Interesting Links for 07-03-2023

[andrewducker]

1. Did you know there were two types of boomers?

(tags:generation demographics usa history )

2. Reconstructing visual experiences from human brain activity

(tags:vision mri brain neuroscience ai )

3. Slow motion adverts make people think the produce is more luxurious

(tags:luxury advertising slowmotion video psychology )

4. How you phrase questions really really strongly affects the answers you get

(tags:polls language bias )

5. Edinburgh's Lothian Buses announce revised fares from Sunday 2 April

(tags:edinburgh buses transport money )

6. Neil Gaiman on whether CGI is replacing physical movie making

(tags:movies cgi neilgaiman )

7. SimCity 2013 launched a decade ago, and it was so disastrous it killed the series

(tags:simcity games epicfail )

Comments

[altamira16]

1. Saying the word boomer is the equivalent of a racial slur is racist. There is a perfectly valid word for the way young people use boomer, and it is called "ageism." Ageism is not racism. Comparing it to racism is not helpful. We get to go through about half our lives as not-old. People are never too young to experience racism.

[calimac]

Not so. The slur is not in identifying a cohort by its age. It's the term. "African-American" is not a racial slur. The N-word is a racial slur. This type of word, while not quite that toxic, is the equivalent. And that's not a racist observation. It's drawing a parallel.

[altamira16]

The term "Boomer" has expanded from identifying a cohort by its age to "young people making fun of anyone older than them."

"Ok, Boomer," the young Gen Zer says to their Gen X parent who retorts, "Enjoy your global warming and college debt."

A parallel here is like the time when someone pointed out that "Karen" was sexist. I was seeing "Karen" as people calling out racist white women as Karens, and she was a middle school teacher seeing children call their moms Karens. Even though I wanted to dig my heels in on her erasing the racism in Karens, I did not. Eventually, the way I saw the language being used changed, and Karen WAS sexist.

[calimac]

Yes, that explains very nicely why the term "boomer" is offensive in a way that other age-cohort terms are not.

[conuly]

Which means you consider it a slur. You don't need to say it's as bad as a racist slur, it's enough to just use the word slur itself.

[calimac]

But I didn't say it was as bad as a racist slur; in fact I specifically denied it was as bad as the example I chose. I said it was the equivalent of a racist slur; bad in the way that a racist slur is bad. The word "slur" alone wouldn't convey that.

[conuly]

The word "slur" alone wouldn't convey that.

Yes it would.

But I didn't say it was as bad as a racist slur; ... I said it was the equivalent of a racist slur

These two statements are contradictory. Either they are equivalent, in which case one is just as bad as the other, or they are not. If it is not just as bad as a racist slur then it is not equivalent.

[calimac]

Yes it would.

Well it clearly hasn't.

"Equivalent" does not equal "equal in every way." In this case it means "equal in being the same type of insult."

[conuly]

If you simply think that's what the word equivalent means then you still don't need to modify the word slur. A slur is, of course, the same type of insult as a slur.

[calimac]

What kind of slur?

[conuly]

Also, I have to ask - on what basis of evidence are you saying "Well it clearly hasn't." ?

[calimac]

What kind of slur?

[conuly]

Any kind of slur? I'm not sure why you're hung up on this idea that some kinds of slurs are better or worse than others. I also don't see why you think answering my question with a question is, well, an answer. You didn't say "Boomer is a slur", so how do you know that other people would understand how you meant it? You said "It's the equivalent of a racial slur" and we know that other people clearly did not understand how you meant it. The evidence is clear that adding that word in there did not make you easier to understand.

And I thought about this after I went to bed. When you specifically spelled out "racial slurs" it made it sound to me, as the obvious reading, that you think a. racial slurs are all equally bad with one another b. they're worse than other ismist slurs and, c. following a logic chain, you think that baby boomers are exactly as discriminated against in our society as black people.

I don't actually think that's what you believe. That last point is risible. I think you communicated badly. And you did communicate badly. If you say something and one person replies and that person doesn't get what you're saying, that could be either of you. If multiple people reply who misunderstand your point, the only explanation is that you weren't clear.

But what I still don't get is why you're so intent on arguing that the word "racial" - or, indeed, any qualifier - is necessary to explain how really really really bad a slur boomer is and how bad ageism is. Seriously, why are you invested in your particular phrasing? If you feel that the word slur alone isn't enough, why not say it's the equivalent of an ageist slur. It is an ageist slur, so there you go.

What is it they tell writers? "Kill your darlings?" If a turn of phrase doesn't land, let it go.

[annie_r]

As a jonesing joneser, I don't mind Boomer, but being in between/overlapping with boomers and gen X leaves me feeling a bit alienated at times, but we are all alienated. And having Karen as a middle name makes me angry at the shame. I should just change my name to Karen Jones Lateboomer and be done with it.

[altamira16]

You are very funny!

I didn't know you were a late Boomer. I thought you were the coolest of cool Gen Xers. I have to go rebuild by generational biases now.