Yes, but it has nothing to do with generations, or age. I prefer “MAGA” to boomer, because I think that’s the group most people have a problem with. MAGA does not correlate well with age. MAGA comes in all ages, and even cuts across class. With the rich class supporting it because it’s to their advantage, and the bigots of the poor class supporting it because they are bigots and ignorant.
Maybe using MAGA as a slur will work better than calling them weird.
maggats
MAGA is a group of people in the US. This phenomenon however is worldwide, and nobody in other countries is going to use a US reference for it.
Boomers are a US generation though. Where I live, boomers would’ve been born in the early 90s. Thats when we had the baby boom.
MAGAs and boomers are different groups (that’s why the words are spelt differently)
Works both ways Though. I’m hearing over and over from groups that consider themselves victims, having similar sentiment, but shocked when the other group behaves the same way.
Haidt wrote a book about this a few years ago and had a big Atlantic article. Victimhood is the new virtue. Everyone in this ‘victim’ economy is socially competing about who has the biggest/most legitimate grievances.
It’s the en vogue version of social competition…
What sort of conversations are you having with your gf?
Unlike their boomer ancestors, the current generations talk with their partners about all sorts of things, not just about sex and dinner. Almost as if they are not only sexual partners but also close friends that understand each other.
TL;DR: Ok, boomer.
TIL my under 25 peers are unsophisticated because dinner and sex is about all they talk about.
No, that’s just one of the many reasons your friends are unsophisticated
?
I’m just surprised they can communicate when
al de txt rds lyk dis n dy tnk prds r 2 agrsv
I don’t think anyone who ever texted like that is still under 25 anymore. It rapidly dropped off around 2010 as smartphones with full keyboards became widespread, and not using full words was a signal that you hadn’t got one yet. That was fifteen years ago, so to still be under 25, you’d have had to be texting people while aged under ten, and people didn’t give preteens phones back then.
You’re being pedantic.
Kids these days 100% use similar shorthand, and often think proper capitalization, spelling, grammar, and punctuation are “too ChatGPT” or “aggressive.”
not even kids. i’m in my 40s and my 30s friends think my texts w/ complete sentences are ‘too demanding and aggressive’.
so i stop texting them and i call them then they tell me I’m ‘violating their boundaries’.
THEN they while about how anti-social everyone is these days… i just gave up.
many people seem truly committing to being miserable no matter what.
i miss the early 2010s when people were more laid back. now everyone is hyper critical of every tiny thing for some reason.
They were channeling their inner Gen X with that one. “Whatever.”
As a Gen X person, this is kind of my response to any sort of right-wing nonsense now. Especially that thing where you say something that’s obviously true and they ask what your source is for that so they can nit-pick it and exhaust you with irrelevant bickering until you give up.
“Society seems to be degenerating into fascism again”
“oH yEaH wHaT iS uR sOuRcE”
“Outside.”
Or I’ll just be like “no” if I even bother responding at all. You’re probably just arguing with a bot to drive up engagement that benefits some rich dickhead somehow anyway. 100% not worth it IMO.
it’s arguing in bad faith. as in you aren’t actually arguing or debating, they are just seeing to beat you down for not agreeing with them.
lemmy full of these types, despite their claims of being educated and data-driven or whatever. i had someone the other week tell me my citation of data form the USA Labor Bureau about jobs numbers was ‘lies’ because apparently statistics don’t count if Trump is in office… pointed out the data was from Biden to now and they just told me I was an idiot then cited some other source that was totally partisan nonsense.
Where are you finding conservatives like that?
Honestly question, lemmy feels like its 30% leftists, 70% center-right libs.
i am saying human beings are like that.
political belief has nothing to do with it.
people just call you whatever ‘other’ they think is bad. here on lemmy i get called a commie, MAGAt, or centrist anytime i point out facts that disagree with whatever bullshit narrative people are pushing.
Yeah, it’s pretty easy to pick out someone who’s genuinely asking in good faith (extremely rare) and someone who just wants to own the wokies. As you say, 99% of the time engaging is a complete waste of time.
There’s only two things I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people’s generation, and the millennials.
For a community called “LemmyShitPost” there is an awful lot of gold here.
Lemmy’s shit is someone else’s dinner
🤤
Ok boomer
They have it backwards. Young people think old people had it easy. This is their justification for not trying. Truth is every generation has it’s challenges. Rather than turn to social media for validation, look for information. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone but if you’re facing a challenge, someone before you faced the same. Don’t listen to those who tell you not to try. Listen to folks who succeeded, what worked, what didn’t.
