyone over 25", so that's why it's on my mind.
There are a couple things at play. First, (generally) age is not the most important factor to look at when deciding whether to trust someone. A lot depends on what you want to trust the person...
There are a couple things at play.
First, (generally) age is not the most important factor to look at when deciding whether to trust someone. A lot depends on what you want to trust the person for. Trust isn't just some always-true quality someone earns. It is given based on context, and for a purpose. If you trust someone to feed your cat while you're gone, that doesn't necessarily mean that you trust that same person to run a competent nuclear weapons program. And age should have very little to do with whether you should trust a person for either purpose.
So to that extent, yes, "don't trust anyone over 30" was ageism. Worse, it was ageism that got so firmly entrenched among boomer rhetoric that it has been repeated by boomers in just about every topic ever since.
But it was also ageism with a specific political purpose. In the cold war era, where people were obsessed about covert (communist) manipulation and bad faith intent, it was crucially important to prove that you were your own person. The phrase was shorthand to say "nobody is telling us (boomers) what to do but us." Because people always suspect something is amiss when they can't get what they expect, Boomers had to make the case they weren't being manipulated when they were fighting against things like participation in the Vietnam war, or segregation. Things that really demonstrably injured the United States' image abroad. The people in charge could see the wheel was squeaking, and wanted to blame it on communists (McCarthy, anyone?). Boomers felt that they had to prove they weren't communists while still criticizing the governments' policies.
So many Boomers have, since they entered adulthood, tried to see just about every struggle through terms of generational conflict. Part of that is because initially there was a lot of institutional stress from the fact that there were just so many more Boomers than the institutions were really designed to handle. They needed to build more schools because boomers were flooding their districts. They needed to catch up on housing because boomers were flooding the housing market.
But part of that is also an element of convenience and human nature. Boomers benefited from their ageism, in ways that our generation really can't as easily (unless Boomers for some reason start talking more about how Russians are manipulation young folk, becoming a hilarious parody of their elders). Taking the partial truth and expanding it into areas where it wasn't really true still felt right, and it benefited them, so they did. Why is there so much economic stress in the 2008-2009 period? Obviously, it must be generational! Millennials are new and weird. Just look at the name. It proves itself. New technology is scary, and it must be changing people. Young people just don't care as much as I do now, and as I have reconstructed my memory of my past to believe I did at their age. I, along with many of my age peers, rolled our eyes.
But how much of our attention gets focused on Gen X, the people who came of age in the reagan, first bush, and clinton eras? Why is it just the Boomers that gets our ire? In part, that's because they 'started' the generational rhetoric fight, and they continued it. But also in part, it's because there are so many of them compared to other generations.
The thing is, there is some generational conflict happening right now, but it's not nearly so broad and expansive as people want to believe. When you look at a local government and see it's leadership filled with 70+ year olds, that is not necessarily by itself the sign of an unhealthy institution. Retired folk have more time to participate in these institutions than younger folk. This is why I rolled my eyes a lot when media commentators would complain about the lack of youth engagement in politics. Journalists made little to no effort to compare their observations to other age cohorts, and so it seemed like a totally new thing, that young people don't vote in as high of rates as older people.
The concern that should really take your attention is how willing an institution is to hear criticism of itself and to adapt to its membership. Even Boomers are looking around and are rightfully scared because they're realizing that they (as a group) don't see other, younger folk entering the discussion for decades now. Religious institutions are a very prominent example of this, but local governments struggle with this too. Largely this has not been intentional. Largely, this was a demographics problem where one generation had just way too many people for the positions available. But also, these institutions just haven't been that important to me (and many our age).
This was a long way of answering your question, but I hope it makes sense. Boomers definitely had some fights where they opted to get ageist and where they opted to engage in generational divisive rhetoric. But what's important to say too is that while "Boomers" as an age group definitely did this, many individual Boomers did not. We're talking about a massive cohort of people as though they're a coherent political group. It's just not true, just as it's laughably false that Zoomers or Millennials are coherent with a single general political opinion on any given topic. Hate to talk shop like this, but a solid 34-38% of us voted for Trump in 2016, and it'll likely be about that amount again in 2020. That's more than one out of every three of us who sees the world differently. We cannot be said to be coherently democrat as an age cohort, and nor can boomers (who went 45% for hillary, even higher than the 34-38% for Trump) be said to be coherently republican.
Thank you for the long and detailed response! That gave me a lot to think about - I guess it does make sense that the generational resentment downwards originated from an upwards ageism. Boomers...
Thank you for the long and detailed response! That gave me a lot to think about - I guess it does make sense that the generational resentment downwards originated from an upwards ageism. Boomers were young too, once.
