Peak 'OK Boomer' Reached As Naruto Voice Actor Says It On Camera

Only a couple of weeks into the meme, we’ve already reached peak “OK boomer.” How do I know that? Someone got Naruto’s voice actor to say it at a convention this weekend, and frankly, I don’t think I ever need to hear it again.

In a Reddit post, an attendee of Minneapolis convention Galaxy Con asked actor Maile Flanagan, who voices the anime hero Naruto, to say the line. Here is is in case you’d like to sample it in your EDM track or—just a suggestion—loop it 200 times to make it your ringtone:

(Posted on Reddit by user That-One-Ho1, and ripped to Twitter.)

If If you do decide to do anything with it—again, a suggestion—please post your monstrosities in the comments.


Comments

    Its kind of funny having something reach its 'peak' when I'd only heard about it two or three days ago when there was an article on it in the Sydney Morning Herald. I suppose thats life.

      OK boomer

      It's a well used "insult" within the SJW community.

      They went from, "why are you arguing with a teen on the internet" (after starting the argument), to "ok, Boomer" when they realise that what they are saying is stupid and can't actually be backed up

        That would explain why I’ve never heard it if it’s used only in a niche online environment.

        I’m a little disappointed, since when I saw pics of tshirts with “Ok Boomer” on them I thought Bubblegum Crisis was making a comeback.

        SJW? No. It's just a way of being equally dismissive about out of touch boomers as they've been to everyone else. It's a meme that's funny because it highlights how thin skinned the "you'll never make it in the real world" crowd are. We all know those people who have been living in a bubble since for the past 30 years yet feel like they're some authority on the real world. "I brought my house in 1993, so I'm obviously qualified to tell you that attitude is the only thing keeping you from from buying a house in 2019".
        It also just happens to be perfect for when some idiot is pulling global warming facts out their butt.

          It also just happens to be perfect for when some idiot is pulling global warming facts out their butt.

          wot?

            I'm a supporter of Global warming action. It's real and something needs to be done and deniers like Andrew bolt need to be shot out of a cannon into the sun (Figuratively ofc)

            But you have to admit there have been many instances of people intentionally pulling dramatic things that will occur due to global warming out of thin air.

              Predictions are not, however, facts

                They do act as if its fact though. And it doesn't help our cause.

                  I was just interpreting what he might have been trying to say.

        lol what? you're not even close mate. It's intergenerational - a response from millenials and gen z when out of touch old folks are yelling at clouds (e.g. 'i bought a house 50 years ago for tuppence, kids these days could absolutely do the same now, and if they can't it's their own bloody fault - and defs not because house prices are like 30-50x higher, wages have stagnated, and property markets are becoming increasingly dominated by foreign investment capital - nah if they just worked harder and were more thrifty blah blah smashed avocados blah blah kids these days just lazy').

          @dogman

          That may have been it's intended origin, a month ago when the song was released. Although looking at the lyrics... There's a lot to unpack there... But I digress.

          Just as "incel" was the big buzzword for a few months, now "ok, boomer" is.

          It's really that simple. And it really only get used in small niche circles, until it gets it's rare mainstream moments where these radical ideas are somehow allowed to be spoken, unchallenged, just like last week's Q and A. Where one of the "feminist" panelists said that while she is against captial punishment and incarceration, she is happy to kill and commit violence against men, and it should be permitted so that she feels safe.

          You disagree with that, you'd get the "ok, boomer" thrown at you... Hell, I have had it thrown at me, and I'm a Millennial, why? Because I spoke out against having a book aimed at primary school kids going in depth talking about a transexual's sexual awakening at the age of 8, in public libraries

            Oh how I thought it was disgusting that an 11yr old "drag queen" dance and do a mild strip tease in a gay bar while adult men threw $1 bills at him. "Ok, boomer"

            Your views aren't owed anybody's respect. I think you're very angry about things that have literally no impact on you and you drag the subjects up any chance you get. The SJW thing is to sit here and fight about it, but now people are realising it's better to just step back and think 'ok, everyone can see that this guy has a bizarre level of hostility about his dated views, so instead of engaging I'm just going to shrug and walk away'.
            'ok boomer' used for a lot of things but it also happens to be the appropriate response when someone barges into comments thread of an article about gender politics looking for a fight while pretending they're just adding to the discourse.

              Also a good chunk of the people who use it in those situations are doing it purely to troll you. They don't care about what you're saying you've just indicated that you'll probably react badly to it. A big part of why the meme gained so much traction so quickly is because it's such an effective drive by trigger.

              Didn't say my views are "owed respect". I'd say that at least, all views should be listened to, whether you agree with them or not. Yet somehow these "young" people seem to think that their views are owed respect and anything else is wrong... It's almost as if they are no better than any previous generation, they just grew up with no respect/fear for any authority and have become militant about it. I really loved seeing the video of a group of antifa thugs physically intimidating and harassing an old lady with a walker trying to cross a road.

              I think you're very angry about things that have literally no impact on you

              Everything being pushed by either which side impacts everyone, if not directly, than indirectly. I have 6 nephews and 2 nieces under the age of 10, I don't have any children yet, personally, but I know their parents wouldn't want their kids to stumble upon a book of the sexual awakening of a trans person in their schools library. I know they wouldn't want 11 yr old drag queens stripping in gay bars where adults hurl money at them, normalised... Yet apparently me (and a multitude of others) are bigots for thinking that.

