Talk:OK boomer

4chan

Why is no one mentioning that it started on 4chan? It is primarily a 4chan meme that got picked up by the mainstream. If you want a source there is this (www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/11/19/20963757/what-is-ok-boomer-meme-about-meaning-gen-z-millennials) and search the word on the archives, can someone at least give the credit from where it is actually originated from rather than ignorantly claiming it came from?

Usage

Is the heading Usage really necessary if it has already been explained in the beginning? Linguaddict (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Ok boomer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.60.70 (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sections should really be where precise explanations are to be found so I have moved the info from the lead into that section.  Nixinova  T / C   22:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Name change?

Should the name of the article be changed to OK, boomer? Just a thought. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say no because of MOS:TMRULES "Do not "correct" the spelling, punctuation, diacritics, or grammar of trademarks to be different from anything found in reliable sources – the name should be recognizable as referring to the topic" Adding OK, boomer as a redirect to this is a maybe, but I haven't really seen that version propagated as a meme, only mentioned in one of the headlines. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Should the "boomer" be capitalised? Baby boomer doesn't use the term as a proper noun so should this page be moved to OK boomer?  Nixinova  T / C   22:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I have just declined the page move request. I think WP:Star Trek Into Darkness (page doesn't exist, but maybe it should) applies here, Pete "OK MAMIL" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Not all sources capitalize it. Since there is ambiguity, we should go with MOS:AT and WP:NCCAPS, which says use sentence case and "Boomer" is not a proper noun. See also WP:NCCAPS. This discussion should continue despite @Shirt58:'s abritrary and not fully-informed ubervote with an explanation that made no sense - (some kind of unintelligible rambling about some science fiction film and a guy named Pete). Toddst1 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Abigail Disney

On 11/10/2019 Abigail Disney ranted on Twitter about people being offended by the riposte. Is this worth noting? Linguaddict (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be worth adding to the article? Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

References

This article is BS

This article as it now stands is just a lie. "OK Boomer" is in no way a progressive insult directed at conservatives; it is not even directed at baby boomers. 90% of the time I see it used on social media (which is many, many times a day) it is used to dismiss ANY thought by any person older than the poster.

I see it regularly directed at Gen X people, and even at older millennials.

There is no political consistency to it. It is *occassionally* used in response to older people expressing conservative ideals but very rarely (in my world) and given the high proportion of its usage that does not fit in that category it is completely logical to say that the pejorative is not in any way restricted to the description the article gives of insulting reactionary baby boomers. Indeed I would say that easily the majority of the usage I see is to express disdain and hatred for older people expressing liberal ideas. But that might be because I am a liberal and mostly avoid social media connections with conservatives.

It is ageism, plain and simple, it isn't "considered by some to be ageism" or however this extremely biased article puts it. The fact that it is used against older people of any ideology, by millennials both "progressive" and right-wing proves that its essence is not political but a hatred of older people (not even old people -- unless you consider women in their mid 40's "old" -- who I see subjected to the abuse of "ok, boomer" on a regular basis).

To conclude, there is no other meaningful content to the expression than ageism; it is employed by millennials without regard to left/right politics to insult and demean anyone who is older than them (including, as I said, other millennials who happen to be older). Many if not most of these millennials using the word are conservative, materialistic, privileged, and white. Someone told me recently the phrase actually originated in the alt-right as a sneer at older liberals. I don't have any sources for that, but it's certainly worth looking into if Wikipedia wants to present a factual description of this catchphrase rather than what we now have, which is an article that tries very hard to justify its usage by tying it to some kind of youthful enlightenment. It's the furthest thing from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohgoshanotherusername (talk • contribs) 11:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? 'OK Boomer' originated in alt-right communities to sneer back at liberals? I've never heard of such BS before. Funny how you're playing into this, since this would be the exact situation where 'OK Boomer' would be applicable. Linguaddict (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

He's right about one thing, "OK Boomer" is usually used to dismiss anyone deemed "old" by the younger person now. There should be mention somewhere about it's use being broadened by the majority.

Mention of ageism

(Disclaimer: I am GenX.)

While I understand that many people who employ this phrase do not think they are being ageist, it's still the case that it is the target of a group-oriented epithet who determines what the perception of the epithet is. For instance, if I call someone a nerd, it is up to them to say whether they perceive me as being insulting or complimentary, because I could be intentionally insulting them and then outwardly claiming I was just recognizing their identity and using the term they use for each other. That's how it works for racial epithets too.

If baby boomers perceive "ok boomer," coming from a younger person, as ageist, then it is not for anyone here to deny their perception. The objective reality of it may be debatable (though I personally hear people using "boomer" and "old people" pretty interchangeably, so suspect it's not that debatable), but if it's being reported that it is being perceived as ageist by the targets of the phrase, then that is noteworthy in the article and such information should not be removed.

It was removed earlier, and I've restored it, though I made a point of making the previous text more neutral. Felice Enellen (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

re this reversal: my es being short, says the essence: that "a catchphrase and internet meme [...] used to dismiss or mock [stereotipcal] attitudes ..." is offensive/judgemental/pejorative by definition, inherently. The possible negative perception is already containted in the descrition. You saying in the es "The current debate on the subject is primarily regarding whether or not the phrase is ageist" ("by some") even says it is not even established as a encyclopedic fact.

Why add such an disputable opinion (not a fact then) expressly in the lede? WP:UNDUE weight for thos "some". -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You are conflating two things. There is the fact that there are people who consider it ageist, which is not disputable, as it is clearly shown at references in this article and across the web that people do indeed consider it ageist. You can say that it is debatable whether or not it actually is ageist, but that is not what the content is talking about. The content I restored simply points out that there is a controversy where the targeted group considers it an ageist phrase. That is a historical fact, much the same as you might report that someone used an inappropriate word on television and a certain minority considered it offensive. It's historical data. Felice Enellen (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"it is considered to be ageist" is stated THREE times

A little bit too much I guess, especially for a short page like this. It should be mentioned only once.--185.36.130.254 (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed one mention.  Nixinova  T / C   21:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Soundcould artist name Peter Kuli

It seems to me that we should add the artist who made the OK Boomer song referenced: Peter Kuli as indicated by the cited Boston Globe article Ocajublinky (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Boomer is a mindset

"Ok boomer" has been flanderized to refer unironically to old people, but it originally was just used to refer to people with an attitude that's in the vein of "you kids get off my lawn!" or "old man yells at cloud." You'll find "boomer is a mindset" widespread in social media well before these past two or three months when the term has broken into the mainstream. Sadly I don't think there is a way to quantify this with "reliable sources" so a talk page message might be all I can do. 174.82.103.15 (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages such as Talk:OK Boomer are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic. Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not share your feelings about the subject. If your post is not about improving the article, which as you say it is not, it does not belong here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)