1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Cry Baby Boomers

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Bugfatty300, Aug 4, 2020.

  1. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    18,759
    That's shifted. Now it's part of the medical industry that drugged kids for profit and the teachers were too lazy to educate (mostly) boys. That's reaping zeitgeist rewards in body count, these days, mostly because it probably wasn't wrong.

    As for that quote, that's rehashed and rehashed:

    'The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are tyrants, not servants of the households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers.' -Kenneth John Freeman 1907(a student at Cambridge?) It's so generic(ha!).

    Oh my, old people are cranky. Kids are dickheads. News at eleven.
     
    tjs282 and Hrothbern like this.
  2. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,872
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    Of course it's a fake diagnosis but it wasn't to coddle us, it was to pacify us to make us "easier to manage" and bring in drug money.

    Having been hit & drugged by family & authority figures both were bad but being hit @ least had more emotional honesty to it.
     
  3. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    39,353
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    I had a great laugh reading what you quoted from your hometown paper. It is total BS in regards to the boomers.
     
  4. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    25,111
    The draft was neither race nor wealth blind in the US in the time frame of note. That was a huge part of why it was ended altogether after the war ended. On paper there is still a selection board theoretically capable of restarting the draft (though multiple investigations by the government itself has shown it would not be able to) and even that was reformed to stop rich kids from avoiding it - the college exemption of the Vietnam years is no longer valid, for example.

    I thoroughly agree with @Gorbles take that all the pontificating about particular boomers not having it easy misses the whole point of the generalization of OP.
     
    Gorbles likes this.
  5. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    18,759
    Then the point surely must be that the generalization itself is wrong, like most stupid generalizations are? And have been? And will keep so being? While appealing to, well, you know who when they have thier fancy pants on. Right?
     
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  6. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,432
    Location:
    UK
    I've covered this before, but we all use generalisations. It's unfair to object to specific generalisations if you're going to let the rest slide. It's a semantic device; generalisations have their uses. Doesn't mean they can't be overused, but the burden is to demonstrate that, and not simply that because it's a generalisation it's automatically dismissable.
     
  7. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    39,353
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    But when the generalizations are most wrong, it is best to correct them.
     
    Narz likes this.
  8. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,405
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The right started calling people "snowflakes" as an insult when they realized that snowflakes stopped the Nazi army from taking Moscow in 1941
     
    Ajidica likes this.
  9. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    25,111
    @Farm Boy and @Birdjaguar
    I don't think most generalizations are wrong or useless though, and I don't think countering them with anecdotes is that useful or instructive either. I will be the first to admit though that I am all about the personal anecdotes so I'm hypocritical at that.

    But responding to the OP with, 'well I didn't have it good', or even, 'well black people still got lynched'* doesn't really dispel anything in the OP. For the former, well one person does not make a generation and for the latter, it's not exactly a closely-held secret that discussion of the boomers as a cohort is typically centered on cis-gendered white members of that generation, particularly when in the context of a discussion of wealth and power.

    It's also sort of amusing at any rate as one of the primary complaints of Boomers is how selfish/self-centered everyone thinks they are - replying to the OP with "Well I did not have an easy life!", really drives that home. I also think that the attempts to shift the discussion to the personal helps avoid any personal responsibility as well.

    I think it's very easy to show that my personal consumption of meat doesn't meaningfully add to global warming on the whole, so let's focus on that rather than the fact that nearly everyone in my society over-consumes meat and is therefore very much at fault for that contribution to global warming. Similarly, someone can say that even though they voted straight-ticket GOP since Reagan in 1980, they didn't vote for Trump and therefore they have no responsibility for the rise of the modern Republican pro-fascist movement. Sadly, it doesn't work that way for either example. I am at fault for harming the environment, just as the Boomer GOP voter is responsible for Trump, even if our individual contributions are minuscule.