Boomers benefited from their ageism, in ways that our generation really can't as easily (unless Boomers for some reason start talking more about how Russians are manipulation young folk, becoming a hilarious parody of their elders).
An argument I've heard is "The older generation is manipulated by Facebook algorithms, dishonest news, and even Russian bots, and they don't have the tools to deal with that. Rather than expend energy trying to fix what can't be, we should focus on what we actually CAN do."
So maybe we have gone full circle! History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
And it's been like this since the beginning of politics, and will continue to be like this. Everyone seems to forget that old people were once younger, more idealistic, and less conservative....
there really is a generational gap between voters and their political beliefs. Young people overwhelmingly vote for left wing parties while the older generations progressively swing further to the right.
And it's been like this since the beginning of politics, and will continue to be like this. Everyone seems to forget that old people were once younger, more idealistic, and less conservative. Millennials will also become older, less idealistic, and more conservative. There's nothing special about the current crop of 30 somethings. They're not more virtuous, less selfish, and more forward thinking than their parents were at their age, and if they grew up in a similar environment, they would turn out exactly the same as them. It's not as if the human genome mutated at some point in the past 35 years to make people better.
People don't inherently become conservative as they become older. Older people right now tend to be more conservative, yes, but that's not always the case. People's political beliefs tend to...
People don't inherently become conservative as they become older. Older people right now tend to be more conservative, yes, but that's not always the case. People's political beliefs tend to solidify in their twenties and remain fairly static from there. Boomers voted Republican in their youth too.
To add to this point, the definition of what was "conservative" and "liberal" shifts over time. It could very easily be the case that the political opinions of younger Boomers was "liberal" in the...
To add to this point, the definition of what was "conservative" and "liberal" shifts over time. It could very easily be the case that the political opinions of younger Boomers was "liberal" in the context of where, say, race politics was at the time, and has since become conservative even though the views themselves that boomers generally hold didn't change.
That's probably true with race politics because the view in the 60s and early 70s was anti-segregationist, but when it came to topics like restorative justice or affirmative action, Boomers were significantly more split (so split that it wasn't even mainstream conversation, since the prevailing fight was about segregation).
Once a cohort gets what they want, they tend to want to keep what they wanted. That makes them look conservative, no matter what that policy is.
Yes, but they didn't grow up 35 years ago, they grew up now, when there are different pressures and thus different ideological bends. Perhaps they will trend rightward as they age, but there's not...
Yes, but they didn't grow up 35 years ago, they grew up now, when there are different pressures and thus different ideological bends. Perhaps they will trend rightward as they age, but there's not much evidence to that effect.
As I've gotten older (I'm in my 40's now), I've gotten less conservative. I've began to understand the deck is weighted against younger people. I've seen it with my own kids: They will leave...
As I've gotten older (I'm in my 40's now), I've gotten less conservative.
I've began to understand the deck is weighted against younger people. I've seen it with my own kids: They will leave college, and enter a more vicious workplace than when I did.
It's a major reason why I am launching a worker-owned cooperative, and working with others to do the same. And, working with "boomers" who are compatible to that ideology: They had it better than the workforce does today. It's time to pay it back.
True, but one also has to ask the question, "Which millennials will become older and more conservative?" While overall cultural changes have occurred that make different generations more accepting...
True, but one also has to ask the question, "Which millennials will become older and more conservative?" While overall cultural changes have occurred that make different generations more accepting on average, there are still plenty of conservative 30-somethings in addition to the "hipster coffee shop liberal" stereotype, and those who have been born into wealth and privilege are more likely to survive and continue to hold their right-wing beliefs while poorer, further-left people who may have significant issues like unstable living situations or serious untreated health issues die off and skew the overall political makeup of the generation further to the right.
Except the things that matter do depend upon many factors, and age is one of the ones that correlates well with a wide variety of other socioeconomic factors. Yes, using a shorthand is going to...
Except the things that matter do depend upon many factors, and age is one of the ones that correlates well with a wide variety of other socioeconomic factors. Yes, using a shorthand is going to lose some clarity, but there are actual disagreements between the young and the old.
I'm not dismissing the disagreements at all, and just responded above with what I thought was the historical fracture point where groups' experience and subsequent beliefs diverged. The thing is,...
I'm not dismissing the disagreements at all, and just responded above with what I thought was the historical fracture point where groups' experience and subsequent beliefs diverged.
The thing is, it's not intrinsically due to age. Assuming everyone of a given age manifests the stereotyped pattern, and is thus blameworthy, is as mistaken as any other identity stereotype.
Ben Shapiro is practically a millennial himself, at least as far as your (likely) Boomer grandparents are concerned. He's just profiteering by traveling the well-trodden path of noxious right-wing...
