OK Boomer

1246

Comments

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I am just pointing out things that happened in their generation.
    You keep saying that as though there was a period of time when we were the only ones here and the only ones voting.

    When I was (er, wasting my time) in peace marches, LBJ was president, he was followed by a lot of other men of my father's (born 1915) generation right up until Clinton. I didn't vote for any of them but Carter, but there they were.

    There are still people born before the Boomers voting today and since around 1984 the after-Boomers have been voting, too. Why are we getting all the blame? Why hasn't your generation stepped up and created the Utopia we failed to establish for you? What have you been doing?

  • If y'all aren't going to read for context, I guess I've only one reply: OK Boomer
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The meme isn’t about anything other than a response to dismissive attitudes of older people to younger people.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    To be fair, Gen X deserves some of the blame for the rise in educational costs.

    Why? What did they do? The people running universities, or the people in the legislatures starving the universities, weren't Gen X.
    Again. We allow what the government does. It is not a perfect level of control. no. But an electorate cannot be absolved of the deeds the government they elect do.

    Not perfect? You do know that 76% of Americans want increased gun control, right? What level of control do they have? Has it happened yet? Why don't you get back to me when it does. Some level of control. Ha.
    They keep electing people who kowtow to the NRA.

    The small core of people who support the NRA is more cohesive as a voting block than the rest of the voting public. They are more likely to turn out for an election. Fear of the loss of a way of life is a strong motivating factor.
    This is true. There is probably an abortion opposition overlapping in that demographic as well.
    If they can support their causes, other people can as well.

    Throw in the racist contingent, you have a trifecta.

    When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he remarked the Democrats will lose the South for the next 100 years. We are halfway through that dry spell. There does to be some thawing, though.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he remarked the Democrats will lose the South for the next 100 years. We are halfway through that dry spell. There does to be some thawing, though.

    I don't know why this reminds me of Asimov's Foundation series. I can just imagine the capsule opening up every 10 years and LBJ making a pronouncement about how far we've come vis-a-vis the South.
  • RossweisseRossweisse 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    If y'all aren't going to read for context, I guess I've only one reply: OK Boomer
    Oh, for crying in a bucket. Every generation makes mistakes, and the Boomers weren't in charge when a lot of the mistakes cited were made. It's an ignorant mistake to dismiss entire generations, young or old.

  • If you read for context, you'll see that is not what I was doing.
  • RossweisseRossweisse 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    I always read for context, @lilbuddha. You should try it yourself sometime.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    All those civil rights and anti-war protesters should have been going after climate change instead. Stupid bastards.
    Because every, single person was protesting the war and there was no one available for anything else? And the anti war protest occupied every minute from the 1960's until now?
    Boomers protested the war. They also made great strides in reducing pollution. In some places at least. I am not condemning their generation. I am just pointing out things that happened in their generation. And collectively, they have responsibility for those things. That is just how a democratic government works.
    Total responsibility? no. Every single individual having responsibility? no. The groups? yes.


    Utter garbage! To give a group responsibility is to diminish the responsibility of those truly to blame. Forget generational guilt. It doesn't hold up to any level of serious scrutiny. Our political leaders but even more our private sector leaders, who are not elected or accountable, need to wear the undiluted blame for this. There are many of them, but people who come immediately to my mind include Gina Reinhart, mining magnate and political influencer, her competitor Andrew Forrest and the people whose photos appear on this handy google wall of shame.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    I always read for context, @lilbuddha. You should try it yourself sometime.

    If there were a Ship prize for Reading in Context, would it go to Ross or lb? I know where I'd be placing my bet!
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    All those civil rights and anti-war protesters should have been going after climate change instead. Stupid bastards.
    Because every, single person was protesting the war and there was no one available for anything else? And the anti war protest occupied every minute from the 1960's until now?
    Boomers protested the war. They also made great strides in reducing pollution. In some places at least. I am not condemning their generation. I am just pointing out things that happened in their generation. And collectively, they have responsibility for those things. That is just how a democratic government works.
    Total responsibility? no. Every single individual having responsibility? no. The groups? yes.


