Cry Baby Boomers

[Gorbles]

@warpus

We're talking in the context of OT, not any other scenario. Most regular posters know each other, in the online persona sense, pretty well. We all have a pretty established understanding of general stances held, etc. I'd understand your point if someone was trying this with a complete stranger. But as "online" as we might all be here, at least from posts made, we're not strangers to each other.

This is kinda rehashing what I'm going to say to BD, below, but generalisations are normally okay here. At the very least, you don't see the kind of pushback this thread specifically has seen to the generalisations in the OP. I really think people should stop and wonder why that is (the answer is obvious, I think I said it earlier in the thread. Because people feel targeted by it).

Generational generalizations are mostly a convenience of lazy thinking that attribute what people don't like about some folks to a much larger group and marking that group as an enemy.

This applies to most demographic-based generalisations, or heck, generalisations in general. It's valid criticism.

However, it's a bit weird to see it invoked specifically because folks started calling out boomers, and generally not in any other context (of a generalisation being made), ever. It serves also as a shield against valid criticism that the generalisation may (intentionally or unintentionally) convey. There's got to be a balance. Feel free to caution against the problems of generalisations, but it doesn't just end there. It's not "generalisation, ergo wrong".

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Do people in western countries honestly think they are worse off now than in the past? The idea that past generations had untold wealth and easy time while current generations are doomed to long work and poverty don't seems to hold much ground. In fact past generations seems to have had to work more hours and get less in return. This don't mean everyone today have it good, but more had it bad in the past like world war 2. Also don't ignore many of the political freedoms that have been acquired.

Also I dislike generations because it is about generalization.

American middle class seems to be better off today: https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsro...ries/ec-202003-is-middle-class-worse-off.aspx

The amount of work hours have gone down, more so in western europe than USA: https://personal.lse.ac.uk/minns/Huberman_Minns_EEH_2007.pdf

Life expectency have gone up: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

Real wage growth in Sweden (in Swedish but the chart is quite telling, the stagnation seems to be around the time when the switch to service economy happened) https://www.ekonomifakta.se/Fakta/Arbetsmarknad/Loner/Loneutveckling-och-inflation/

21th century poor are not necessarily the same thing as mid 20th century poor: https://slate.com/news-and-politics...-better-off-today-than-they-were-in-1959.html

Even household under the mean household income seems to have seen big improvements between 60s and today: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote 50 Years of Growth in American Wages Income and Consumption May 2017.pdf

Also the post ww2 economy growth in west germany may look strong but it is likely due to it being recovery growth and west germany may only reached back to the economy it would have without ww2 in the 60s-70s if ever https://www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-Hist...WorkingPapers/Economic-History/2008/WP113.pdf

Mid 30s car factory, as can be seen the production technology was advanced at that time

 

[warpus]

@warpus

We're talking in the context of OT, not any other scenario. Most regular posters know each other, in the online persona sense, pretty well. We all have a pretty established understanding of general stances held, etc. I'd understand your point if someone was trying this with a complete stranger. But as "online" as we might all be here, at least from posts made, we're not strangers to each other.

This is kinda rehashing what I'm going to say to BD, below, but generalisations are normally okay here.

They just don't make sense. Are all people over 50 the same? If you group them all as "boomers" or whatever, then you're just pushing away all those "boomers" who were on your side initially.

Instead of generalizing, why not focus on the issues? If your argument is solid enough, you don't need to resort to generalizatoins.

 

[Gorbles]

Do people in western countries honestly think they are worse off now than in the past? The idea that past generations had untold wealth and easy time while current generations are doomed to long work and poverty don't seems to hold much ground.

The OP specifies one generation. Not an arbitrary amount of "past" generations. Bit of a generalisation, there

They just don't make sense. Are all people over 50 the same? If you group them all as "boomers" or whatever, then you're just pushing away all those "boomers" who were on your side initially.

Instead of generalizing, why not focus on the issues? If your argument is solid enough, you don't need to resort to generalizatoins.

Like I said, I'd be into this a lot more if it was consistently and universally-applied. But it's not. Not even close to, here in OT alone. So I object to the idealism, because honestly it's a bit of a double-standard.

(it also doesn't engage with the point that something can be a generalisation but also contain an issue with discussing. It's not generalise or discuss the issue. It can be both)

I see them, I don't always bite at them. That's my standard. When it comes to most things online, I try to give the same leeway I'm being afforded. Sometimes I do bite *, but it's normally to make a singular point. Not to basically say "don't make threads like these", which has been the running response in this thread. What's the difference? What's unique about this thread? That's what I want to know.