    And that's really what I think the OP was getting at - that there have been some massive mismanagement of national wealth and the global commons and that much of that can be traced unfortunately to a single generation that happened to have been in the driving seat as things unfolded. I also recognize that indeed not all - maybe not even most - Boomers have benefited from the way things have unfolded. There are plenty of poor Boomers who are just as hurt by the loss of prevailing wages and pensions as up-and-coming Zoomers for sure. However, we live in a democratic society and until Trump finishes dismantling it, the Boomers are ultimately responsible for again and again voting for politicians and policies that have been the cause of this great mismanagement.

    And while we're on blaming generations, I do personally blame Millennials for terrible turnout which allowed the tea party to take Congress and allowed Trump to squeak by. Even then, it's hard to even say that is entirely their failing given how much browner this generation is and how exquisitely targeted voter suppression efforts against black and brown voters have been; moreover how much harder it is to take PTO to go vote when the most common jobs available to us are low-paying gig and service work without benefits.

    *@Valka D'Ur and @rah, respectively
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2020
    Gorbles likes this.
  10. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,432
    Location:
    UK
    Except that's very hard to do with personal experience / anecdotes. A lot of people targeted (however tangentially) by generalisations are going to want them to be wrong (regardless of how accurate they are - good or bad). It's a reactive response, right? Like how I'm predisposed to rolling my eyes about generalisations about millenials, socialism, and uh (searching for a non-loaded example) . . . JavaScript (eh, that one's contentious, haha). A particular generalisation might have merit (or at least, stem from a useful observation originally), and I'd still be predisposed to objecting.

    Don't get me wrong - you know how much I like to discuss things (near-endlessly). I'm a fan of going around trading anecdotes, but that denotes trade. Not rejection of the entire generalisation.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  11. Manfred Belheim

    Manfred Belheim Moaner Lisa

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,094
    Is that not the opposite of what the OP said? Perhaps it was being sarcastic, but since I have no idea how your draft works or worked then I'm not likely to pick on up on that.
     
  12. Valka D'Ur

    Valka D'Ur Hosting Iron Pen in A&E Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    24,006
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
    Where did I say I didn't have it good? I actually made a point of saying that aside from the patriarchal attitude of my grandfather, my growing-up years weren't that bad. Yes, I mentioned the kerchief/dress thing, the notion that women were "supposed" to do and believe this/that/the other and conform to certain behaviors... but I ditched the kerchief/dress sometime around 1970, and didn't become legally adult until 1981.

    Arguments with my grandparents were ongoing, and my grandmother kept it up after my grandfather died... whereupon I told her, "Grandad's dead, and you don't have to do this anymore." So the house became a bit more peaceful (and in case anyone's wondering, my dad was never part of this patriarchal thing; he always trusted me to know my own mind and if I ever asked his input, his first sentence was always to ask what I thought).

    Keep in mind that some of what I've related is specific to my family, and was sufficiently weird to other people at that time who knew about it, that I have to believe that most people didn't think like that even in the '70s. I remember my friend in Calgary being floored that I had to ask permission to go to my first SF convention (1982), or on that trip we took to Spokane in 1987. But in turn, both of us were floored that one of our married friends said she had to ask her husband's permission to go to one of the SF conventions coming up.

    I've just had the sort of family life that's contributed to being permanently out of step with my age-peers in a lot of ways. I grew up having more in common with my grandparents' generation than my own or even my parents'. It wasn't until I got into the SF fandom community that I felt accepted because we were such a mixed conglomeration of people of all ages and backgrounds, with a number of common interests not shared by many of the other people in our lives.
     
    amadeus likes this.
  13. EnglishEdward

    EnglishEdward Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,596
    Location:
    England
    Somewhere or other, there ought to be a genuine thread here, where we can discuss the
    comparative circumstances, advantages and disadvantages, of particular generational groupings.

    There are also some subtle nuances regarding USA boomers and boomers in other countries.