    Utter garbage! To give a group responsibility is to diminish the responsibility of those truly to blame. Forget generational guilt. It doesn't hold up to any level of serious scrutiny. Our political leaders but even more our private sector leaders, who are not elected or accountable, need to wear the undiluted blame for this. There are many of them, but people who come immediately to my mind include Gina Reinhart, mining magnate and political influencer, her competitor Andrew Forrest and the people whose photos appear on this handy google wall of shame.
    This is not zero sum. An individual can be completely responsible for their own actions and still there can be others also responsible for letting those actions occur.*
    Pretending the electorate have no control is part of what allows those individuals to have greater influence.
    That the system allows for powerful individuals to have more control doesn't mean the voters have none.
    The way the system works is neither balanced nor fair. But that is not an excuse.

    *An easy and clear example¹ would be Hitler, the German people and the history of anti-Semitism.
    Hitler had full responsibility for his actions. That doesn't let the German people for facilitating those actions. The history of anti-Semitism in the world is responsible for Jewish people being an easy scapegoat, but it doesn't absolve Hitler or the Germans one bit. Nor does Hitler's complete agency absolve the anti-Semitism of others from the responsibility of creating the conditions which allowed it.

    ¹Well, it should be clear. Even chance on some idiot taking the wrong lesson out of it.
    ²Of course, not all Germans. Some resisted and many of them paid the price. They do not have responsibility. This should be obvious as well, but...
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    I can get out of guilt for letting Hitler come to power as long as I resist in some form later--say, giving tenporary shelter to my Jewish neighbors? That doesn't work. Vood deeds do not automatically void bad ones.

    Also, we're into Godwin's law now.

    Wouldn't the parallel be "I'm a boomer, but I handspun and wove my own clothing, so I'm off scotfree for climate change"?
  • I seriously deleted a paragraph I wrote about the Holocaust using it as an example of where group responsibility is invalid.

    I feel like I've put all my points at least twice on this thread. I have aced this argument like Roger Federer on roids. I shall receive your adoration now.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    This intergenerational warfare meme seems to me to be about getting the people to quarrel among themselves so they don't defenestrate those who exploit everyone (throw them out windows). Currently I'm hearing all about online shopping re the American black Friday extravaganza and the clear and ongoing abuse of workers by a particular fluvial retailer. Somehow we always consent to screw others just like ourselves for our personal and temporary gains. How we get from "eat the rich" to "ok boomer" seems to me to be manipulation by Bezo the Clown while arsing the Sugar Mountain and the birdies snap up all our chatting. What's ap with that?

    I could not agree more. Discussing blame for shitty things in terms of generations is bullshit. Powerful people of every generation are to blame for the messes we're in. Duane LeVine at Exxon did more damage than the vast majority of other people born in the 1930s; he masterminded the "Exxon position," which made the company fund climate change denial starting in the 90s.

    And his name was never on a ballot.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    I can get out of guilt for letting Hitler come to power as long as I resist in some form later--say, giving tenporary shelter to my Jewish neighbors? That doesn't work. Vood deeds do not automatically void bad ones.

    Also, we're into Godwin's law now.

    Wouldn't the parallel be "I'm a boomer, but I handspun and wove my own clothing, so I'm off scotfree for climate change"?

    Spectacularly missed the point. My point is that responsibility is not zero-sum, in contrast to Simon Toad's post that states it is.
    To give a group responsibility is to diminish the responsibility of those truly to blame
    Your post shows no more understanding of the point than does his.
    Blame and credit have their own scales.

    It was not comparing anyone to Hitler or the Nazi's, which is what Godwin's Law actually is.

    As far as your question about good deeds.

    There are people like Oskar Schindler. He started as a Nazi profiteer and ended up saving many people. Does that absolve him? I do not know. Certainly not for responsibility of helping Hitler come to power. That he was buried in Jerusalem and awarded honours by the Israelis suggests some sort of mitigation.
    However, as far as no responsibility for Hitler, I was thinking of people like those in the White Rose, who resisted, protested and died.
    There were others, though far too few.
    Israel created an award for those who gave significant help, Righteous_Among_the_Nations. Only 601 Germans got it, so far too few. Given the criteria, there will be those who risked and helped but did not qualify. They will have both blame and credit. Because that is just how reality works.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    There are people like Oskar Schindler. He started as a Nazi profiteer and ended up saving many people. Does that absolve him? I do not know.