PS The only derogatory I can say about the young generation as a whole is, where the fuck is your rock and roll? You’re listening to your grandparent’s music. Lame.
PS The only derogatory I can say about the young generation as a whole is, where the fuck is your rock and roll? You’re listening to your grandparent’s music. Lame.
I think about this all the time, actually. I think part of it is that music is so atomized into a zillion sub-genres, and there doesn’t seem to be really big zeitgeist-level types of things. Streaming vs. curating has changed the dynamics back to being more similar to what the boomers started off with, ironically, when they were buying 45’s, and before albums became a thing. :)
Anyway, the things that make the really big $$$ all seem rather nutless and uninspiring, if you ask me. Where is the music that might scare the parents?
But then, if you look back at what was charting in a given decade, you might be surprised at how schmaltzy things were way back, too. Look at the Seventies, as a for instance, and see what the top 40 was playing.
IMO a big factor is that the production quality of music (as well as movies and TV) hit a point where it no longer sounds or looks as dated. Digital remastering cleans up any flaws, now the only tip off to the age is content.
Yeah I’m hip to the schmaltzy tunes of the 70’s, I’m a big fan. Looking at you BJ Thomas.
I’m sure there is good rock going on now, it’s just not making it into the mainstream. I’m a product of 80’s punk rock. It never got mainstream attention but it did spawn acts that did in the 90’s.
Where is the music that might scare the parents?
Phonk was fun in a 2 Fast 2 Furious kind of way. Well, the 5 phonk songs that are good, then everyone else copied those.
Hyperpop is current. It’s super-broad and I’m not sure if there is a great definition. Apparently someone called SOPHIE is like a godmother to this genre before she passed away. From my research hyperpop has become an overly broad genre, ranging from maximalist happy-breakcore (which is how I know it) to depressed autotune mumble rap.
SOPHIE might scare you. I"ve been flipping through her singles as I write this. Like hyperpop itself, her style is very varied. But generally breaks from traditional conventions of both pop and edm.
Ok boomer
Managed this as a millennial - had absolutely nothing to do with my parents helping pay half my deposit. Nope, absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.
I have an offer for a family member to pay the entire deposit and I’m still not buying a house. I’m in top percentile income too but I’d rather retire early and meagerly rent than be stuck for the next 3 decades.
how is owning a home a barrier to early retirement more than paying rent with money you will never see again? you wouldnt be stuck for 30 years and if someone’s gifting you 20% it seems foolish not to. perhaps you should do some self education on retirement and money
Buying a house increases the switching cost of moving to seek new job opportunities. Since we’re no longer in the days of pensions renting makes sense. Imagine buying a home in Detroit before inscrutable politics and macroeconomics caused it to decline; buying a home means you risk holding the bag, especially if you don’t know how to manage risk from climate change in the coming decades.
The housing market is in a bubble right now. Buying a house is no guarantee of equity when the value can plummet and put you underwater at a moment’s notice.
The value of a paid off home is not the equity, that’s just numbers on a paper until you die and your heirs sell. The value is in living for peanuts for the rest of your life.
My house is paid off. My monthly housing costs are $735 for property tax that can’t increase more than 2% year due to California law. My neighbor three doors down with the same floor plan rents for $8500/month. That difference will only increase for the next 40 (I hope) years until I die.
Yeah I don’t think people realize that the biggest advantage of owning is to lock yourself into a stable housing cost. Even before it’s paid off, you lock in a more or less stable monthly housing bill. Maintenance sucks, big ticket repairs suck. But you’re always going to need somewhere to live.
I bought a place ten years ago, and if I was renting the same house today it would be about double the mortgage. Sure, I highly doubt that doubling will happen again in another ten years. But I doubt even more that we will ever see the prices back at 2015 level.
Maintenance costs suck, but even that has a silver lining when you own. It’s yours. When your fridge breaks in a rental you’re not out any money, but they just bring by another jank landlord special. I redid my kitchen with Thermador, not the top of the top brand, but pretty far up there. That cost quite a bit but it’s mine and my kitchen is far better than anything I had renting.
Even my not-paid-off house is saving me money, since rent has continued increasing and my mortgage has not. I’d probably be paying at least twice in rent for this house as what my mortgage payment is. Bought it 12 years ago.
That too, last year before I finished my mortgage my neighbor was paying well over double my mortgage, property taxes, and maintenance costs combined.