    But the thread title 'Cry Baby Boomers' with starting general assumption that the boomers have
    had it easy, has tended to pre-empt informed discussions, so I am disinclined to expand on that.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2020
    Narz likes this.
  14. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    18,759
    Nah, I'm not thinking that the experiences shared are single stories in the face of a big overlying truth. I'm calling horse**** on the entire premise. It's a cyclical whine, the quote I posted from 1907 was the same bs and if we keep going farther back it's more bs. This isn't new, or novel, or clever, or accurate at any point in its foundation.

    I mean, do we actually want to try grazing some numbers? Pew research maybe, not flawless, but here:

    https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/ess...lthood-today-compares-with-prior-generations/

    It's a mixed bag on some stuff. Inequality has definitely gone up, some, depending on who you are(but usually not if you're a woman, the literal majority). Income has not increased for every single type of person, but the world we live in certainly has changed.

    Super late edit: Ah, ok. I missed that you wanted to truncate down an entire lived time to white, heterosexual, men in America. I mean, that's ok. It's sort of like what certain "cohorts" do when they want to talk about black American (men) and my baseline assumption of that conversational tool is generally very low. But alright. If I want to pick out a demographic that has gotten semi-crapped on in America in the millenial and Z generation compared to Boomers and before, yes, low income dudes have sort of caught it in some ways. Most of them are hetero and women don't tend to marry them due to lingering prejudice about incomes and "usefulness*." Their relative incomes have dropped in the face of rising educational inequality. The depictions of them in family life in media have gone from Leave it to Beaver, The Andy Griffith Show(a single dad!), to Home Improvement, to Married with Children, and they've degraded from there. Almost 60% of depictions of fatherhood in sitcoms today are negative. We drugged physically active boys instead of educating them in ways that work for physically active boys(that's not limited to the this specific demographic, but it's a big damn input on them). Ok, so that's a start: get any good anti-boomer ammunition from those or should we keep going?

    *While stable marriage rates have increased in the upper echelons along with all things of increase inequality. It's a big damn generational advantage, on average.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2020
  15. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,432
    Location:
    UK
    Of course low-income people have had it hard. But if you want to narrow down the discussion yourself to inherited wealth, wealth by class stratification, and so on, you get into a very different topic entirely.

    If it's a cyclic whine, so is every whine at the expense of a particular generational demographic. Maybe folks are fed up with all the snark pointed at millenials (which, as I mentioned before, is apparently a moving target that commonly forget's we've had more generations since then) and want to pay it back in kind? That said, there wasn't a huge amount of snark in the OP. On a part of the Off Topic average, I feel.

    You're objecting because you disagree. That's cool. But that's not empirical evidence that the entire argument is invalid. To quote a well-known movie, that's just like, your opinion, man. The same goes for your massive assumption on why women don't marry a particular kind of guy. But what, your assumptions are cool? Do you have any numbers for that particular claim?

    But hey, I found the piece you linked interesting. Considering all the popular snark about millenials (and other, younger generations), this caught my eye:
    And this is without me derailing the thread with regards to the worth of a degree (particularly as we go back generationally - there was a far larger market for non-degree careers - I guess at least in the UK - the further back you go. Because a lot of universities simply haven't existed for that long. The government mandated a ton of them back in the 70s).
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  16. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    18,759
    Look, I'm not finding it, but my attention span on doing the research for somebody I'm 90% certain is trolling is also low. At a certain point you learn it doesn't matter how many times you look the stuff up for Formaldehyde, he isn't going to grow.

    Women with college educations are significantly less likely to marry down to a low earning lower educated man than vice versa, and it impacts the rates. I didn't dream that up, Mr. Lebowski. The rug really does tie the bridge together. Here are some tangentials, the world is complicated.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jomf.12603

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-inheritance-of-black-poverty-its-all-about-the-men/

    But yes, there's lots of snark about millenials, like everyone, and a lot of it is coming from millenials. Just like the guy in 1907 was snarking about his own generation.

