[From “The War Against ‘Boomers’ Is Communist”]
IT’S SAD more young people can’t see that the popularizing of hostility against “boomers” — i.e., their parents’ generation — is a classic, Marxist, divide-and-conquer tactic that has been used before in history and is being deliberately promoted by powerful agents of disorder who want total control over all generations
It’s similar to the tactics of feminism, creating division between men and women for the sake of those at the top. Distract people from the real source of their pain. Whenever I go to our local mall, I see women and men in their 80’s working as sales clerks. ‘Ok, boomer! You’re the oppressor!”
The promotion of intergenerational warfare is a longstanding strategy of subversion that was successful in the Soviet Union and Communist China
The term “boomers” has become a derisive slur against the old, exaggerating their failings to the point of obsession and expressing contempt for their sacrifices. It’s not that “boomers” don’t deserve criticism, it’s that the artificial intensification of it reeks of psychological warfare. A culture as materialistic as ours, and as enslaved by a system of debt-based usury that hurts young and old alike, is also naturally going to have little room or time for the old. So demonizing them fits. “Ok, boomer!”
10 comments
You know, in a way, the Baby Boom generation (and to a lesser extent, the older members of Gen-X) can be considered a border between two very different modes of family relationships. Usual caveats about this being generalities, not all boomers, plus a caveat that this is speculation which only be determined for certain from a future when the Boomers are no longer significantly extant.
For much of history, the assumption was that you lived the life that your elders chose for you, with the reward that you can vicariously live through your children and grandchildren if you survived to be such an elder. Not everyone lived that way, but it was generally the default assumption. For the Boomers, the first modern generation where one could truly live their own life, is kind of having it both ways - they have their life, and their children’s lives, the latter attitude being instilled in them by their parents’ generation. Meanwhile the younger generations just want their own lives and want their children to have their own lives, and resent the attempts from their elders to exploit and control them and mold them into mini-mes.
Rgardless of the truth of the above speculation, there’s little denial that the Baby Boom generation had a lifetime economic privileges which were largely invisible to them, and now that they’re approaching their twilight years, they’re starting to lose it to the Millenials and some of them really don’t like that.
@Zinnia #205196
vicariously live through your children and grandchildren if you survived to be such an elder
This is interesting because in fact, being different individuals, each with their own consciousness and experience, it is only a type of comforting delusion, affirming a type of faith in the wellbeing of future generations (and that, no matter if it happens to be misery more than wellbeing, in some cases).
It's digression, but this now reminds me of those who hope to technologically "upload" themselves to simulated "heaven". Apart from all the technological and unrealistic energy management challenges, any "uploaded me" would just be a type of copy (and likely partial); if consciousness was really simulated, it might believe to be "me", but the real "me" would still be independent and mortal. Then imagine the implications of reuploading/synchronizing copies to prevent a population of lookalikes who all believe to be you and eachother, the "population control" to solve that... Because until the real "me" is not dead yet, I might want to preserve some of my recent experiences. But if I get old enough, perhaps that I want the copies to avoid my own suffering too and to stop the updates... But since they're not really me, is that empathy? Or narcissism where I think the future deserves "me", more than future people? :)
Anyway, to come back on topic, "living through others" is still a type of delusion.
IT’S SAD more young people can’t see that the popularizing of hostility against “boomers” — i.e., their parents’ generation
OK, she’s a little mixed up on her terminology if nothing else. Like, what does she consider “young people”? People in their teens and 20s, maybe? The Boomers or maybe older Gen Xers would be those people’s grandparents now.
Or is “boomer” just a generic term for “people older than me” now?
@Croquemitaine #205216
Digression to your digression: Some people have countered that you can do a form of extremely gradual replacement - this would have someone be constantly connected to an initially blank electronic mind which their consciousness can entwine with and expand into, becoming essentially a cyborg mind, and then as their meat brain slowly dies the electronic part can expand further to make up for the loss. This runs into a different problem: it’s basically the Ship of Theseus on steroids. Imagine taking a ship made entirely of wood plus a little metal, but then you start enhancing it with a bunch of additional useful stuff made of plastic and ceramic, and then later on when the wood and metal needs replacing you gradually replace those with plastic and ceramic equivalents. Even if you can objectively prove the original version of the Ship of Theseus is still the same ship, whatever proof you came up with wouldn’t necessarily apply to a complete change of substrate. (It might, we don’t know what that proof might be, after all. Or it might not.)
If someone wants to spend their entire existence in a virtual world, and wants to be *absolutely* certain that the person experiencing it is still them, I’d recommend the brain-in-a-jar option. “Terminally online” would suddenly become a lot more literal! They’d be higher maintenance and be a bit more physically fragile that way, but it’s not like electronic systems don’t need maintenance and can’t be destroyed or datawiped. If it’s really clinical immortality they’re looking for, that would need to be developed separately and one wouldn’t need to be “uploaded” for that. (Though depending on the specifics of the available technology and the societal context, it might provide some extra security from accidents and/or murder. This only matters for personal preferences and risk tolerance.)
@Zinnia #205250
Then after the brain in a vat, of course, brain/full-body transplant with clones (with all the ethical implications and the fact that nerves and blood vessels grow and adapt according to not only DNA but the way the body is stimulated/trained in the world, meaning that "extreme plasticity training" before, then a lot of therapy, would at least be needed for any amount of technical success)...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