Rent often isn’t too far off from the cost of buying. The main financial advantage of buying comes from appreciation, which I would say is a pretty big gamble.
Historically housing as an investment is one of the least risky gambles one can take. They even have a saying, “safe as houses.” People will always need a place to live. Tbh, buying a house is probably safer than government bonds right now.
People will always need a place to live, yes. We also always need food, and general safety from harm. A home is no good if you lose any of the other two while living there. That can happen if, for example, the government or your neighbours decide that your kind is undesirable, or an arbitrary trade war forces businesses in your area into downsizing/bankruptcy and losing you the jobs that paid for your food, or the same happening to farms in the area. How big these risks are will depend a lot on where you are and who you are.
deleted by creator
You can afford a home on a single income if your income is 3-4x of the value of the home, roughly.
Where I live lots of people can afford homes, but they are just super angry they can’t afford the homes that they want. They don’t want a 2bed condo for 400-500K. They want single family home with 4bedrooms that’s about 3-4x the size of the condo, even if they don’t have kids, and are outraged such homes aren’t affordable for a single person.
But also, lots of people, don’t save intentionally and still complain they can’t afford stuff, even thought they could if they did save. These are the types who argue with you that 300/mo on gyms is a necessity… but they never go to the gym.
You can afford a home on a single income if the home is 3-4x that of your income, roughly.
FTFY
Ok boomer
That’s a really big brush you’ve got there, really painting everything in broad strokes.
Average annual family income in the US is around $80k/a. Are you seriously suggesting that families should be looking for homes in the $20k to $30k range? What kind of home, exactly, do you think you get for that?
Cardboard box next to the fish market dumpster.
We used to dream of being next to the fish market dumpster. We had to live in a paper bag outside a hogfat rendering plant. The smell still hasn’t gone away some 50 years later, my wife says.
I think they worded that backwards and are referring to the adage (or maybe that is what the banks go off of?) that your loan shouldn’t be for more than 3x your income. So if you make 80k per year you can generally afford a $240k house.
Going above that 3x means too much of your income goes to paying for the house and you don’t have enough for other living expenses+maintaining the house.
Now good luck finding a home for only $240K in an area that actually has decent-paying jobs…
Just as a real example, 70-80k/year is very feasible in the Philadelphia area. I saved up around 90k across a decade (with a worse income…) and bought a place for slightly over 350k. The thing is you NEED that initial down payment amount to make those numbers work, PMI with less than a conventionally mortgage down payment is a debt trap. Most people aren’t financially literate, and people with large amounts of capital take advantage of that in the lending and real estate industries.
If you can settle or pool resources this all gets easier, and if you have disabilities or make poor financial decisions it becomes impossible and you rent trap yourself. Renting still makes more sense for people with jobs that move around, though.
This is how we get trailer parks in tornado alley. Or mold infested hovels.
The building next door, with 4 units of 1100sqft each (spread over three floors, ughhhh) is $1.6 million CAD per unit.
Yes its everyone else’s fault
Poster is the grandma from the picture, can we get an AMA?
I’m 45, so not a boomer but already too old to get any respect from people in their 30’s (90% of my colleagues for example). Simply speaking about something they didn’t experience (reading a map, installing an OS, meeting the love of your life without a dating app…) gets me a “Ok Boomer” each time so what do I do? I just shut the fuck up. I’m not worried, they’ll be in my position very quickly.
Send them this. I’m sure they will get it.
Bro, I’m 28 and I feel this way. It’s like I became uncool overnight
I mean, I’m going to invite everyone of every age to strip bottomless, take any “back in my day we didn’t have your fancy [whatever]” bitching an moaning you have to do, dip it in honey, roll it in sand, and cram it up your exposed ass.
I’m 38. In my mid-20s, I taught flight school, mainly to people twice my age, and this included a fairly large section on reading Sectional Aeronautical Charts. I’ve got zero fucks to give for someone 7 years my senior pulling “back in my day we had maps” shit.
The secret ingredient is lead poisoning. The Baby Boomer generation spent over half their lives sniffing leaded gasoline fumes.
They still do. General aviation still uses 100LL aka low lead
The FAA finally approved 100UL (unleaded), so the US is on track to stop using 100LL in most cases within the next 20 years
EPA has tight regulations on washing your plane though, so there’s no problem with lead /s
Disclaimer: It’s better than nothing that the EPA tried to do something, but the government really should have gotten their shit together and approved 100UL decades ago
Shh, don’t say it too loud or Maga will legislate the lead back in.