* and sometimes I sink to whatever level is on display. It happens, haha

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is kinda rehashing what I'm going to say to BD, below, but generalisations are normally okay here. At the very least, you don't see the kind of pushback this thread specifically has seen to the generalisations in the OP. I really think people should stop and wonder why that is (the answer is obvious, I think I said it earlier in the thread. Because people feel targeted by it).

This applies to most demographic-based generalisations, or heck, generalisations in general. It's valid criticism.

However, it's a bit weird to see it invoked specifically because folks started calling out boomers, and generally not in any other context (of a generalisation being made), ever. It serves also as a shield against valid criticism that the generalisation may (intentionally or unintentionally) convey. There's got to be a balance. Feel free to caution against the problems of generalisations, but it doesn't just end there. It's not "generalisation, ergo wrong".

Read what Warpus wrote above. I don't have a problem with folks criticizing boomers, just spell out what your beef is and know what you are talking about.

So to quickly recap the world white American boomers were born into:

Before being born their great-grandfathers and grandfathers had stood up to strike busters, private mercenaries, and national guard machine guns. For this boomers would enjoy labor unions, minimum wage, bathroom breaks, 40-hour work weeks.

At work boomers also enjoyed the protection profit-stifling safety regulations because their great-grandmothers had suffocated and burned in horrific factory fires and faced slow death and disfigurement by radioactive material, phosphorous, mercury and a host of other industrial and chemicals hazards.

Their fathers and mothers labored and fought to win the largest and mostly costly war in history making the USA a global hegemony in process. For this the boomers would grow up in a staggeringly wealthy, comparatively peaceful, nuclear armed nation of unprecedented power and influence.

Their victorious fathers and grandfathers also dismantled Europe's colonial empires, exploiting nationalist movements to install governments favorable to American economic exploitation and Banana Republicanism. Boomers thus came of age in a US Dollar-dominated globalized market making their generation the greatest hoarders of wealth humanity has ever seen.

And perhaps most relevant to today; white boomers grew up in a deeply-ingrained racist society that favored their advancement at the cost of others.

And to be fair they were unfairly thrown into defending their new empire in Vietnam but they largely even skirted out of that with a racially and wealth blind military draft (with special exemptions) and "McNamara's Morons" policy. So other than a gas crunch and being told to get hair cuts what did exactly did white straight boomers face that newer "spoiled" generations can't relate to?

And why is their such a strong bipartisan narrative among white American boomers that they are the independent stoic self-made entrepreneur generation when in reality they --collectively speaking-- had the world delivered to them on a platter?

So,according to @Bugfatty300 white boomers were born into a world that:

• Previous generations had improved working conditions
• Had parents that were wealthier than previous generations
• The US dominated world markets
• In the 1960s and 70s, America was still racist
• The richest boomers accumulated great wealth
  
• Boomers did not have to actually struggle to live well

Of those 6 items, the boomers had nothing to do with the first four. Boomers (not all) continued to break down racism (sexism, anti gay, and social inequality) in the US for the next 50 years. Yes the rich did get richer. That is nothing new and the two previous generations put all the tools in place for that to happen at an accelerated rate. Yes, boomers did not have WW2 or Great Depression, or Great Recession. So what? Are you saying that to not be afflicted by calamity is somehow cheating life? You seem to forget that all the generations since WW2 made your luxurious world possible. Is it a perfect world? Not at all, but it a better world.

Most of you have no idea if and how any boomers struggled with life once they left home and joined the workaday world.

 

[Gorbles]

Read what Warpus wrote above. I don't have a problem with folks criticizing boomers, just spell out what your beef is and know what you are talking about.

Read my reply to warpus, then. You're just repeating generic criticism of any generalisation. What makes this one so unique, is my question.

So,according to @Bugfatty300 white boomers were born into a world that:

• Previous generations had improved working conditions
• Had parents that were wealthier than previous generations
• The US dominated world markets
• In the 1960s and 70s, America was still racist
• The richest boomers accumulated great wealth
  
• Boomers did not have to actually struggle to live well

Of those 6 items, the boomers had nothing to do with the first four. Boomers (not all) continued to break down racism (sexism, anti gay, and social inequality) in the US for the next 50 years. Yes the rich did get richer. That is nothing new and the two previous generations put all the tools in place for that to happen at an accelerated rate. Yes, boomers did not have WW2 or Great Depression, or Great Recession. So what? Are you saying that to not be afflicted by calamity is somehow cheating life? You seem to forget that all the generations since WW2 made your luxurious world possible. Is it a perfect world? Not at all, but it a better world.