Ben Shapiro is practically a millennial himself, at least as far as your (likely) Boomer grandparents are concerned. He's just profiteering by traveling the well-trodden path of noxious right-wing pseudointellectual moralizing punditry that prior conservatives like William F. Buckley pioneered.
I guess the door I came in on is that whether or not intergenerational complaints are just, we're being systematically focused on the wrong targets. It's not the first or only context in which this has happened.
So Boomers are clinging to their miniscule stake in maintaining the existing power structures, and blaming Millennials for having no stake at all?
That sounds like a near-bourgeoisie which needs education on basic class politics to me, since their pensions are being undermined in exactly the way that education and housing and other supports have been for subsequent generations.
This whole thing is very reminiscent of the way American labor power was being broken in the 1980's. Recession contracts enshrined benefits for existing workers, but new employees had lower wage scales and few benefits, if any. There was little reason for low-seniority workers to keep paying dues, participate in unionizing, or otherwise shore up a system that wasn't protecting them. Finally, older workers discovered that their carefully hoarded pension rights could just vanish if the company decided to declare bankruptcy and start over.
I know this all sounds pretty abstract and not of much use for dealing with the old folks watching Fox News (or other Murdoch, Sinclair, etc. media properties pushing crap). But remember which side we're all on.
I honestly love that you brought this up, but I don't entirely agree with you. The first step to social change is to talk to the people around you and try to get them to agree with you. That's...
I guess the door I came in on is that whether or not intergenerational complaints are just, we're being systematically focused on the wrong targets.
I honestly love that you brought this up, but I don't entirely agree with you. The first step to social change is to talk to the people around you and try to get them to agree with you. That's clearly what is happening right now. And often times these conversations can grow painful and they turn into arguments, which turn into fights. Therefore, "OK Boomer".
Now naturally fights will not change anyone's minds, but I'm seeing these as a marker that there's a lever pushing social change right now, and I think that's a great thing. What I think is a bad thing is how the media is amplifying these fights and making it appear that we should be nice to whichever side, especially when one side has more power than the other. That's just arguing for the status quo. These conversations need to happen.
The article was sloppy and smarmy, but I don't think it's bad form in general to include ageism with other forms of discrimination on the basis of intrinsic characteristics. First, ageism works in...
Exemplary
The article was sloppy and smarmy, but I don't think it's bad form in general to include ageism with other forms of discrimination on the basis of intrinsic characteristics.
First, ageism works in both directions. It's assumed that what younger people say or think is tainted by inexperience. Any of us may have experienced undue debt burdens, restricted employment opportunities, or compulsory service in youth, because we weren't in a position to argue our best interests in a plutocratic gerontocracy***. Younger people also experience oppression on the basis of age because of the cultural expectation that they'll pay it forward by caring for their elders regardless of their own interests (even more so for girls).
As to oppression and discrimination against older people, they may be denied employment, housing, medical care, and equal legal protection. They may be subjected to the assumption of diminished mental capacity, without proof. It's arguable that like other groups which experience discrimination, elders are subject to harm from internalized oppression.
Some here have already asserted that elders, as a group, have hated characteristics, like money and power hoarding, spitefulness, tribalism, or irremediable prejudices. That's not different from other forms of hatred based on stereotype, like anti-Islamism or anti-immigrant sentiment. It's the reason why I'm so deeply suspicious of the promotion of intergenerational hostility.
While the laws of compound interest work in their favor if they have savings, or capitalist rent if they have property, more than half the elder population in the U.S. has no personal savings or unencumbered assets by retirement. That doesn't sound like a privileged class to me.
There have certainly been times and places where elders were ostracised, forced to labor without wages, reduced to beggary, denied food, left to die of exposure, or otherwise neglected and abused. I'll point to modern nursing home scandals. [We can have an argument about the ethics of maintaining people who've lost cognition elsewhere, but many people consigned to nursing care are physically, not mentally, disabled.]
Aging is intersectional with other forms of disadvantage - in the U.S., the highest poverty rate, 21.5%, is found among Black women over age 65. The next highest is among those over age 75, as a group.
Older people may be so fearful of the social and economic consequences of their status that they attempt suicide at rates exceeding those of the youth population. The highest suicide rate is among those approaching elderhood (45 - 64), followed by those over 80.
At the point of increasing frailty, elders are faced with all the forms of discrimination disabled people encounter. In the U.S., at least, medical costs can strip their savings; they're far more likely to experience sudden poverty from which they can't recover.
[Disclosure: I'm not elderly or in the Boomer cohort, but I'm old enough to have experienced age discrimination in the IT employment marketplace, and have recently developed aggressive arthritis requiring joint replacements. I've been spending more time around elderly people (who aren't relatives) in physical therapy, and learned some sympathy.]
