
Why Gen Z’s 'ok boomer' retort–and the responses to it–are so powerful - kiraleighleigh
https://medium.com/there-is-no-design/if-youre-mad-about-ok-boomer-you-re-part-of-the-problem-a571b5b85d68
======
uberman
This quote from the article exemplifies why this term is a problem:

"If you have to say ‘the n-word’ you know it’s worse than ‘Boomer’, you moldy
sentient banana."

As used in the context of the article, "boomer" is a clear cut case of
othering, just like any of the more traditionally offensive terms used to
other. No, I am not technically a "baby boomer". I do however feel that ageist
comments just like racist and sexist comments should be called out as
inappropriate. Whatever the "ist" is that is the genesis of the label, it is
irrelevant. I would rather not be called by some label used to other me with
hostility and I am sure most would agree with that.

There are lots of terms tossed around today that are used with hostility that
currently fly under the radar of what is unacceptable. Unfortunately, we have
found a new one to use.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
"OK, boomer" doesn't really work that well as an insult anyway since it's
easily flipped around as "OK zoomer". Both Wikipedia
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoomer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoomer)
under "Other uses") and the Urban Dictionary have an attestation of zoomer as
a reference to Gen Z, so they'll know what it means.

------
mvuijlst
It's a bit facile. The argument is basically "if you're offended by it, then
you're the kind of person it's meant for".

Let's just see how that would fly with "ok bitch". Or "ok [insert epithet of
choice]", for that matter.

~~~
justForFun69
I find this whole getting upset over “ok boomer” thing hilarious!

Older people (including boomers) have been complaining for a long time about
PC culture.

Now, they are upset because the younger generation isn’t being PC with them.

That is ironic!!!

------
ThrowawayR2
I must say, as the child of immigrants, I'm mystified at why "They don’t get
that Gen Z is going to be the first generation that has a lower quality of
life than those prior." is seen as a valid complaint. Is it some kind of
American-only thing?

The country of my forefathers had its cities leveled and millions of deaths in
a war and, so those that survived it and the chaotic aftermath (which includes
my parents) definitely had a lower quality of life than the preceding
generation. And given the way the world is changing, the possibility of it
happening again doesn't seem so remote as it once did. I can't recall ever
having any certainty of the future being better than the past.

~~~
krapp
Assuming you're talking about World War 2, the US not only went through that
relatively unscathed, but also made a ton of money bankrolling the
reconstruction of Europe, Russia and Japan. So yes, it's basically a US thing.

~~~
masonic

      the US not only went through that relatively unscathed
    

Well, sure, if you ignore the over 400,000 combat dead... which was more than
_double_ France's losses, and also greater than England's.

Bear in mind that's mostly young men who never saw their peak earnings years,
so consider their economic impact as well.

~~~
krapp
_relatively_ unscathed.

The rest of the world had their cities burned to the ground, and their
infrastructures and economies destroyed. Russia lost _millions_ of people.
Japan was victim to the only atomic bombs thus far used in warfare. What the
US went through, comparatively, while not nothing, was still a cakewalk.

------
ohiovr
There is something ugly about automatic contempt of 74.1 million people.

