{discussion} "ok boomer"

[Reploid Productions]

Further, "trollnaming" itself is essentially a form of flamebait. When it's just being used as a one-liner shitpost, just "OK boomer" and nothing of value or relevancy to the topic, then I would probably treat it as some combination of spam and flamebait given that it is nothing but an attack on another poster and contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. A one-off might merit a "Stop that", but if somebody makes a habit of such behavior, then they can get smacked harder for it. I don't really see a need for a special ruling just for "OK Boomer" when existing rules cover it adequately already.

[Audioslavia]

Anyone who sees the phrase 'ok boomer' and thinks 'hey, I can use that on the forum that barely has any boomers on it' needs to be hit on the head for their own benefit.

But yeah. Context is everything. If someone is using it because they're mad and they desperately want to convince people they aren't mad, then they need to be bashed. If it's used with a measure of irony then its fine.

[Aclion]

Well it's all academic now unless you want to buy a licence from fox.

I don't see the connection?

Presumably - and Neutra, feel free to correct me if my presumption here is wrong - they mean in the sense that a post that just calls someone a "troll" is actionable as trollnaming, presuming it has no further redeeming content. Similarly, a post that just calls someone a "boomer" with no further redeeming content could be treated similarly. (In other words: a form of spam.)

...Boomernaming, boomnaming, boomeranging, ok-boomering, ok-boomering... The name of it would need some work.

That's how it's treated now though.

[Samadhi]

Anyone who sees the phrase 'ok boomer' and thinks 'hey, I can use that on the forum that barely has any boomers on it' needs to be hit on the head for their own benefit.

But yeah. Context is everything. If someone is using it because they're mad and they desperately want to convince people they aren't mad, then they need to be bashed. If it's used with a measure of irony then its fine.

I'd like to point out that boomer is more than an age group.
You can be my age and be a boomer. It's more an outdated meta concept insult than an age one.

Things like cafe communism, the welfare state, the ideas that we're all in this together, or that experience matters or even enforced diversity and reasonable discussion is effective, the hysterical liberal/conservative should all be taken as boomerisms, and part of reading context for this ruling.

Of course this includes the very reason for this sites existence.

It's pretty much everything but believe in yourself, leave people alone and don't get worked up.

[The New California Republic]

I don't see the connection?

Presumably - and Neutra, feel free to correct me if my presumption here is wrong - they mean in the sense that a post that just calls someone a "troll" is actionable as trollnaming, presuming it has no further redeeming content. Similarly, a post that just calls someone a "boomer" with no further redeeming content could be treated similarly. (In other words: a form of spam.)

...Boomernaming, boomnaming, boomeranging, ok-boomering, ok-boomering... The name of it would need some work.

So spam. The trollnaming reference by N just muddied the waters.

As I said earlier it's one of those dismissive phrases (like NO U, lol no etc) that I don't think should be actionable, unless the same poster is doing it many times in a single day or on a single thread.

[The Free Joy State]

Presumably - and Neutra, feel free to correct me if my presumption here is wrong - they mean in the sense that a post that just calls someone a "troll" is actionable as trollnaming, presuming it has no further redeeming content. Similarly, a post that just calls someone a "boomer" with no further redeeming content could be treated similarly. (In other words: a form of spam.)

...Boomernaming, boomnaming, boomeranging, ok-boomering, ok-boomering... The name of it would need some work.

So spam. The trollnaming reference by N just muddied the waters.

As I said earlier it's one of those dismissive phrases (like NO U, lol no etc) that I don't think should be actionable, unless the same poster is doing it many times in a single day or on a single thread.

I disagree. I don't think anyone's arguing for the Mods to not take context and frequency into account.

But, I don't see the substantive difference between someone using "OK, troll" and "OK, boomer" -- with no other content, and no sign of it being irony or a joke between friends -- as a spammy, irrelevant way to not engage with the thread and bait the poster.

[Ethel mermania]

Quite ridiculous that you would get offended by such a meaningless insult.

It's not offended by it, its irritated by it.

The proper response to "ok boomer" rl is " go fuck yourself". And that kind of dialog is the sort of thing the site tries to discourage.

[The New California Republic]

I disagree. I don't think anyone's arguing for the Mods to not take context and frequency into account.

I know they weren't, but trollnaming in and of itself is actionable regardless of frequency etc; I just thought it was an important thing to clarify given some folks are comparing the two.