Most of you have no idea if and how any boomers struggled with life once they left home and joined the workaday world.

The OP doesn't say boomers had anything to do with the conditions they were born into. That is, in fact, a large part of the point. The point is what they did from there. The point towards the end of the OP is on boomers now, and the generalisations that can be made of them now. If we're going to segregate by demographic, boomers have - for better or worse - a reputation for enforcing the status quo. Maybe it's more than just boomers. That doesn't mean that it isn't criticism of boomers!

When you say the next 50 years, that's a stretch. Boomers are generally stated, according to Wikipedia (so feel free to find a better source - it cites the Pew Research Centre for this), born between '46 and '64. Boomers born towards the end of the generation a) wouldn't be able to campaign effectively for a good while after being born, and b) are typical of the stereotypes online you find of boomers now (in their 60s or older). How many white boomers support trans rights? Not a majority of them! You're generalising in favour of boomers - why? Why is this okay, but criticism founded on negative generalisations not?

Do I know Xers that are equally resistant to change? Of course I do. But that doesn't mean that boomers are somehow immune to criticism just because other generations are arguably as flawed in similar respects. That's what you're missing here. Which is again why I ask the reason to this particularly vehement pushback to this particular generalisation.

The problem with statistics is that there's often a lot that can be interpreted various ways. Not all are as rigourous as either of us would like. I dislike relying on Wikipedia, but I find it a good entry into citations, because search engines are horribly-polluted by mainstream articles and obviously-leaning outlets these days. Here's the opening line for boomers' economic power:

Steve Gillon has suggested that one thing that sets the baby boomers apart from other generational groups is the fact that "almost from the time they were conceived, boomers were dissected, analyzed, and pitched to by modern marketers, who reinforced a sense of generational distinctiveness."

And this is the book. "Boomer Nation: The Largest and Richest Generation Ever, and How It Changed America".

As a final thing, nowhere did the OP claim that boomers were cheating, or anything like that. This is why I keep hammering home "what makes this generalisation so bad" - you seem unnecessarily riled by it. I don't see anywhere near this level of pushback against the concept of generalisations elsewhere. You indulge in them elsewhere! I wouldn't mind if people had engaged with the OP sooner, but a lot of this thread has been "this is a bad thread, why make it". The pushback is exaggerated compared to pretty much any other kind that OTers like to make. That's what interests me (maybe it doesn't other people, or even the OP. I'm only speaking for me, here).

 

[warpus]

I see them, I don't always bite at them. That's my standard. When it comes to most things online, I try to give the same leeway I'm being afforded. Sometimes I do bite *, but it's normally to make a singular point. Not to basically say "don't make threads like these", which has been the running response in this thread. What's the difference? What's unique about this thread? That's what I want to know.

All I ever said here is that generalizing like that makes zero sense, doesn't help in what the person is trying to achieve, and it's bigotry on top of it all. So.. I'm not anybody who's going to come up with rules for the forum, that's not my job. I'm not going to police anything. But I will speak out against bigotry when I see it. #notallboomers

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Gorbles I am not riled in the least. This happens to be a topic I know something about. As I have said elsewhere, a lot of boomers are racist pigs, but not all nor even a majority. That book looks interesting. Where have I been generalizing about boomers? Now I will: boomers are a very large and diverse generation that came of age in turbulent times and had an out sized influence on everything around them.

I'm still waiting to hear why all the boomers are bad.

 

[Gorbles]

@warpus

And I disagree. You don't think it's useful; I do. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with your pushing back either.

@Gorbles I am not riled in the least. This happens to be a topic I know something about. As I have said elsewhere, a lot of boomers are racist pigs, but not all nor even a majority. That book looks interesting. Where have I been generalizing about boomers? Now I will: boomers are a very large and diverse generation that came of age in turbulent times and had an out sized influence on everything around them.

I'm still waiting to hear why all the boomers are bad.

Who said you generalised about boomers? You generalise, period. Pretty much everybody does. That's why I'm trying to get to the bottom of the whole "why make this thread" attitude, which very rarely gets asked in OT nomatter how dire the topic. It's meta, sure. Like I said, I'm interested. The reaction to this thread has been relatively unique. That's interesting!

Who said all boomers were bad?