Hahaha … heh … but seriously, MAGA does want brain damaged voters.
Oh don’t worry about that, they already caused their havoc
Thanks to the FAA’s shoestring budget, they don’t have the funds to just issue an STC to allow existing planes to use it. Each plane owner will have to pay for one to be issued. It costs me $200 to get one issued. It costs that much because the FAA hasn’t had the budget to upgrade their systems, so handling applications takes a lot of labor. They need to manually verify the make and model of aircraft will not be at risk of adverse effects from unleaded gasoline, since safety > all else
It’s a good thing the FAA verifies this, but it shouldn’t be such an inefficient process. The only reason it’s so inefficient is because conservatives have gutted federal agencies for so many years. MAGA will still point to the inefficient process as an example of why they should keep cutting funding, “see how inefficient the FAA is? They don’t deserve our money!”
Blood concentrations of lead are laughable today compared to when leaded gas was in cars. It’s a decrease of 94%. Yes, we still have a lead problem. No, it is no longer anywhere near as bad as it was.
True, but the safe level of lead is none. This is especially true for children.
While lead pipes were banned in 1986, millions of lead service lines remain in service across the US to this day…
Lead pipes are less of an issue that it would seem, as the pipes quickly develop a layer of calcium salts on the inside, preventing the water from actually coming into contact with the lead.
By all means, they need replaced. But they’re nowhere near the contributor that leaded gasoline was. That stuff probably fucked up 6 distinct generations. If you lived in a city, you were inhaling lead constantly.
Lead gasoline for cars is gone. Lead pipes are still around.
You’re concerned about the big problem that we already solved? Bro, you need to re-prioritize.
Lead pipes are less of an issue that it would seem, as the pipes quickly develop a layer of calcium salts on the inside, preventing the water from actually coming into contact with the lead.
This right here.
If people remember the lead in drinking water contamination in Flint Michigan, its because they had lead pipes that were well coated with the protective layers and had no trouble with lead in water. Then the newly elected city manager changed water sources to cut costs against the advice of the water engineers in the city. The other source of water was more acidic and stripped out all that protective coating and suddenly there’s huge amounts of lead in the drinking water from the pipes.
Get out of here with your fact-based science, it sounds like you did your own research. We don’t like that. Please comply.
Agreed, fake news. Trump didn’t say this so it isn’t true. Lead never hurt no one. (Ever noticed MAGA’s double negative usage?)
That’s right, water never leaves scale deposits in pipes. Only in hot water tanks and faucets. In between, magic.
Also faucets and fittings are still made with a brass alloy containing lead
Wait, what? In what country(ies)?
I know the US is one that has 100LL
Edit: Misunderstood context, disregard
Ding ding ding!
The reason it feels like people from that era are angrier and dumber than they used to be is because they literally are! It’s literal brain damage!
Yeah, turns out that lead in gasoline ain’t so great for the brain. I remember being oddly fascinated the first time I saw the correlation of lead being pulled from gas and violent crime plummeting 30 years later. You can see it in graphs from all across the world and can damn near set your watch to it.
Gen X kid walked arduous hikes uphill back from school in the La Cañada foothills in San Fernando Valley, id est, the Los Angeles smog bowl from ~1975 to 1985. I may literally have lead poisoning brain damage.
I don’t know how I’d get checked. 58 now.
Curiously, I empathize with kids these days but am also extremely left-wing, and see each generation getting dismissed by the previous one as having it too easy.
I do not dismiss the next generation as having it too easy. Their minimum wage is what mine was when I young. They are basically in a ponzi scheme economy. They are either going to have to endure this distopia or violently overthrow it.
i have respect for my grandparents so i dont call them this but when they bring up stuff i just nod becuase its better to let them ramble than sit there and argue with someone who could have a heart attack.
Removed by mod
Exactly, I have more important thing’s to do than repeat myself to someone who does not care
I was told the other day by someone younger than me that saying “okay boomer” is cringe now. The new hot hip fan-didly-tastic slang is “unc status” or “aunt status”, apparently. Means the same thing, but in sleek Gen-Z packaging.
I feel like there is always some level of condescension when talking about other generations of slang and I wonder why. There’s a smack of snark to the redundant duplicated repetition of “hot hip fan-didly-tastic” and “sleek Gen-Z packaging”, and “cringe” is obviously derogatory. Can’t we casually accept that “the new slang is” what it is, and set an example for the younger ones in turn?
Couldn’t contemporary colloquialisms coexist comfortably?
I love using the new slang. It makes my kid turn red, which I find hilarious.
