Baby Boomers at it Again

RevolvingDoor

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

As many times as we choose to, I guess.
It did say a large proportion, not everyone. And some stereotypes do have some validity, that's why they exist. If you are one of the ones who are different, good luck to you. you have nothing to worry about.
Perhaps you'd now like to make a similar, largely irrelevant comment about the posters who are stereotyping older people.

I just thought you all might be suffering from a severe case of deja vu by now.:rotfl:Sorry for my "irrelevant" comment. Carry on with the repetitive b*tching at each other if you are enjoying it.;)

JonnyBravo

RevolvingDoor wrote: »

How many times can the people on this part of the forum have the same tired argument?

RevolvingDoor wrote: »

I just thought you all might be suffering from a severe case of deja vu by now.:rotfl:Sorry for my "irrelevant" comment. Carry on with the repetitive b*tching at each other if you are enjoying it.;)

You seem to know a lot about the history for such a new member. How have you managed to acquire such extensive knowledge?

GeorgeHowell

RevolvingDoor wrote: »

I just thought you all might be suffering from a severe case of deja vu by now.:rotfl:Sorry for my "irrelevant" comment. Carry on with the repetitive b*tching at each other if you are enjoying it.;)

No, we are set in our ways and enjoy the psychological security and predictability of repetitive rituals.

But I can't think of much more pointless and unconstructive than b i t c hing at people for b i t c hing, on the part of someone hitherto not involved in the discussion ................. presumably ...................

But thank you for your seal of approval to continue. Without that it would have been difficult to see any legitimate way to proceed other than wrapping it up.

RevolvingDoor

JonnyBravo wrote: »

You seem to know a lot about the history for such a new member. How have you managed to acquire such extensive knowledge?

Lol, maybe the older* members don't notice it but it is very obvious I assure you. I used to go on the MSE forum a few years ago and there were two camps debating over and over whether house prices would go up or not and whether it was better to rent or to buy and it seems like a new debate is being constantly rehashed again.:p

* Older in that they have been on the forum a long time, I don't want to be accused of being ageist.:cool:

Angry_Bear

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

....there are some unpleasant little scrotes who think it's fair game to post some nasty, hysterical, ageist, sexist, and often quasi-Marxist diatribes in the hope of upsetting, unsettling, and intimidating [STRIKE]older [/STRIKE]people who post predominantly in a civilised and reasonably courteous fashion. ...

Yes there are.

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

.... dimwitted, embittered age-warriors ...

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

... this generation with such a high proportion of spoilt, whining, materialistic, pampered prima donnas with a sense of entitlement and chips on their shoulders...

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

... embittered ramblings of the "I want it all NOW, Mum" generation.

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

... I do believe that a large proportion of younger people (say under 40) cannot grasp the concept of building up a standard of living and feel entitled to have everything they are ever going to have now

Personally insulted by this one by the way, as I fall in that age group and your description only covers a very small proportion of the people I grew up with (just as the "evil boomer" stereotype only covers a very small proportion of the older generation that I know).

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

... the younger generations to stop whingeing about hard done by they are...

There are equally unpleasant people on the other side of the divide, but your moral high ground is looking more than a little shaky.

GeorgeHowell

Angry_Bear wrote: »

Yes there are.




Personally insulted by this one by the way, as I fall in that age group and your description only covers a very small proportion of the people I grew up with (just as the "evil boomer" stereotype only covers a very small proportion of the older generation that I know).

There are equally unpleasant people on the other side of the divide, but your moral high ground is looking more than a little shaky.

As you would realise if you read right through the thread those comments -- except the penultimate one -- were retaliatory and aimed at said scrotes who are here just to vent their spleen by winding people up if they can. The penultimate comments says a large proportion, not even a majority, and that is my personal experience. The thread was designed to demonstrate how ludicrous the generalised age-bashing is, and aimed solely at said scrotes. If you consider that to be shakily taking the moral high ground then that's your problem, not mine. Everyone reading it can draw their own conclusions, and as always some will do so with their own agenda in mind.

Angry_Bear

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

As you would realise if you read right through the thread those comments

I did. It may be hard for you to see, but reading this thread with no prior knowledge - your comments come across worst (imo).

-- except the penultimate one -- were retaliatory and aimed at said scrotes who are here just to vent their spleen by winding people up if they can. The penultimate comments says a large proportion, not even a majority, and that is my personal experience.