***Most governments tend toward gerontocracy; political power compounds with accumulated personal connections and favors traded. This does not mean that the aged in the general population are necessarily favored if they don't have money or other political assets.
Edits: updating some statistics based on sources for global, rather than just U.S., data. I haven't linked everything as usual because sources are very easy to find on this topic.
I'm of two minds on this topic. Punching up, and mocking those with more privileged is, imo, just fine. As a boomer usefully pointed out in the article - they have all the money. Intergenerational...
I'm of two minds on this topic. Punching up, and mocking those with more privileged is, imo, just fine. As a boomer usefully pointed out in the article - they have all the money.
Intergenerational inequality is a huge issue, and it is getting worse. Any discussion about 'OK, Boomer' should acknowledge this. The anger of the youth is justified, even if it comes out in imperfect ways.
This isn't just about throwing insults at old people either - political opinion is also sharply divided along age lines (see UK voting intention by age.) 'Ok Boomer' is an expression of political anger as well.
Also, I disagree with this:
“Human instinct is to categorize people. That part isn’t new,” Aronson says. “What’s new is making it so generational.”
The old have always 'categorised' young people. Bitching about young people is a tradition as old as time. There has been a steady stream of hit pieces about millennials for years. I'm sure the general sentiment was always there amongst young people as well, but without the internet and social media, they just didn't have the power over public discourse to generate any fully formed stereotypes until now.
On the other hand, I saw an interesting take on this issue a while ago (sorry no idea what the source was now), raising the point that in many disadvantaged/minority communities, the boomer generation is the most disadvantaged group, and by assuming all boomers are rich, we are actually accidentally exposing our own privilege.
It seems like it would be a mistake to take this Twitter trend seriously? It's unclear that the alleged popularity of a catchy insult means anything at all.
It seems like it would be a mistake to take this Twitter trend seriously? It's unclear that the alleged popularity of a catchy insult means anything at all.
The word 'boomer' was chosen as "word of the year" in a limited poll in the Netherlands, so I think it's safe to say the meme has has crossed into other countries.
The word 'boomer' was chosen as "word of the year" in a limited poll in the Netherlands, so I think it's safe to say the meme has has crossed into other countries.
Isn't 50PLUS a party that is inherently discriminating? It's interesting that "OK boomer" exists as a response to older people who supposedly have it all, but this party argues older people are...
Isn't 50PLUS a party that is inherently discriminating? It's interesting that "OK boomer" exists as a response to older people who supposedly have it all, but this party argues older people are actually the victims.
I would seriously like to punch the person who had the brilliant idea of turning birthdates into an identitarian political wedge issue.
Maybe it wasn't clear before, but artificial marketing segmentation of the populace into "generations" doesn't say anything about who's responsible for what, and therefore deserving of blame and scorn.
The tendencies to hoard advantages and resist externally imposed sacrifice are practically baked into our genes, regardless of age, race, class, gender, or any other evident marker that might be called out. If fortunate, the current younger generations will become elders as well, and can be held to account for their own shortcomings. As the article points out, it's basically "judge not, lest ye be judged".
Despite our genetic inclinations toward selfishness and narcissism, it's belief systems, which are more mutable, that determine how intelligently and altruistically we actually treat each other and the environment. The whole "OK Boomer" "OK Millennial" thing is an attempt to reinforce individual selfishness and narcissism, divide us into ever smaller tribes, and ensure that we don't respect each other enough to allow joint action on the things that matter.
The "OK Boomer" fad started as a response to attacks that boomers made on the younger generations.
It may not be so obvious in the United States because there are a sizeable amount of millennials who are hardline Republicans, but here in Britain there really is a generational gap between voters and their political beliefs. Young people overwhelmingly vote for left wing parties while the older generations progressively swing further to the right.
Fun fact, if only 18-24 year olds were allowed to vote in the UK General Election this year, the Conservatives would not win a single seat. Labour would have actually won a 274 seat majority. Compare this to the over 65s map where the Conservatives would have won a 249 seat majority.
Brexit was also a really divisive issue where the older generations voted overwhelmingly to leave while younger voters who understood what was at stake voted overwhelmingly to remain.
All I'll add is... if the economy, the climate and Brexit go tits-up as people predict, I wouldn't be surprised if these hostilities between generations intensified.
I'm not saying there's no differential in the life experiences that people had, depending on when they were born.
There's a real difference in beliefs about expectations - people born before 1965 had a basis to believe they had secure futures, with work available for anyone who wanted it; education just meant less manual labor. The current situation violates those expectations, and they're trying to hold on to what they've gained as tightly as possible. They're fearful and being told to blame everything except the people actually threatening their gains.