    Absolve him in what court, or according to what moral code?
  • Let's cut to the chase here. You who are so anxious to ladle out guilt apon all sides--do you bear any yourself? And is it merely generational, or what? Does your activism excuse you?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    There are people like Oskar Schindler. He started as a Nazi profiteer and ended up saving many people. Does that absolve him? I do not know.

    Absolve him in what court, or according to what moral code?

    People learn, grow, and change in different ways, at different times, for different reasons.

    I've only seen clips of the film, 'cause I knew I wouldn't be able to cope with the whole thing. But there was an interesting trailer on TV, showing OS with different women. "One by one, they taught him." (Compassion, etc.) That trailer was cancelled, very soon.

    I don't know how accurate it was. But he did change, somehow, and saved lives.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    I think it was more a class/power issue than a generational issue - but being British I would say that. As in, what the richest and most powerful in that generation decided was most important, was what was prioritised.

    I am going to say nice things about Margaret Thatcher, bear with me the cognitive dissonance make cause me to become physically ill.

    Because she was a scientist, her reaction to climate change and HIV was driven by scientific evidence. I was in primary school in the 1980s and remember the massive ‘Don’t Die of Ignorance’ posters, that were *everywhere* - and they leafleted every household in the country. For all Thatcher’s homophobia, that campaign saved a lot of lives.

    Likewise I grew up hearing messages on children’s tv about climate change, and a thousand David Attenborough programs carrying a similar message - and no one seriously challenged that idea.

    Conversely, her ‘no such thing as society’ message is anathema to me.

    (Though Norman Fowler suggests Thatcher wasn’t so keen - my main point stands, it is usually about what this generation’s powerful think & do - though mass protest can effect that.)

    Actual leaflet they sent to every house.
  • I recently saw the ep where Seinfeld and his woman de jour pashed on while at a screening of Schindler's List. Newman witnessed this, and soon it was all over NY's Jewish Community. Jerry was banned from dating his woman by her father, and disappointed his parents.

    Let my warning be heard.
  • BTW communal responsibility works, in terms of liability for reparations, but generational responsibility does not. It is bullcrap to beat all bullcrap.
  • Simon Toad--

    "Pashed on"? Is that like making out? (Kissing, etc.)

    Thx.
  • yes, a blatant ockerism straight out of the 1970's 😁
  • This is a very serious conversation. As a bloke, I'd like to say how much I enjoy insulting friends who are older, or younger, than I am. I could have posted this anecdote on the XY thread, as I know @asher will like it. I still go to a sort of martial arts club. We're all blokes, mainly over 50, who still enjoy fighting, without taking it too seriously. However, some younger chaps do come along, and one session ended with two fit guys in their 30s tearing into one another. The rest of us were enjoying the spectacle, and I remarked, "Isn't it nice to see the children playing together?".
  • Let's cut to the chase here. You who are so anxious to ladle out guilt apon all sides--do you bear any yourself? And is it merely generational, or what? Does your activism excuse you?
    I'm not talking about guilt, I am talking about responsibility.
    Say one buys an automobile which has design flaws or build issues, and at some point those issues become known. The owner did not cause the problem, but they have the responsibility to address those issues if the goal is to keep the vehicle running. If they then pass the car on, the new owner takes on the responsibility for further maintenance. But this doesn't not retroactively remove the responsibility of the previous owner for where their level of maintenance left the vehicle nor the designer and/or manufacturer for the initial weakness.
  • But I think this is a lot more than the use of "OK Boomer" can actually bear. I don't think it's being used to tell people that have nothing useful to say on basis of age. I don't think it's being used to blame an entire generation for anything. Whenever I've seen it used, it's been in response to someone throwing a load of daft condemnatory generalisations about Millenials, and its meaning is just "if you're going to think in those terms, arguing with you is going to be a waste of time, so let's just drop it", with a side serving of "you daft twit."

    I think there's a lot of overthinking going on here, at least in relation to this term. Doubtless some twits on the young side are overusing it, but that's the core meaning as I understand and have observed it.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    But I think this is a lot more than the use of "OK Boomer" can actually bear. I don't think it's being used to tell people that have nothing useful to say on basis of age. I don't think it's being used to blame an entire generation for anything. Whenever I've seen it used, it's been in response to someone throwing a load of daft condemnatory generalisations about Millenials, and its meaning is just "if you're going to think in those terms, arguing with you is going to be a waste of time, so let's just drop it", with a side serving of "you daft twit."