I assumed you were riled in some way because you keep on misinterpreting what's being said. How many times do I chalk that up to accident? Or are you just not understanding the points made?

 

[Zardnaar]

Here the boomers had free healthcare, tertiary education, government subs for kids and farming, cheap housing and high wages relative to living costs.

They had less variety of consumer goods relative to the times they lived in.

If you were born after 1975 or so you had student loans (introduced 1993) but you still had comparatively cheap housing.

Subs for having kids went in the 80s though.

Employment law was overhauled 1991, if you had an older contract they still had to honor it. Some if the older contracts lasted to late 90s so older generation X got most of the advantages of the boomers.

Sisters first house (1993) was 3 years wages, get household had a double income.

Ours was 5 years average income in 2010.

Now it's around 12-14 years average income, almost 20 in Auckland.

Problem is 70% don't get the average income. Our mortage was paid off in January, Covid hit in March. House went up in value buy 120-150% great right?

Problem is if we sell it we just have to go buy another over priced house although we could get a nice upgrade for 70-100k USD mortage.

I'm willing to bet a lot here also live in an house ours needs some work now. House is worth sod all the land under it ka ching.

Only thing we did differently really was be born 10 years earlier. Essentially we got a free house the capital gains paid for the mortgage.

Renting a single room now can be the same as our mortage was in December for a 3 bedroom house.

If you bought a heap of crappers in the 80s and 90s for 10-40k USD each you're a millionaire now. Each one would be worth around $210k minimum, double that in the right area.

Obviously not all boomers did well, the ones that did had it easier than Xers who had it easier than millennials and Zoomers.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Who said you generalised about boomers? You generalise, period. Pretty much everybody does. That's why I'm trying to get to the bottom of the whole "why make this thread" attitude, which very rarely gets asked in OT nomatter how dire the topic. It's meta, sure. Like I said, I'm interested. The reaction to this thread has been relatively unique. That's interesting!

Who said all boomers were bad?

I assumed you were riled in some way because you keep on misinterpreting what's being said. How many times do I chalk that up to accident? Or are you just not understanding the points made?

some generalizations are useful and on target, like the one I make just above. Sometimes generalizations are wrong, bad or based on wrong or incomplete information. When folks are interested in a topic we see more posts and more passionate posting. We also tend to see better posting and more thoughtful posts. As far as boomers being "bad" we have had quite a bit of here; maybe not in this thread, but certainly in others. Certainly the OP was not in praise of boomers. I've misunderstood what has been said? Interesting. I do try to pay attention to the words in a post before responding, but communication is always to two way street. What we each think is obvious may not actually be.

A word about generalizations: They are common and are passed along from mouth to mouth quickly and easily and often just accepted as fact or face value. But the truest generalizations are different. They are built by experts that have a deep knowledge of the details of what they are talking about.That knowledge can come from hands on experience or from dedicated, multi dimensional study of a topic or both. In fact (a generalization is coming) most people who are recognized as experts earn that title because they have two traits: they have command of the details and are capable of building a not so detailed framework necessary teach others their skill or knowledge. They make useful and meaningful generalizations. Those who only master the knowledge base tend to remain in the shadows of those who master the ability to generalize. It doesn't means that they are not skilled in what they do or know, just that they have a harder time transferring that knowledge to others. An expert can make a generalization and then when called upon, can build the case why it is so and how his thinking brought them to that conclusion. Many people who use generalizations do not understand how they came about or why they are mostly true.

So when I look at this thread or any thread in which I have some interest in discussing the topic, I look at the generalizations made and ask questions. And when folks respond with "Everyone knows...", or "So and so said...' rather than show their own understanding, I push harder. If you look back at my posts about boomers early in the thread they were all about the facts of generational change. Naturally, no one paid any attention to them.

So tell me now what I have misunderstood or misinterpreted about your posts. Put me on the correct path.

 

[Gorbles]

some generalizations are useful and on target, like the one I make just above. Sometimes generalizations are wrong, bad or based on wrong or incomplete information. When folks are interested in a topic we see more posts and more passionate posting. We also tend to see better posting and more thoughtful posts. As far as boomers being "bad" we have had quite a bit of here; maybe not in this thread, but certainly in others. Certainly the OP was not in praise of boomers. I've misunderstood what has been said? Interesting. I do try to pay attention to the words in a post before responding, but communication is always to two way street. What we each think is obvious may not actually be.