And the rest are aimed at a whole generation (or two, as 40 seems to be your cut-off). Never mind the fact that I suspect most people would read " a large proportion" as much more than a majority. So to clarify, what do you mean by a large proportion - 1%, 10%, 49%?

The thread was designed to demonstrate how ludicrous the generalised age-bashing is, and aimed solely at said scrotes. If you consider that to be shakily taking the moral high ground then that's your problem, not mine. Everyone reading it can draw their own conclusions, and as always some will do so with their own agenda in mind.

Quite.

GeorgeHowell

Angry_Bear wrote: »

I did. It may be hard for you to see, but reading this thread with no prior knowledge - your comments come across worst (imo).

And the rest are aimed at a whole generation (or two, as 40 seems to be your cut-off). Never mind the fact that I suspect most people would read " a large proportion" as much more than a majority. So to clarify, what do you mean by a large proportion - 1%, 10%, 49%?
Quite.

I would say that a 'large proportion' starts at maybe 20%-25% and can be anything up to 50% -- above that it becomes a majority, or a considerable majority. It was a subjective opinion -- like the ones you are expressing -- not meant to be a quantified statement.

The individuals concerned needed a bit of flak returned -- inasmuch as one can do that on the internet -- if this whole board was not going to be spoiled by being turned into a giant baby-boomer bashing exercise for the benefit of embittered ageists. If it pleases you to post quotes without their full context (the 3rd comment, in its context, was actually thanked by 12 people) and to come in now with 'tongue in cheek', 'voice of reason and moderation' type comments then that's your prerogative. You may have your own agenda, we'll never know (but maybe the clue is in the handle). What others think is up to them too. Ultimately it's an internet forum, not a job interview, so nobody should lose any sleep over it.

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, but what it seems many expect others to do is progress in their career, get better jobs, both work to save for a deposit....BUT at the very same time, they expect us NOT to buy the tools that best enables us to do that.

I'd love it if we could all get better jobs within 2-3 miles of our house, without looking on the net, without having a phone, and merely popping into the job centre.

My employer expects me to have a mobile, a car, and internet access (to work from home). NONE of this is paid for by the business. The only part thats paid for is mileage expenses when I'm required to go elsewhere.

Without those, I wouldn't be suitable for the job....they don't have to pay....firstly, its not expected, and secondly, someone else will quite happy to provide all that. I've often thought of the electric I use at home in order to fulfill the job, but asking for that wouldn't go down well. The amount of stuff I need to run is increasing though. Not moaning at all, just saying the way it is. It really does seem at the moment many are having to give more and more to stay static....while being told were vile creatures wanting everything on a plate. Were all just doing our best, competing in a new world, a world where you are now supposed to be grateful for a job and give more of your personal life and posessions to the job.

Our H&S advisor suggested we now have to service our cars on time and have proof (DIY won't count), and have a check every 6 months to cover the employer for health and safety when carrying out business mileage. I.e. we could claim against the employer if we have an accident in our own cars due to bad maintenance. Theres no way any single one of us will do that at the mometn....but it's coming...just need more people succesfully suing their companies, and that will be a personal expense again.

This is a different issue from expenditure on unnecessary things.

I sympthise. When I was young relatively few employers adopted oppressive practices like this. Of course trade unions were more influential in the workplace in those days and people believed in standing up for themselves. Nowadays many (particularly younger) workers believe unions are evil and workers should not even organise collectively. They favour the unfettered market which has led to more employers like yours. Your solution is to seek out a better employer than does not treat you like this, or become self employed so you can get paid for such tools, or start your own business. Either way its not something you should blame boomers for.

Angry_Bear

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The individuals concerned needed a bit of flak returned -- inasmuch as one can do that on the internet -- if this whole board was not going to be spoiled by being turned into a giant baby-boomer bashing exercise for the benefit of embittered ageists.

I accept that there is background that I'm not familiar with.

If it pleases you to post quotes without their full context (the 3rd comment, in its context, was actually thanked by 12 people) and to come in now with 'tongue in cheek', 'voice of reason and moderation' type comments then that's your prerogative.

Any one of the comments wouldn't really have bothered me on it's own, but that was many (most?) of your posts in this thread containing something derogatory ... followed by a post claiming you were against general insults aimed at a generation!
But if it helps, I apologise for my general posting style.

You may have your own agenda, we'll never know (but maybe the clue is in the handle).

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean about my username - I have no agenda, I am simply frustrated at the inter-generational vitriol that seems to be going on everywhere I look these days..