    I think there's a lot of overthinking going on here, at least in relation to this term. Doubtless some twits on the young side are overusing it, but that's the core meaning as I understand and have observed it.
    This is exactly correct regarding the usage of OK Boomer.
    As far as the rest of the discussion, it is a tangent.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    But I think this is a lot more than the use of "OK Boomer" can actually bear. I don't think it's being used to tell people that have nothing useful to say on basis of age. I don't think it's being used to blame an entire generation for anything. Whenever I've seen it used, it's been in response to someone throwing a load of daft condemnatory generalisations about Millenials, and its meaning is just "if you're going to think in those terms, arguing with you is going to be a waste of time, so let's just drop it", with a side serving of "you daft twit."

    I think there's a lot of overthinking going on here, at least in relation to this term. Doubtless some twits on the young side are overusing it, but that's the core meaning as I understand and have observed it.
    This is exactly correct regarding the usage of OK Boomer.
    As far as the rest of the discussion, it is a tangent.

    Which you have been more than happy to indulge, in direct conflict with the content of your indulging posts.
  • Thank you, captain obvious.
  • I want the cracking-up smiley back.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Whenever I've seen it used, it's been in response to someone throwing a load of daft condemnatory generalisations about Millenials, and its meaning is just "if you're going to think in those terms, arguing with you is going to be a waste of time, so let's just drop it", with a side serving of "you daft twit."

    And chronologically it post-dated 'snowflakes'.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    But I think this is a lot more than the use of "OK Boomer" can actually bear. I don't think it's being used to tell people that have nothing useful to say on basis of age. I don't think it's being used to blame an entire generation for anything. Whenever I've seen it used, it's been in response to someone throwing a load of daft condemnatory generalisations about Millenials, and its meaning is just "if you're going to think in those terms, arguing with you is going to be a waste of time, so let's just drop it", with a side serving of "you daft twit."

    I think there's a lot of overthinking going on here, at least in relation to this term. Doubtless some twits on the young side are overusing it, but that's the core meaning as I understand and have observed it.
    This is exactly correct regarding the usage of OK Boomer.
    As far as the rest of the discussion, it is a tangent.

    See? I was right all along :)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    Had OK Boomer dropped on me this week. My daughter, and granddaughter were making sushi. Daughter (late Gen X, early millennial--a tweenie) through it at me when I tried to tell her she was doing it wrong.
  • If I made a joke which tried to appropriate a Japanese way of saying OK Boomer in English, would that be racist in the context of preparing sushi?

    I was thinking a quick, shouted and threatening OK BOOMER in the context of Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence.
  • I’ll confess, I’m a Boomer. Never intended to screw up the world for those who come after me, but then again, I don’t think my parents intended that, or my grandparents either. Those grandparents fled war and poverty in Europe to get a better life in the US. They had basic education, did menial jobs. They came here for ‘progress’.

    They had children, and sent some of those children back to Europe to fight, and, perhaps, to kill their own cousins. My parents, who had at best, a US high school school education worked hard to ensure that my sisters and I could get to college. They lived a middle class Amrican life with cars and fossil fuel and plastic. All of this was “progress.”

    I have no children, but my sisters do, and they did the same -- worked hard and lived in their society as it was then -- so that their children could get degrees beyond college.

    I wonder if deep within the mammalian brain there is an urge to make things better for the next generation. But, there seems to be no brake on that urge that is flagged “unintended consequences”. Yes, we Boomers cranked out lots of pollution, not knowing the consequences. When we learned of them we hesitated -- wasn’t this the good we were told to go for? And what about the Gen X or Gen Zs? They have lots of technology and grand plans for the future. But only time will tell if they too have unintended consequences. They will do their best, I am sure, once they become aware of anything harmful. Or will they? Are they just as wired as we were, and my grandparents before us -- leaping first into the future, and only later learning they might better have looked before that leap?