A word about generalizations: They are common and are passed along from mouth to mouth quickly and easily and often just accepted as fact or face value. But the truest generalizations are different. They are built by experts that have a deep knowledge of the details of what they are talking about.That knowledge can come from hands on experience or from dedicated, multi dimensional study of a topic or both. In fact (a generalization is coming) most people who are recognized as experts earn that title because they have two traits: they have command of the details and are capable of building a not so detailed framework necessary teach others their skill or knowledge. They make useful and meaningful generalizations. Those who only master the knowledge base tend to remain in the shadows of those who master the ability to generalize. It doesn't means that they are not skilled in what they do or know, just that they have a harder time transferring that knowledge to others. An expert can make a generalization and then when called upon, can build the case why it is so and how his thinking brought them to that conclusion. Many people who use generalizations do not understand how they came about or why they are mostly true.

So when I look at this thread or any thread in which I have some interest in discussing the topic, I look at the generalizations made and ask questions. And when folks respond with "Everyone knows...", or "So and so said...' rather than show their own understanding, I push harder. If you look back at my posts about boomers early in the thread they were all about the facts of generational change. Naturally, no one paid any attention to them.

So tell me now what I have misunderstood or misinterpreted about your posts. Put me on the correct path.

I'm trying to rationalise reactions without being insulting, is where I'm at. Which, like I said, puts us in pretty meta territory, but I'm enjoying it, hah. It's also inherently speculative, which is a risk.

So onwards about generalisations. The problem here is deciding what are "useful" or "on-target". I think everyone agrees with the flaws of generalisations. But even given that, I so very rarely see them called out. When you generalise about socialism, do you do so from a position of expert knowledge? It doesn't seem so. So could we write the OP off on the sentiments that they're not an expert on the boomer generation? Possibly so. But I don't write opinions off that strictly (yours or theirs). Not saying you do either - I'm trying to explain the level of knowledge required for us to debate a generalisation in the first place.Let

I read all of your posts throughout the thread. Typically, when I'm involved in one, I read every post in a thread. And this may seem petty to point out, but your first post was not your later posts. Your first post was exactly the kind of kneejerk reaction I was originally criticising, and am now trying to understand. I even clicked the link! I'm not sure what use it is to point out the shift in age bracket in the US in a thread criticising a specific generation, and I left it alone. At that point I was mostly observing the continued "why did you make this thread" reactions before diving in myself. By the time of your later posts, I was arguing with other folks instead.

At this point I'd like to quote the OP's actual generalisations regarding (white) boomers. There were only two:

So other than a gas crunch and being told to get hair cuts what did exactly did white straight boomers face that newer "spoiled" generations can't relate to?

And why is their such a strong bipartisan narrative among white American boomers that they are the independent stoic self-made entrepreneur generation when in reality they --collectively speaking-- had the world delivered to them on a platter?

This is where the misunderstanding comes in, I feel. So here are my questions:

• How did you turn the above statements into "all boomers are bad"? If it didn't come from the OP, where did you get "all boomers are bad" from?
• How do the above statements suggest no white boomers had difficulties in life?

Because these two seem to be the key takeaways that you're objecting to. I barely consider the generalisations made problematic. Perfect? No. But as I keep on pointing out (to borrow your phrase, despite nobody paying attention to it), people make imperfect generational generalisations a ton around here. There's a lot of bias towards younger posters too. I've seen it in thread after thread, by poster after poster. None garner the same kind of critique as you're applying to this. Is it because it's particularly about boomers?

tl;dr: these generalisations are completely on a par with basically any made in OT in a daily basis. The pushback despite this is relatively unique, and people keep exaggerating the negative wording to make the OP seem more hurtful than it actually is.

 

[warpus]

People are blaming seniors who sit at home and have no idea what's going on. Yeah, that's easy, hate on the old people.

We all know why socionomic equality is going down in the U.S., why education and healthcare are more expensive, and why it's harder and harder for a family to own a home and be able to send their kids to college.

I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the 70 year old guy who sits on his front porch for 7 hours a day here on my street. Yet there are people in this thread who put all the blame on him. Makes zero sense. It's like you're yelling at the sky and hoping something will happen

 

[Gorbles]

People are blaming seniors who sit at home and have no idea what's going on. Yeah, that's easy, hate on the old people.

We all know why socionomic equality is going down in the U.S., why education and healthcare are more expensive, and why it's harder and harder for a family to own a home and be able to send their kids to college.

I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the 70 year old guy who sits on his front porch for 7 hours a day here on my street. Yet there are people in this thread who put all the blame on him. Makes zero sense. It's like you're yelling at the sky and hoping something will happen

Who's blaming the 70 year old guy who sits on his front porch for seven hours a day? Who's putting all the blame on this one person?

