Comments on: Another Reason I Hate the Boomers

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:45:52 +0000

The older members of the Millennial generation are primarily the children of the Baby Boom (or “Echo Boomers”, as they’re sometimes called), but the younger members of the Millennial generation are more the children of “Generation Jones”, who have sometimes been identified as Gen X’ers rather than Boomers.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:35:17 +0000

I, too, agree that Boomers have been playing a numbers game, which effectively, if not intentionally, increases the size of their population while downgrading the size of the Gen X population.

A recent redrawing has emerged, however, called “Generation Jones”. Sandwiched between the Boomers and the X’ers, this group effectively cuts down on Boomer numbers. Michael Jackson, Madonna, U2, Obama, etc. are all members of this generation. (See Wikipedia for more information.)

Many Boomers still prefer to claim anyone born from the mid-1950’s to the mid-1960s as their own, yet they resent when a “Joneser” like Obama runs against and defeats a Boomer like Hillary Clinton, thereby revealing their hypocracy.

By: No, the Boomer generation is not merely a marketing construct « Sun Dappled Forest

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:37:24 +0000

[...] 11, 2009 A brief note of correction on a recent comment on my old post on Boomers which makes a curious assertion: If you look at the actual vital statistics numbers, the boomer gen isn’t really any bigger than [...]

By: Seattleblue

Seattleblue — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:35:21 +0000

If you look at the actual vital statistics numbers, the boomer gen isn’t really any bigger than Gen X, and neither is the “millenial” generation. They fudged the birth years when they were playing games with marketing. There was a boom in 1946, compared to the years *before* that. After that point They were all 3-4 million per year. There were as many people born in my birth year, 1971, as there were born in 1946, for example.

There is a 1% difference in total births between 1941-1960, and 1961 and 1980. But even granting the endpoint in 1964, the difference between those 18 years and the 18 years after that is negligible.

Why does it matter after all this time? I don’t know, I’m just tired of the bullshit and lies. They’ve shoved that “boom” shit down our throats for decades as the excuse why they got all the resources of the country, as if it was their divine right. The truth is they just got to it first.

By: bikemonkey

bikemonkey — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:48:08 +0000

Perhaps so but Millenials are all hopped up on SSRIs, anxiolytics and whatnot which can look suspiciously like BoomerSelfInvolvementLite to me.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:07:50 +0000

I previously expressed disappointment that Gen X-ers never accomplished anything on a collective level, but I would now like to qualify that. Besides spearheading techno-revolutions which the Millennial generation takes for granted (and the technophobic Boomers hate), Gen-X’ers, despite the abusive nastiness they displayed during their own youth, turned out, ironically, to be probably the best parents of any generation. They learned from the insecurities and neglect they had to endure as kids, and set out, as parents, to correct all these evils so that their own children would not have to endure the same kind of shit they did. The Greatest Generation, as great as they were, made the mistake of overindulging their children, who, in turn, grew up to be a spoiled, pleasure-seeking (yet santimonious) group who (predictably) neglected their own kids. Younger members of the Millennial generation are, I think, more emotionally secure and positive in attitude because Gen X-ers created the environment condusive to that blissful state of mind.

By: bikemonkey

bikemonkey — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:59:00 +0000

bzzt, wrong. I blame the ones that consistently voted into power those who threw community and our collective values under the bus. That includes a big whopping chunk of the electorate, not just some elite. as we saw during the past election cycle, some of the Boomer culture warriors who are STILL FUCKING FIGHTING the anti-hippie fight….jesus, they need to get a grip. “new order”? “violent revolution”? do you listen to yourselves? Did these elements ever constitute anything other that a fringe? Did they have much effect? hell no. except to serve as a convenient scary monster (made mostly of straw) for the more reactionary Boomer elements to use to frighten the masses away from the good, solid mainstream pro-community advances we saw a hint of during the sixties and seventies.

By: g

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:56:17 +0000

Chill bike monkey…Thing is there are two (or more) groups of “Boomers”. There is the elite cadre that so outrages you. A group that relied upon the old school establishment networks to achieve wealth and status, and the proceeded to kick all sense of social and political responsiblity off the cliff. The second group (which you should also hold in the deepest contempt) are those whose unrepentant mantra is that their nation is so corrupt that only a violent relvolution overthrowing the politcal and social institutions and replacing them with a new order (controlled of course, by themselves) has drowned out much of the reasoned debate and involvement. Lodged between the privileged sybarites and the zealots is what Nixon once termed the “silent majority”, those who strive to improve themselves, their society, their polity, and their families. Blame “Boomers” all you want, but don’t blame all the Boomers.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:34:06 +0000

knob-polishers, all of you

By: ScienceBlogs Channel : Humanities & Social Science | BlogCABLE.COM

ScienceBlogs Channel : Humanities & Social Science | BlogCABLE.COM — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:29:47 +0000

[...] I think some of our younger generation here, politically active and progressive as they are don’t really get it. Luckily, we have revere. Who placed this into the appropriate [...]