People born after the early 1960's have grown up in the midst of drastically declining expectations, starting with the 1970's energy crisis, inflation, deindustrialization, and subsequent destruction of generous welfare states. They're working far more than their parents did, if they can find steady employment, and getting much smaller rewards for their efforts.
There is a generational comprehension gap - older people just don't quite understand, at an emotional level, how blighted the lives and opportunities of younger ones are, compared to their own recollections. Younger people don't comprehend how different their elders' experience of the world is, and how those elders are directing their sense of betrayal at the way the world has changed. Everyone is suffering from the same things, but there are different explanatory frameworks for what's wrong.
These hypotheticals (if only X group voted) strike me as wholly undemocratic. I'm kind of frustrated with the rhetoric people use to pretend that people who disagree with them don't exist. Lots of people do this. It's a human thing as best as I can tell. Doesn't mean it doesn't get under my skin.
And this topic strikes at what I find so distasteful about the "OK Boomer" meme. It's overtly and intentionally hurtful in a way that most memes aren't, with the intent to silence people based on their age. That's not even a little bit better than the ageist "you'll understand when you're older" nonsense that elders love to say as a shorthand for "I'm not going to engage your point." It serves only to shut down the conversation.
How are is anyone going to convince anyone that their view is the right one if they start the conversation by ignoring a large segment of the persuadable population? Or maybe they think they can get 50%+1 by alienating moderates and old people.
More likely, people are getting lulled by social media into thinking the extreme is acceptable and a viable path to political success. And so, OK Boomer adds to the laundry list of alienating forces that prevent people from actually talking to one another honestly, genuinely, and with the required willingness to listen that social research is increasingly demonstrating is the most effective way to change people's minds about political issues.
I don't like the phrase "OK Boomer" simply because, as you say, it catches an entire group in the crossfire and there's no way it can fairly apply to all of them.
The thing is, I do understand why it exists as a phrase and the frustration behind it. You say it shuts down the conversation - that's what it's designed to do.
Imagine you're trying to explain why climate change, or racism, or the far right, or enormous wealth inequality are a risk to our society and people across the planet. You've channeled all your effort into staying calm and respectful, you've gathered your facts, and you presented them clearly. The response is being screamed at for your disrespect, or a smirking dismissal as a snowflake, or sometimes even the threat of physical violence. Just take a look through #MAGA if you think I'm exaggerating about those responses.
Now remember that the phrase was first popularised on TikTok, a platform for younger users - most of whom live at home, and may have to deal with these people in real life, not just on social media.
Having a shorthand for "this person is so wrong that I can't even talk to them" suddenly becomes much more understandable.
I'll end with someone's explanation of the phrase that went viral in and of itself earlier in the year. Again, I really do not like the generalisation, but it does give some voice to where these people are coming from:
Oh I get exactly why it exists as a phrase. I do not forgive the people from my generation who use it to undercut the very people they need to persuade to their side. It is asinine pettiness, not unlike this political moment more generally.
It sucks to do a bunch of work to try to fashion a compelling argument only to find out the people you're trying to talk to don't care. But the appropriate reaction to that lack of concern isn't to say "okay, well fuck you then." You're still the minority. You, as the activist trying to address these issues, must be the bigger person to be effective. To engage in that behavior is to admit you will never be effective. It is defeatist and makes it that much harder for the next person who comes along.
Edit: The especially important thing when it comes to this behavior on social media is that the person you or I are talking to on, say, Twitter, is decidedly NOT the only person who can see the exchange. There's a general audience for everything. And by retreating to their wings rudely because they don't know how to engage causes that audience to form bad opinions about the people who were rude. It is important, if anyone is at all concerned about the "hearts and minds" nature of social media, that they avoid being rude just to get that cathartic feeling when someone shows up you can't reasonably deal with. People have memories, even if the audiences that engage our content has a bit of turnover. They remember the rudeness, even if they don't remember where they saw it.
They are not "undercutting". They are succinctly, and in a meme, stating "I do not have the spoons to explain this to you, once again."
They would be better off ghosting in most cases. Spoons or no spoons.
They are. That's what "Ok Boomer" says.
No. It isn't. "OK Boomer" is saying something. Ghosting is saying nothing.
Ok boomer is a way of saying,"Ok, I'm done". The fact that you don't understand this is an example of the endemic problem of boomers needing to have a last work.
And, I'm saying this as someone one the cusp of Gen Y and Millenial, or something, being born in the mid 70's.
I don't think you heard my point. And the fact you assume I'm a boomer is hilarious--and that's an actual fact as opposed to your interpretation of what's going on here.
