| ▲ | andsoitis 4 hours ago |
| > ok boomer. Reid Hoffman is not a boomer. He was born in 1967.
Also: ageism isn't sexy. |
|
| ▲ | jedimastert 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The usage of the phrase has evolved past carrying about the actual generation (kind of like how people still talk about "millennials" like they're college students). Also, Hoffman very intentionally opened the door to talking about generational differences, this kind of feels like the commenter may have touched a nerve |
| |
| ▲ | win311fwg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > kind of like how people still talk about "millennials" like they're college students Is that really an evolution? "Millennial" was coined to refer to the cohort that gradated from high school in the year 2000. Not all high school graduates become college students, of course, but if we are generalizing it isn't unreasonable to think of recent high school graduates as college students. Now, there was nothing in the definition to declare if you must continue to recognize them for who they are going forward (i.e. 40-somethings now), or if you are to remember them in that moment as high school graduates, many of whom were college bound. So still thinking of "millennials" as being college students is a fair interpretation before evolution. | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Ok boomer", as I understand it, basically means "I'm not going to engage seriously with that outdated perspective", often used to shut down a conversation rather than to continue it. I don't know that what Reid is expressing is an outdated perspective, but that's of course subjective. | | |
| ▲ | jcgrillo 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You guys have the opportunity to be generation AI—where you come into the workforce saying, ‘I know this a lot better than all of you' Yeah, it was expressly my intent to shut this kind of nonsense down. This is just a different version of "get on board right now or you'll all be left behind". Enough with the lying. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This version is more effective in expressing your sentiment, FWIW. | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think it's a different version of that at all? Presumably what he has in mind is the Internet transition. Nobody got "left behind" from the Internet, even cranky 80 year olds are often pretty familiar these days, but people like Reid Hoffman achieved "fulfilling lives and jobs" by recognizing early that it was going to be a big deal. | | |
| ▲ | jcgrillo an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Nobody got "left behind" from the Internet, even cranky 80 year olds... This is actually false. There are plenty of 80+ year olds in care facilities and living alone that are disadvantaged by the implicit assumption that everyone has a smartphone or an email address. Unable to communicate with their bank, insurance company, care providers, etc. All down to your "inclusive progress". Call it what it is: an extractive, inhumane power grab meant to monopolize everyone's attention. And that was tech's Big Success Story. Everything since has been trying to re-live those glory days. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jimbokun 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The usage of the phrase has evolved into a thought terminating cliche. |
|
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Also: ageism isn't sexy Biology is ageist. The youngest baby boomers are still in their early 60s, and not yet subject to a precipitous-decline cut-off, but the median Boomer is about 71 and probably past it [1]. Given every President since 1993—with the exception of Obama—was born in 1942 or 1946 [2], I think it’s fair to admit this whole an-eighty-year-old-is-the-same-as-a-thirty-year-old tripe has swung to an untenable extreme. Race is a social construct. Age is not. Mixing them up is fundamentally wrong and, I’d argue, dangerous. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4906299/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit... |
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Race is a social construct. Age is not. Mixing them up is fundamentally wrong and, I’d argue, dangerous. Even worse. Our entire society, hell our biology is based on old people retiring to leave space for the young to develop themselves. When you got gerontocrats in power for too long and after them boomers, all you'll end with in 20 years is a bunch of dead boomers and gen silent, and a bunch of gen y/z that never had the opportunity to actually learn leadership skills and failing spectacularly as a result. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Our entire society, hell our biology is based on old people retiring to leave space for the young to develop themselves This strikes me as a spin on the lump-of-labor fallacy. The problem with a gerontocracy is you have masses in cognitive and physical decline at the peaks of power. Absent that condition, the model isn’t fundamentally broken. (You would probably see more patricide in hereditary lines…) Old people aren’t a problem, aged people in command are. That’s what makes the comparison to race interesting—a society that brain drains gets wealthier for everyone. If we made our immigration 65+ only, on the other hand, it would be an almost-immediate disaster. | |
| ▲ | watwut 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Our entire society, hell our biology is based on old people retiring to leave space for the young to develop themselves. No it is not. People retire, because they dont have strength to work anymore. They have no duty to give up their lives just because you want to take it from them. | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > No it is not. People retire, because they dont have strength to work anymore. That's part of the problem, we shifted from an agrarian to industrial and now service economy. Unlike the first two, in a service economy you can work until old age finally takes you. | |
| ▲ | jimbokun 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We have a duty to take it from them because their incompetence is beyond dispute at this point. The gerontocrats running the US government are a complete disaster and need to be replaced as rapidly as possible. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | malcolmgreaves 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s not ageism. Don’t be so sensitive. |
| |
| ▲ | jimbokun 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is 100% ageism. The entire point is to reduce the value of a person’s opinion to only their age. |
|
|
| ▲ | jcgrillo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm old too, it isn't about that. He's desperately trying to guilt young people into glomming onto his profoundly uncool thing by playing on some ancient "digital native" trope. It's, well, some boomer type shit. |
| |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I suppose you likewise think of Sam A, Dario A, and Dennis H, as boomers because they're signaling the same, just not being as direct. | | |
| ▲ | jcgrillo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | As far as I'm aware they never explicitly kicked the generational hornets' nest, but I'm not a scholar of AI goober drivel |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrhottakes 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Also: ageism isn't sexy. Typical boomer needing things to be based on sex all the time. |
| |