Okay zoomer.
Notably, – yet again – it’s also cribbing/misusing black slang/terminology; disappointing…
How so?
Unc’s a term that’s been in use since at least the 90s (but maybe older; I’m not a historian nor was alive then); it can sometimes be used disparagingly though, generally, it’s usually a sort of familiar way to refer to someone that’s older. Kind of similar in the way “cuz” doesn’t literally refer to someone who’s your cousin but someone you’re familiar with, who’s like family in the same way a cousin might be (you didn’t grow up with them, didn’t see them all the time, but you’re familiar with them).
So it’s not hard to see how this new definition came about but it is, still, sort of just plucking the word and modifying it to a very different context (the disparaging form was definitely not the predominant form and there was a degree of fondness or respect for your elders in the term which this new usage completely eradicates through patronizing that I can’t help but notice is more community-destructing than community-building). While this is a phenomenon that is far from new, it’s felt particularly manufactured in the last decade and a half or so (probably due to the ease with which things can become viral in our current Hellscape-form of Internet); a lot of the “slang” that’s hit mainstream awareness has felt almost more like buzzwords than actual slang or even natural language in the way it’s been used. That’s not directly relevant to your question but just something I’ve been thinking about.
Also, thanks for asking, rather than downvoting; it’s (obviously) not everyone but there’s a non-negligible segment of Lemmy that just seems to have an emotional tantrum every time race comes up.
So it’s not hard to see how this new definition came about but it is, still, sort of just plucking the word and modifying it to a very different context
I think the difficulty here is the assertion that this “unc” stems from black slang rather than a parallel evolution. After “bro” and “cuz” made it into wider adoption, the pattern of taking the first syllable or so off a term for a relative is familiar.
Unrelatedly, the image of the weird uncle spouting bullshit is a cultural meme in at least those parts of the (presumably mostly white) Internet I’ve been exposed to. The subjectively most common forms I see are holiday season complaints about uncles being racist or conspiracy nuts.
That is a very different image of uncles. Combining it with the aforementioned pattern of taking the first syllable to refer to people of a vaguely similar persuasion will lead to a derogatory meaning of “unc” that may well have developed entirely independently of the more respectful sense you mention.
Hence, I’m inclined to believe it’s more of an unfortunate coincidence than a corruption of an originally benevolent term. Either way, it’s unfortunate to have an otherwise positive term associated with something negative, whether by accident or by ignorant misuse.
more community-destructing than community-building
In some sense, that destruction of community may precede the term. If my reasoning above is correct, the term refers to a type of person one would rather not share a community with.
Also, thanks for asking, rather than downvoting; it’s (obviously) not everything but there’s a non-negligible segment of Lemmy that just seems to have an emotional tantrum every time race comes up.
There’s an odd discussion space around the topic, where even the way you treat it becomes a discussion of its own that I don’t wanna get into right now.
However, one part of it may be that people afford the meaning of words different weights. You comment on how slang becomes trivialised, turning into buzzwords rather than proper language. I’d counter that this seems to be a feature of mainstream communication in general: Words (with some exceptions) are treated more lightly, and as we trust the other to catch the intent of our statement, we also throw them with less care.
That doesn’t mean a word I throw lightly also becomes weightless to others, and I suspect that’s where part of the conflict stems from: When you say “this was taken from black culture”, that feels like an accusation of appropriation and racism. If I adopt a word without any intent of disrespect and then get (or feel) accused of saying something racist, I get defensive because that wasn’t my intent. But the way I said it might still have hurt others, and the fact that I said it carelessly is no help.
I think I first saw that disconnect in the discussion around the N-word: To many white people (including myself), it doesn’t have much weight anymore. We don’t hold the contempt that it used to be an expression of. However, to many black people voicing their thoughts online, it seems to still have the sting of centuries of oppression and disparagement. They don’t – can’t? – separate the intent from the vessel that carried it.
The switch of perspectives isn’t intuitive. But it’s worth learning.
I’m curious to learn and to hear the experiences of others. Whatever thoughts I may have are coloured by my own biases, my upbringing, the social environment I live in. I’d rather ask, converse and risk offending out of ignorance than to assume I know the answer and probably end up offending out of negligence.
Avoiding conflict also avoids the lessons we can learn from it. If we take care to avoid lasting harm, we can “play” conflict and learn to avoid actual conflict in the future.
Fuck I am too old for my own generation. Mentally and from my speaking I am way more millenial than gen z
You arent alone lmao