    As noted on a different Discussion, I interpreted the actions by my new neighbor (a Gen Xer) as rude, dismissive, isolating. And I have learned through Ship Members of my error, learning about Autism Spectrum Disorder. That hard emotional pill to swallow has let me now see that neighbor as a young man with a name, a history, a future he looks forward to. We are not friends, but we are much the same (me, certainly, more arrogant) while also very different. I am grateful to have my eyes opened to that sameness. I do not want to lose that!

    I think of the words of the hymn “When Christ was lifted from the earth”:
    Where generation, class or race divide us to our shame,
    he sees not labels but a face, a person and a name.
    Thus freely loved, though fully known, may I in Christ be free
    to welcome and accept his own as Christ accepted me.


    So the question for me is “how do we look at our past and at the future” and accept – accept ourselves as having made bad decisions, and accept those who rightly criticize us? and how can they who perhaps rightly criticize us, also accept us as having done what we could, when we could? How can we let go of the tag names Boomer, Xer, Zer and so on? They don't help.

    And, apologies for such a long comment. Is loquaciousness a Boomer trait? Guilty as charged M'Lord.
  • @Martin54 in another thread reminded me of the immediate existential trauma experienced by people before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I often wonder why we don't feel that threat so much these days. I believe we still have enough nukes to blow ourselves and our polluting possessions off the face of the planet.
  • Baby Wombat wrote
    As noted on a different Discussion, I interpreted the actions by my new neighbor (a Gen Xer) as rude, dismissive, isolating. And I have learned through Ship Members of my error, learning about Autism Spectrum Disorder. That hard emotional pill to swallow has let me now see that neighbor as a young man with a name, a history, a future he looks forward to. We are not friends, but we are much the same (me, certainly, more arrogant) while also very different. I am grateful to have my eyes opened to that sameness. I do not want to lose that!

    Sounds about right. My son in law has an adult child that is ASD and I also have a grandson who is ASD. He is five years old and can read The New Yorker. He has problems with insisting on rigid rules and sensory issues. Fortunately with therapy he is getting better.

    BTW--I heard on our National Public Radio that Koala Bears in the wild are practically extinct mainly because of the fires. Sad to hear this.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    Me again.

    I found this elsewhere:
    Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment,.
    The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."
    The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
    The older lady said that she was right our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day. The older lady went on toexplain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
    But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day. Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
    But, too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then. We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.
    Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.
    Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.
    Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
    In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.
    When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
    Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.
    We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then.
    We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the "green thing" back then.
    Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the "green thing."
    We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
    But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Had OK Boomer dropped on me this week. My daughter, and granddaughter were making sushi. Daughter (late Gen X, early millennial--a tweenie) through it at me when I tried to tell her she was doing it wrong.

    I'm sure you didn't mind but just hearing about it makes me see red.
    It's so disrespectful! My parents often had more helpful hints than I wanted to hear but I can't imagine responding that way.

    The know your meme site says this:
    "OK Boomer" is a dismissive retort often used to disregard or mock Baby Boomers and those who are perceived as old-fashioned and being out-of-touch."

    That's exactly what it was every time I heard it used.

    It's defenders want to say it's only used in response to insults and long know-it-all rants but that's not how I've heard it and that's not what this definition says.
  • @Gramps49
    BTW--I heard on our National Public Radio that Koala Bears in the wild are practically extinct mainly because of the fires. Sad to hear this.

    I'm going to put something in Heaven about this.
  • @Gramps49
    The disposable thing began at least in the boomer generation. Later generations joined in. There is a mix of generations running the companies that are profiting from rampant consumerism just as there is in the buying of too much shite.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Gramps49
    The disposable thing began at least in the boomer generation. Later generations joined in. There is a mix of generations running the companies that are profiting from rampant consumerism just as there is in the buying of too much shite.

    I guess if you try hard enough you can blame us for everything, if we didn't do it in mass, one of us invented it or, if it was something good like the feminist movement of the 70's, we did do it but someone in the previous generation started it.

    Gramps's post reminded me of a lot of things but particularly the diaper thing. I only used cloth diapers on my baby -- yes Pampers were out there, but only used when traveling by most of the mothers I knew. Now the landfills are full of disposable diapers and they've created toxic mountains of waste. Most of this present generation wont even consider using cloth ones. I bought some cloth ones for the local chaity free store and found you literally can't give them away.

