Why Gen Z’s 'ok boomer' retort–and the responses to it–are so powerful | Hacker News Reader

Why Gen Z’s 'ok boomer' retort–and the responses to it–are so powerful

medium.com

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.

"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 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.

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.

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!!!

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.

The last time the US saw across-the-board declines in the quality of life was during the Civil War, so yes. Also, American social scientists fetishize generational differences to an extreme degree, possibly because it allows for easy and relatively non-controversial statistical analyses.

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.

  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.

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.

The issue is that many of the Baby Boomer generation seem unaware of this fact or just don't seem to care.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com