But, I don't see the substantive difference between someone using "OK, troll" and "OK, boomer" -- with no other content, and no sign of it being irony or a joke between friends -- as a spammy, irrelevant way to not engage with the thread and bait the poster.

Except the former is an accusation of rulebreaking best dealt with in moderation; to my knowledge the latter isn't such an accusation.

[The Free Joy State]

I disagree. I don't think anyone's arguing for the Mods to not take context and frequency into account.

I know they weren't, but trollnaming in and of itself is actionable regardless of frequency etc; I just thought it was an important thing to clarify given some folks are comparing the two.

It appears [/notamod] that calling someone's actions trolling is not inherently rulebreaking. From Arch's post (first link), it appears that if there's an attached argument for discussion, it may not always be actionable (but for the love of god don't quote me).

That is what many are proposing here, and I do not see how treating them in the same way (as it is the same kind of behaviour -- spammy, baity and explicitly designed to not contribute to discussion) would be problematic.

[The New California Republic]

It appears [/notamod] that calling someone's actions trolling is not inherently rulebreaking. From Arch's post (first link), it appears that if there's an attached argument for discussion, it may not always be actionable (but for the love of god don't quote me).

It should be noted that in both posts the specific form being cited is pointing out "concern trolling", which I've seen that has been deemed not actionable on a few other previous occasions as well, possibly due to the inherent need for the poster to provide added context alongside such an accusation. Outwith that subset of trollnaming, however, the vast majority of the time the post is just "you are a troll"; I cannot recall seeing many such posts along the lines of "you are a troll because...". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "OK boomer" thing seems to be a statement that is given without any other content, as the raison d'être of the statement in an argument is to be a standalone remark to dismiss; somewhat like "you are a troll", albeit without any accusation of rulebreaking.

That is what many are proposing here, and I do not see how treating them in the same way (as it is the same kind of behaviour -- spammy, baity and explicitly designed to not contribute to discussion) would be problematic.

The only possible concern I had, which I mentioned beforehand, was that similar statements such as "NO U" and "lol no" could also be interpreted in such a manner, as they too are standalone remarks—devoid of other content—designed to dismiss; and for a double standard to arise where "OK boomer" is actionable, but "lol no" isn't, even though they more or less have the same content and use.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Should there really be a zero-effort way of dismissing someone during a discussion though? If you can't win a debate without belittleing people you need to work on your own abilities it seems.

Five-and-a-half years and 14,000 posts and you ask this question?

This is not my first nation. Try 10 years and nearly 30000 posts.

[Saiwania]

Eh, as long as you hit the whole "millenial" thing as well, I'd argue fair is fair. "Ok Boomer" evolved as a counterresponse to that, so if we just take out both, things should be fine.

I'm loathe to want more rules in general, but I'm far more sold on this if ageist attitudes from both directions are mitigated. It is no one's fault how old or young they are, so it shouldn't be a valid criticism. I'm sure more people can get behind both the young and old not denigrating eachother unnecessarily, over diverging interests and concerns.

[The Black Forrest]

Quite ridiculous that you would get offended by such a meaningless insult.

It's not offended by it, its irritated by it.

The proper response to "ok boomer" rl is " go fuck yourself". And that kind of dialog is the sort of thing the site tries to discourage.

I was actually hit with that in RL. I responded "I'm sorry kiddo; did you say something?" The person got noticeably irritated.

"Ok boomer" is a fad. Probably the best response is to not even acknowledge it.

[The New California Republic]

"Ok boomer" is a fad. Probably the best response is to not even acknowledge it.

I give it 6 months max, before its use on the site drops off to next to nothing, regardless of whether the mods do anything about it or not.

[Ethel mermania]

It's not offended by it, its irritated by it.

The proper response to "ok boomer" rl is " go fuck yourself". And that kind of dialog is the sort of thing the site tries to discourage.

I was actually hit with that in RL. I responded "I'm sorry kiddo; did you say something?" The person got noticeably irritated.

"Ok boomer" is a fad. Probably the best response is to not even acknowledge it.

As a born and bread new yawker, I am genetically challenged to let something like that go. In a work environment the person who says it is getting disciplined, in a conversation that person is getting called out for being the moron they are. The point is to make them uncomfortable for saying it.

[Ghost Land]

Anyone who sees the phrase 'ok boomer' and thinks 'hey, I can use that on the forum that barely has any boomers on it' needs to be hit on the head for their own benefit.