  • Are you in the US @Twilight? I have two of my family and many friends with new babies - all are using washable nappies. I think it’s very common now in the U.K.

    I’ve never once had ‘OK Boomer’ said to me by any of these young people. We count my sons’ friends as our friends - and attend each other’s parties and board game evenings.

    If any of them did say it I’d know I deserved it!

    My son’s equivalent was ‘yes Mrs Smith’ (sarcastic voice) when I was getting too teacherly with them (well deserved I may add!). I then reigned back on the teacherly advice.

    :)
  • @Gramps49

    THHANK YOU FOR THAT POST! It was indeed the life I lived.
    My high school sold flashy plastic coated book covers: my parents allowed me to purchase only one, since those brown paperbags did well enough, and were free. (And now that I think of it, allowed personal artistic expression -- enrichment without cost.).

    I broke one of those half-gallon milk bottles in taking them back to the store, and my allowance was docked accordingly.

    The first I was given a plastic bag by a shopkeeper was in 1978 when on holiday in London. Hubby and I were in the first throes of 'we're a couple' bliss, flew from New York, and decided we must have a bottle of gin for our room. We found plastic very tacky, cheap, noisy and were sure this was a fad that would never endure.
    Right.....
  • Twilight wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Gramps49
    The disposable thing began at least in the boomer generation. Later generations joined in. There is a mix of generations running the companies that are profiting from rampant consumerism just as there is in the buying of too much shite.

    I guess if you try hard enough you can blame us for everything,
    There is a real problem in discussions when people see everything as adversarial. Gramps49 posted something cute, but inaccurate.
    His post shifts blame to younger generations. My post includes everyone in the responsibility.
  • Blame, or responsibility? You told me that it wasn't "guilt" but rather "responsibility," but IMHO you keep shifting back and forth between the three.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Gramps49
    The disposable thing began at least in the boomer generation. Later generations joined in. There is a mix of generations running the companies that are profiting from rampant consumerism just as there is in the buying of too much shite.

    I guess if you try hard enough you can blame us for everything,
    There is a real problem in discussions when people see everything as adversarial. Gramps49 posted something cute, but inaccurate.
    His post shifts blame to younger generations. My post includes everyone in the responsibility.

    I think I'm being more defensive than adversarial, but this is a thread about a popular put-down commonly used to sneer at people my age and you keep defending it's use, so we are going to be a little adversarial here.

    Yes, we all share responsibility for the state of the world. The woman in Gramp's post wasn't denying that, she was defending herself against the unasked for criticism of her cashier.

    @ Boogie Yes, I live in the U.S. (Ohio) No diapers on the line around here. I don't agree that if you get called "Okay boomer" you will deserve it, anymore than I think Gramps deserved it for making suggestions about the sushi.

    Suggestions should be taken with more grace, particularly from the person who raised you without whose suggestions you wouldn't know how to tie your shoes.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    @ Boogie Yes, I live in the U.S. (Ohio) No diapers on the line around here.
    Nor here, but that doesn't mean people aren't using cloth diapers. They're either using the dryer or using a service that comes around a few times a week, takes the dirty diapers and leaves clean ones. Such services are popular here.

  • .
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gramps49 posted something cute, but inaccurate.

    No, not really. All of those things really existed, and many or most of them really were better for the planet than what we have now.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Me again.

    I found this elsewhere:
    Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment,.
    The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."
    The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
    The older lady said that she was right our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day. The older lady went on toexplain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
    But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day. Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
    But, too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then. We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.
    Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.
    Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.
    Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
    In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.
    When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
    Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.
    We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then.
    We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the "green thing" back then.
    Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the "green thing."
    We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
    But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?
    “All right, OK, Jesus, lady, I’m sorry I said anything! Now will you please just take your change and stop holding up the line?”
  • lilbuddha--
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    There is a real problem in discussions when people see everything as adversarial.

    ...except...

    Respectfully, most of what *you* post (and not just on this thread) comes across as very adversarial--not necessarily in an "all knives out" sort of way; but methodically, relentlessly putting one foot in front of the other, never backing down, never just stopping for a while, never taking a healthy break.

    IMHO, you're not doing your causes any favors--nor yourself.


Sign In or Register to comment.