But since you seem to need me to say it explicitly, I'm 31 dude. Maybe calm down with your own ageism and listen. Or if you have no spoons, you could try just walking away and doing something else. Having no spoons is not an excuse to be rude.
In your opinion, was "don't trust anyone over 30" simple ageism, or is there more to it?
I just finished rereading Cory Doctorow's (fictional) book Little Brother, and in that book they make a point of lowering that to "Don't trust anyone over 25", so that's why it's on my mind.
There are a couple things at play.
First, (generally) age is not the most important factor to look at when deciding whether to trust someone. A lot depends on what you want to trust the person for. Trust isn't just some always-true quality someone earns. It is given based on context, and for a purpose. If you trust someone to feed your cat while you're gone, that doesn't necessarily mean that you trust that same person to run a competent nuclear weapons program. And age should have very little to do with whether you should trust a person for either purpose.
So to that extent, yes, "don't trust anyone over 30" was ageism. Worse, it was ageism that got so firmly entrenched among boomer rhetoric that it has been repeated by boomers in just about every topic ever since.
But it was also ageism with a specific political purpose. In the cold war era, where people were obsessed about covert (communist) manipulation and bad faith intent, it was crucially important to prove that you were your own person. The phrase was shorthand to say "nobody is telling us (boomers) what to do but us." Because people always suspect something is amiss when they can't get what they expect, Boomers had to make the case they weren't being manipulated when they were fighting against things like participation in the Vietnam war, or segregation. Things that really demonstrably injured the United States' image abroad. The people in charge could see the wheel was squeaking, and wanted to blame it on communists (McCarthy, anyone?). Boomers felt that they had to prove they weren't communists while still criticizing the governments' policies.
So many Boomers have, since they entered adulthood, tried to see just about every struggle through terms of generational conflict. Part of that is because initially there was a lot of institutional stress from the fact that there were just so many more Boomers than the institutions were really designed to handle. They needed to build more schools because boomers were flooding their districts. They needed to catch up on housing because boomers were flooding the housing market.
But part of that is also an element of convenience and human nature. Boomers benefited from their ageism, in ways that our generation really can't as easily (unless Boomers for some reason start talking more about how Russians are manipulation young folk, becoming a hilarious parody of their elders). Taking the partial truth and expanding it into areas where it wasn't really true still felt right, and it benefited them, so they did. Why is there so much economic stress in the 2008-2009 period? Obviously, it must be generational! Millennials are new and weird. Just look at the name. It proves itself. New technology is scary, and it must be changing people. Young people just don't care as much as I do now, and as I have reconstructed my memory of my past to believe I did at their age. I, along with many of my age peers, rolled our eyes.
But how much of our attention gets focused on Gen X, the people who came of age in the reagan, first bush, and clinton eras? Why is it just the Boomers that gets our ire? In part, that's because they 'started' the generational rhetoric fight, and they continued it. But also in part, it's because there are so many of them compared to other generations.
The thing is, there is some generational conflict happening right now, but it's not nearly so broad and expansive as people want to believe. When you look at a local government and see it's leadership filled with 70+ year olds, that is not necessarily by itself the sign of an unhealthy institution. Retired folk have more time to participate in these institutions than younger folk. This is why I rolled my eyes a lot when media commentators would complain about the lack of youth engagement in politics. Journalists made little to no effort to compare their observations to other age cohorts, and so it seemed like a totally new thing, that young people don't vote in as high of rates as older people.
The concern that should really take your attention is how willing an institution is to hear criticism of itself and to adapt to its membership. Even Boomers are looking around and are rightfully scared because they're realizing that they (as a group) don't see other, younger folk entering the discussion for decades now. Religious institutions are a very prominent example of this, but local governments struggle with this too. Largely this has not been intentional. Largely, this was a demographics problem where one generation had just way too many people for the positions available. But also, these institutions just haven't been that important to me (and many our age).
This was a long way of answering your question, but I hope it makes sense. Boomers definitely had some fights where they opted to get ageist and where they opted to engage in generational divisive rhetoric. But what's important to say too is that while "Boomers" as an age group definitely did this, many individual Boomers did not. We're talking about a massive cohort of people as though they're a coherent political group. It's just not true, just as it's laughably false that Zoomers or Millennials are coherent with a single general political opinion on any given topic. Hate to talk shop like this, but a solid 34-38% of us voted for Trump in 2016, and it'll likely be about that amount again in 2020. That's more than one out of every three of us who sees the world differently. We cannot be said to be coherently democrat as an age cohort, and nor can boomers (who went 45% for hillary, even higher than the 34-38% for Trump) be said to be coherently republican.
Thank you for the long and detailed response! That gave me a lot to think about - I guess it does make sense that the generational resentment downwards originated from an upwards ageism. Boomers were young too, once.