But yeah. Context is everything. If someone is using it because they're mad and they desperately want to convince people they aren't mad, then they need to be bashed. If it's used with a measure of irony then its fine.

I'd like to point out that boomer is more than an age group.
You can be my age and be a boomer. It's more an outdated meta concept insult than an age one.

Things like cafe communism, the welfare state, the ideas that we're all in this together, or that experience matters or even enforced diversity and reasonable discussion is effective, the hysterical liberal/conservative should all be taken as boomerisms, and part of reading context for this ruling.

Of course this includes the very reason for this sites existence.

It's pretty much everything but believe in yourself, leave people alone and don't get worked up.

Not true. By that logic there are 75 year old millennials. This is especially ridiculous considering that baby boomers are the only generation with an actual, objective definition, at least in my country (United States). The youngest boomers are 54 right now, so the idea of someone my age being one is clearly a mindset stuck a good twenty years in the past itself.

And to restate my opinion on the topic: I've been sick of "millennial" used as a slur for long enough, so how about we not make "boomer" a slur too, mmkay? There are better and more meaningful ways to rebut an argument than by responding with the ad hominem of "okay, person born between 1946-1964."

[Mackjaracotavon]

Personally, the mods should just ban the use of it outright. Yes, context is everything, but how can you contextually define "ok boomer" on NS when A: It serves little purpose than to attack the poster, B: Context is easily muddied by these sorts of ad hominems, and C: NSG has enough snark as it is?

[Aureumterra]

Eh, I just take it as someone conceding a debate on NSG since it only happens when someone doesn’t have a proper argument against a point, and massive egos prevent a straightforward admittance

[Frisbeeteria]

the mods should just ban the use of it outright.

We don't ban words. We ban contextual actions, such as flaming, trolling, and flamebaiting. Every call is always a judgement call, and we're quite practiced at it.

NSG has enough snark as it is?

It's a pity we can't bottle and sell that. We'd be world leaders in the export biz.

[Neutraligon]

the mods should just ban the use of it outright.

We don't ban words. We ban contextual actions, such as flaming, trolling, and flamebaiting. Every call is always a judgement call, and we're quite practiced at it.

NSG has enough snark as it is?

It's a pity we can't bottle and sell that. We'd be world leaders in the export biz.

I don't know, our snark might be more concentrated but I'm pretty sure places like twitter have us beat in shear weight.

[Farnhamia]

We don't ban words. We ban contextual actions, such as flaming, trolling, and flamebaiting. Every call is always a judgement call, and we're quite practiced at it.



It's a pity we can't bottle and sell that. We'd be world leaders in the export biz.

I don't know, our snark might be more concentrated but I'm pretty sure places like twitter have us beat in shear weight.

They have quantity only, we have quality.

[Magnum Exitium]

I don't know, our snark might be more concentrated but I'm pretty sure places like twitter have us beat in shear weight.

They have quantity only, we have quality.

Yeah, but then you need to worry about the actual production cost of bottling snark. I'm no expert, but I imagine it'd be fairly high (in terms of the word bottling industry). Thus you'd need to charge higher in order to sustain that quality snark, and people would just end up on Twitter where they can get Snark for like $4.99, rather than like $16.99. So you better market that Snark well. Maybe ask the Admins if you can get an official snark marketer position, that might go over well! Maybe Max could even sell a free bottle of Snark with every book. The possibilities are endless!

[Union of Pepe]

Everyone: Don't make me bring "OK Boomer" and other such crap up to the rest of the Mod Team. They're a lot less forgiving than I am. If all you've got is name-calling, go find a school playground.

No no Farn, I think you absolutely should bring it up, so that's what I'm doing here.

It's been repeatedly employed as an attempt at stiffing honest discussion by employing lazy namecalling. Thats something moderation should be looking at on a case by case basis.

Okay Boomer

[LiberNovusAmericae]

No no Farn, I think you absolutely should bring it up, so that's what I'm doing here.

It's been repeatedly employed as an attempt at stiffing honest discussion by employing lazy namecalling. Thats something moderation should be looking at on a case by case basis.

Okay Boomer

I'm not a mod, but I don't think posting that in this thread is a good idea.

[Lamoni]

No no Farn, I think you absolutely should bring it up, so that's what I'm doing here.

It's been repeatedly employed as an attempt at stiffing honest discussion by employing lazy namecalling. Thats something moderation should be looking at on a case by case basis.

Okay Boomer

*** Warned for Spamming Moderation ***