Honestly, I understand your earlier posts, but now you're generalising (or exaggerating, sometimes there's a fine line between the two). I do not understand why it's okay for you, but not folks criticising (for example) boomers.

 

[warpus]

Who's blaming the 70 year old guy who sits on his front porch for seven hours a day? Who's putting all the blame on this one person?

He's a boomer. You're blaming all boomers.

See why generalizing an entire group of people like that makes zero sense? Seems obvious to me

 

[Gorbles]

He's a boomer. You're blaming all boomers.

See why generalizing an entire group of people like that makes zero sense? Seems obvious to me

I'm sorry to be a pedant, but given this is all 99% semantics anyway, here we go.

There is a difference between blaming all boomers (again, not that anybody did that, ever. Please quote where anybody did), and putting all the blame on one boomer, which is what you just claimed people did.

 

[warpus]

I'm sorry to be a pedant, but given this is all 99% semantics anyway, here we go.

There is a difference between blaming all boomers (again, not that anybody did that, ever. Please quote where anybody did), and putting all the blame on one boomer, which is what you just claimed people did.

Wait, so you're saying you never blamed all boomers? You've never said boomers are to blame? That changes a lot, but I am pretty sure you did.

If you're blaming all boomers, then the guy I was referencing is equally responsible as everybody else. That's the problem with generalizing - you end up including people who don't belong and might even agree with you about these problems. Instead of properly arguing the point, you take the easy way out and blame an entire group of people, which is lazy, insulting, and dishonest.

 

[Gorbles]

Wait, so you're saying you never blamed all boomers? You've never said boomers are to blame? That changes a lot, but I am pretty sure you did.

If you're blaming all boomers, then the guy I was referencing is equally responsible as everybody else. That's the problem with generalizing - you end up including people who don't belong and might even agree with you about these problems. Instead of properly arguing the point, you take the easy way out and blame an entire group of people, which is lazy, insulting, and dishonest.

Me saying the boomer generation is at fault for something is not me saying every single member of that generation has done something. And again, if you actually read my posts, you would find I didn't actually use that phrase specifically. I tend to use "most", or some other qualifier, even though we're discussing generations, where generalisations are baked-in by default.

A generation is, definitely, a generalisation of a demographic of people who happened to be grouped by a vague age range. Because we have to make sense of demographics somehow.

You don't have to preach the problems of generalisations. You do need to recognise the merit they can have though, and instead maybe actually debate the points raised by me and / or the OP, instead of pointing at the thread and going "generalisation bad". Generalisations are not inherently bad. It's on you to argue that these ones are. So c'mon. If we're wheeling out "lazy, insulting and dishonest", actually make a blooming argument!

What did the OP say about boomers, exactly, and what about it is "blaming all boomers"? What did I say about boomers, exactly, and what about my posts are blaming all boomers?

 

[warpus]

Me saying the boomer generation is at fault for something is not me saying every single member of that generation has done something.

What, you think the boomer generation has leadership that you can blame? They have monthly meetings and vote on who represents their generation or something?

This is how generalizations work. You call out the entire generation, that includes every single person who is a boomer. That's how language works. If you don't want to put the blame on every single one of them, don't put the blame on that whole generation then. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Gorbles]

What, you think the boomer generation has leadership that you can blame? They have monthly meetings and vote on who represents their generation or something?

This is how generalizations work. You call out the entire generation, that includes every single person who is a boomer. That's how language works. If you don't want to put the blame on every single one of them, don't put the blame on that whole generation then. You can't have it both ways.

Except that's not how it works. Because the way you phrased it states equal blame for everyone in that generation. Which is your reading of it. That's not stated. That's an assumption - that's how language works.

Let's do it via percentages, yeah? If 50% of a group has a specific problem, it is reasonable to generalise and say the group as a whole has more of a problem compared to other groups (in this case, generations). Nobody is saying "everyone in the group is equally at fault for this thing", but the generation on the whole has a greater % of symptoms than other generations. That's the point being made here. You taking it as equal blame directed at everybody in the generation is just you taking it poorly.

We are comparing the groups as a whole. Not every single individual member weighted against every single other individual member.

Which is why I also pointed out that I specifically did not specify the entire generation, either. So why are you railing at me? Why am I catching flak for something I didn't even say? How is that justifiable behaviour from you, especially considering what you're complaining about?