An argument I've heard is "The older generation is manipulated by Facebook algorithms, dishonest news, and even Russian bots, and they don't have the tools to deal with that. Rather than expend energy trying to fix what can't be, we should focus on what we actually CAN do."
So maybe we have gone full circle! History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
And it's been like this since the beginning of politics, and will continue to be like this. Everyone seems to forget that old people were once younger, more idealistic, and less conservative. Millennials will also become older, less idealistic, and more conservative. There's nothing special about the current crop of 30 somethings. They're not more virtuous, less selfish, and more forward thinking than their parents were at their age, and if they grew up in a similar environment, they would turn out exactly the same as them. It's not as if the human genome mutated at some point in the past 35 years to make people better.
People don't inherently become conservative as they become older. Older people right now tend to be more conservative, yes, but that's not always the case. People's political beliefs tend to solidify in their twenties and remain fairly static from there. Boomers voted Republican in their youth too.
To add to this point, the definition of what was "conservative" and "liberal" shifts over time. It could very easily be the case that the political opinions of younger Boomers was "liberal" in the context of where, say, race politics was at the time, and has since become conservative even though the views themselves that boomers generally hold didn't change.
That's probably true with race politics because the view in the 60s and early 70s was anti-segregationist, but when it came to topics like restorative justice or affirmative action, Boomers were significantly more split (so split that it wasn't even mainstream conversation, since the prevailing fight was about segregation).
Once a cohort gets what they want, they tend to want to keep what they wanted. That makes them look conservative, no matter what that policy is.
Yes, but they didn't grow up 35 years ago, they grew up now, when there are different pressures and thus different ideological bends. Perhaps they will trend rightward as they age, but there's not much evidence to that effect.
As I've gotten older (I'm in my 40's now), I've gotten less conservative.
I've began to understand the deck is weighted against younger people. I've seen it with my own kids: They will leave college, and enter a more vicious workplace than when I did.
It's a major reason why I am launching a worker-owned cooperative, and working with others to do the same. And, working with "boomers" who are compatible to that ideology: They had it better than the workforce does today. It's time to pay it back.
True, but one also has to ask the question, "Which millennials will become older and more conservative?" While overall cultural changes have occurred that make different generations more accepting on average, there are still plenty of conservative 30-somethings in addition to the "hipster coffee shop liberal" stereotype, and those who have been born into wealth and privilege are more likely to survive and continue to hold their right-wing beliefs while poorer, further-left people who may have significant issues like unstable living situations or serious untreated health issues die off and skew the overall political makeup of the generation further to the right.
Except the things that matter do depend upon many factors, and age is one of the ones that correlates well with a wide variety of other socioeconomic factors. Yes, using a shorthand is going to lose some clarity, but there are actual disagreements between the young and the old.
I'm not dismissing the disagreements at all, and just responded above with what I thought was the historical fracture point where groups' experience and subsequent beliefs diverged.
The thing is, it's not intrinsically due to age. Assuming everyone of a given age manifests the stereotyped pattern, and is thus blameworthy, is as mistaken as any other identity stereotype.
Ben Shapiro is practically a millennial himself, at least as far as your (likely) Boomer grandparents are concerned. He's just profiteering by traveling the well-trodden path of noxious right-wing pseudointellectual moralizing punditry that prior conservatives like William F. Buckley pioneered.
I guess the door I came in on is that whether or not intergenerational complaints are just, we're being systematically focused on the wrong targets. It's not the first or only context in which this has happened.
So Boomers are clinging to their miniscule stake in maintaining the existing power structures, and blaming Millennials for having no stake at all?
That sounds like a near-bourgeoisie which needs education on basic class politics to me, since their pensions are being undermined in exactly the way that education and housing and other supports have been for subsequent generations.
This whole thing is very reminiscent of the way American labor power was being broken in the 1980's. Recession contracts enshrined benefits for existing workers, but new employees had lower wage scales and few benefits, if any. There was little reason for low-seniority workers to keep paying dues, participate in unionizing, or otherwise shore up a system that wasn't protecting them. Finally, older workers discovered that their carefully hoarded pension rights could just vanish if the company decided to declare bankruptcy and start over.
I know this all sounds pretty abstract and not of much use for dealing with the old folks watching Fox News (or other Murdoch, Sinclair, etc. media properties pushing crap). But remember which side we're all on.
Edit: spelling
I honestly love that you brought this up, but I don't entirely agree with you. The first step to social change is to talk to the people around you and try to get them to agree with you. That's clearly what is happening right now. And often times these conversations can grow painful and they turn into arguments, which turn into fights. Therefore, "OK Boomer".