    Also, how in the fudge is it derailing the thread to talk about education in a thread about privilege and advantages? Horse****. :lol: Even the quote you pulled out is comparing Millenials to Xers, omg are you derailing it because you aren't talking about boomers? W/e "man."

    Edit: fine, I'm sure it's wasted time, but this is more on point. https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefer-higher-earning-husbands/
     
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  17. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,432
    Location:
    UK
    There are a few things here. Firstly, the presumption that a lack of marriage is based on socioeconomic status. There are many reasons why people could be marrying less that aren't related to income. The Wiley reference at least clarifies expectations by stating this upfront (that "one explanation for the declines in marriage is" , etc). You've used this as justification for your generalisation (heh, funny that) with regards to women marrying men in general.

    Notably, there's nothing here about prejudice here. It's simply that women prefer partners with higher incomes. There is literally nothing about "usefulness". This is you using people not marrying as some kind of evidence of hardship for poor men. Dude. There are far easier things to point out if that's your angle. You don't need to go all-in about marriage.

    For your second link, I'll just link the salient paragraph. Funnily enough, it has very little to do with marriage:
    That's a problem with intergenerational wealth. If you're complaining than they are then less attractive as husbands, marriage isn't the problem. The problem is being born into a low-income situation. What you're describing is a symptom of the core issue.

    Assuming that a lot of snark about millenials comes from millenials is a generalisation I'd love to see evidence of. Because there's plenty of evidence that contradicts you, about other generations writing thinkpieces related avocado toast, and what the millenial generation have "killed" :)

    The "worth of a degree" could take up an entire thread by itself. I'm prone to causing derails, and I didn't want to start one. Don't get all offended because you think I'm accusing you of a derail, geez. How ironic.

    Wasted time is very subjective. If you don't want to discuss this, that's on you. I'm not going to magically agree with you, but that doesn't mean this is a waste of time.

    The second study overlaps with your first reference (the Wiley link) in that they both (partly) use the same data - the American Community Survey (2008–2012 five-year sample). Extrapolating out a similar conclusion therefore is at least relatively expected, but it's actually a more interesting piece because it goes into more detail in the interview provided. Here's a good extract:
    So it's not purely income. The correlation presented is predicated on the wife having a higher standard of education than the husband. Which works against your generalisation of claiming that poor men universally suffer hardship because women in general don't want to marry them. Also, to repeat my point, this is a really dumb thing to make a whole post about. You zero'd in on one sentence out of my entire post and made a huge fuss out of that, when I agreed from the start of my previous post that poorer demographics suffer more in society.

    Which you only brought up because you didn't have a decent counterargument to criticism of white American boomers. You didn't give a breakdown of how many of them are below the poverty line, how this stacks up against other American generations, and so on. You just went "ah, you're talking about white Americans, in which case let's talk about how poor men are hard done by". In general terms, this is a fine example of moving the goalposts. We were talking about boomers. Not poor people in the US. Not poor men in the US. There will be poor people and therefore poor men in every generation present in the United States. Pointing to their existence amongst the boomer generation isn't much of an argument.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  18. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    39,353
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    @Gorbles sorry, I couldn't resist noticing this. :p
     
  19. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,432
    Location:
    UK
    Intentional! This merry-go-round exists because people were picking at generalisations. That's the trend set, so I'm following it, sorry :p
     
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  20. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    18,759
    Ah, that's a lot of lines picking at my choice of word in "useful." Alright, strike it. It's a holistic while thread about privilege and boomers. Of course not all of it is money. It's just that money is quantifiable, marriage is quantifiable, and when people talk about non quantifiables and lived experiences it's been all "that's your opinion and anecdotes." The difference in education is linked to the growing income and social inequality based on education which has increased from boomers to millenials(as in non college education hetro white American men possibly have less priviledge than they used to, a sop to the premise of the thread). That's the thread tie in, the differences in generations, not the thing itself. It's a stretch, to say the least, but I'm trying to give a really dumb generalization what merit I can.
     

Share This Page