Now naturally fights will not change anyone's minds, but I'm seeing these as a marker that there's a lever pushing social change right now, and I think that's a great thing. What I think is a bad thing is how the media is amplifying these fights and making it appear that we should be nice to whichever side, especially when one side has more power than the other. That's just arguing for the status quo. These conversations need to happen.
The article was sloppy and smarmy, but I don't think it's bad form in general to include ageism with other forms of discrimination on the basis of intrinsic characteristics.
First, ageism works in both directions. It's assumed that what younger people say or think is tainted by inexperience. Any of us may have experienced undue debt burdens, restricted employment opportunities, or compulsory service in youth, because we weren't in a position to argue our best interests in a plutocratic gerontocracy***. Younger people also experience oppression on the basis of age because of the cultural expectation that they'll pay it forward by caring for their elders regardless of their own interests (even more so for girls).
As to oppression and discrimination against older people, they may be denied employment, housing, medical care, and equal legal protection. They may be subjected to the assumption of diminished mental capacity, without proof. It's arguable that like other groups which experience discrimination, elders are subject to harm from internalized oppression.
Some here have already asserted that elders, as a group, have hated characteristics, like money and power hoarding, spitefulness, tribalism, or irremediable prejudices. That's not different from other forms of hatred based on stereotype, like anti-Islamism or anti-immigrant sentiment. It's the reason why I'm so deeply suspicious of the promotion of intergenerational hostility.
While the laws of compound interest work in their favor if they have savings, or capitalist rent if they have property, more than half the elder population in the U.S. has no personal savings or unencumbered assets by retirement. That doesn't sound like a privileged class to me.
There have certainly been times and places where elders were ostracised, forced to labor without wages, reduced to beggary, denied food, left to die of exposure, or otherwise neglected and abused. I'll point to modern nursing home scandals. [We can have an argument about the ethics of maintaining people who've lost cognition elsewhere, but many people consigned to nursing care are physically, not mentally, disabled.]
Aging is intersectional with other forms of disadvantage - in the U.S., the highest poverty rate, 21.5%, is found among Black women over age 65. The next highest is among those over age 75, as a group.
Older people may be so fearful of the social and economic consequences of their status that they attempt suicide at rates exceeding those of the youth population. The highest suicide rate is among those approaching elderhood (45 - 64), followed by those over 80.
At the point of increasing frailty, elders are faced with all the forms of discrimination disabled people encounter. In the U.S., at least, medical costs can strip their savings; they're far more likely to experience sudden poverty from which they can't recover.
[Disclosure: I'm not elderly or in the Boomer cohort, but I'm old enough to have experienced age discrimination in the IT employment marketplace, and have recently developed aggressive arthritis requiring joint replacements. I've been spending more time around elderly people (who aren't relatives) in physical therapy, and learned some sympathy.]
***Most governments tend toward gerontocracy; political power compounds with accumulated personal connections and favors traded. This does not mean that the aged in the general population are necessarily favored if they don't have money or other political assets.
Edits: updating some statistics based on sources for global, rather than just U.S., data. I haven't linked everything as usual because sources are very easy to find on this topic.
I'm of two minds on this topic. Punching up, and mocking those with more privileged is, imo, just fine. As a boomer usefully pointed out in the article - they have all the money.
Intergenerational inequality is a huge issue, and it is getting worse. Any discussion about 'OK, Boomer' should acknowledge this. The anger of the youth is justified, even if it comes out in imperfect ways.
This isn't just about throwing insults at old people either - political opinion is also sharply divided along age lines (see UK voting intention by age.) 'Ok Boomer' is an expression of political anger as well.
Also, I disagree with this:
The old have always 'categorised' young people. Bitching about young people is a tradition as old as time. There has been a steady stream of hit pieces about millennials for years. I'm sure the general sentiment was always there amongst young people as well, but without the internet and social media, they just didn't have the power over public discourse to generate any fully formed stereotypes until now.
On the other hand, I saw an interesting take on this issue a while ago (sorry no idea what the source was now), raising the point that in many disadvantaged/minority communities, the boomer generation is the most disadvantaged group, and by assuming all boomers are rich, we are actually accidentally exposing our own privilege.
It seems like it would be a mistake to take this Twitter trend seriously? It's unclear that the alleged popularity of a catchy insult means anything at all.
The word 'boomer' was chosen as "word of the year" in a limited poll in the Netherlands, so I think it's safe to say the meme has has crossed into other countries.
Isn't 50PLUS a party that is inherently discriminating? It's interesting that "OK boomer" exists as a response to older people who supposedly have it all, but this party argues older people are actually the victims.
The only generation at anyone's throat was the Millennial.
None of the other's give a shit.
Missed all the "Millennials are ruining X" articles?
Haven't seen or heard of any.
I may have to look.