                You're saying your views are owed respect when you say they should be listened to. Why should I have to listen to you when I can go play Nintendo? Why should I engage with you make it so clear you'll dismiss anything that challenges your views as SJW non-sense? Why should I play along and pretend that your actually care about Antifa when it's clear you only care about their value as a weapon against anything you deem SJW? Why should I explain that this isn't some coordinated attack campaign by the left, it's just people who think you're making a fool of yourself baiting you into looking even more foolish? Why should I explain how libraries work? I've gone down that path plenty of times and it's exhausting.

                You're not my nan. I don't have to sit through Christmas dinner with you. It's not my job to convince you that in ten years your nieces and nephews are going to think of you the same way I think of people who open with 'I'm not homophobic' and then rattle off the same list of petty little cherry picked attacks that all happen to be targeted at aspects of homosexuality that they've been using since it was ok to be openly homophobic. You're still going to be dragging up 11 year old drag queens like it's some silver bullet that will end 'SJWs' for good, and they're just going to look at you like you're wearing a tinfoil hat fighting space men.

                In other words: ok boomer

                all views should be listened to
                oh sweet child no, they should not

                  Oh yes, they should. Because only then can you dismiss them as garbage. Or actually take them on and learn something.

                  If the current ideal is to automatically shut down any form of discourse without hearing them out, then you are only doing so based on the fact that that person is white, straight or male. Which makes you no better than those you presume to be against.

                You're using some incredibly specific examples to make broad generalisations about anyone who is "young". And usage of SJW pretty clearly indicates an us/them mode of thinking also. That may have been why OK boomer has been leveled at you in the past.

                The book you're referring to is certainly not the only one in school libraries with sexual content in it. And, perhaps more importantly, the sexual activity described is apparently unrelated to the transgender issues the book discusses. Should it have a content warning? yes. But if other books have similarly sexual content, why was this particular book singled out for censure? I can't say for sure, but it's worth noting that the original complaint about the book was raised by Binary Australia - a lobby group with an explicit anti-transgender policy platform. And coming back to your specific complaint - the wording you chose was not 'I wouldn't want a young kid reading about sexual awakenings at all', it was 'I wouldn't want a young kid reading about trans sexual awakenings'. So yeah, that may be where the accusation of bigotry comes from.
                (also, the organisers of that protest explicitly condemned the actions of those three protestors after they found out about it, and 11yr olds stripping is a problem irrespective of sexuality or gender).

                  There's a difference between a book, aimed at primary school aged children speaking about "Where did I come from" and one talking about the sexual adventures and awakenings of an 8 year old. I was specific about it being a "trans" person, because that's the subject of the book. Just like how I was talking about the 11 yr old drag queen doing a strip tease in a gay bar in front of a bunch of men. I'm being specific, is it my fault they happened to be part of the LGBT community? Go find me a book about the sexual adventures and awakenings of an 8 yr old cisgender, aimed towards primary school kids. I'll denounce and speak out about that also.

                  Who cares who opposed it? If it's wrong, it's wrong yeah? Would you you turn a blind eye and disregard the notion that Nazi's are bad, just because ISIS said they were? For example.

                  As for the organisers who disavowed the actions of those members, does that really mean anything? I mean, how many times do people have to denounce the violence of white supremacists, etc before people stop calling them that?

                  @nuffman

                  Yes, it's your fault that you focused on their sexuality rather than just the fact the content was sexual. To me that suggests bias, like I said. Still does (even more so now tbh).

                  Cherry picking is the issue with calling out this book/trans content specifically. Seems pretty obvious to me what BINARY AUSTRALIA's primary motivation actually is.

                  also lol Godwin's law (+bonus ISIS!)...nice one. But just to flesh out your example - it would be like if ISIS only complained about trans-Nazis, but didn't raise complaints about Nazis who weren't trans - would suggest that their real problem is with trans people, not Nazis.

                  "does that really mean anything?" well...yes, it means the actions of those individuals do not represent that group. A group disavowing members for poor behaviour is not the same as people being erroneously accused of being members of a group they're not actually a part of. And besides, like you said....if it's wrong, it's wrong..right? Pretty sure it's not, 'if it's wrong it's wrong, unless they did it as well in which case go for broke"...

                  Talk about cherry picking... Obviously missed the whole "Go find me a book about the sexual adventures and awakenings of an 8 yr old cisgender, aimed towards primary school kids. I'll denounce and speak out about that also."

                  As for the rest of your comment... Well considering your entire thing is based on me apparently only having an issue with trans people and not the content of the book, and I have said multiple times that's not the case and then made it super clear for you, and yet you have now purposefully disregarded it... Yeah..

                  @nuffman

                  so you'll accept that it's not the only book with that content...but only if someone else goes and points the others out to you? you're saying a book should be banned, but you haven't even bothered to check yourself whether the content is consistent with other books? lol...cherry picking.

                  and yeah I've not said you have a problem with trans people, just that your language suggests that you do. important difference.

                  Go find a book about the sexual awakenings of a cis-gendered child.

                  You can't, because there isn't any.. in fact, before *this* book, there was no book, aimed at children that spoke about a child's sexual awakening (fiction OR non-fiction) in a public library, within a school or otherwise.

                  You want to know why... Because talking and reading about a child's (let me remind you, this story is about an 8 yr old, before the onset of puberty even, except in very rare cases) sexual awakening is both grotesque and disgusting.

                  And if thinking that makes me a bigot... well, I'm happy to be one

                  My language suggests I have a problem with trans people... right... did you just read "trans" and literally disregard everything I said after it?

                  You're as bad as Desmond's, the 11 yr old drag queen that dances in front of adult men while they "make it rain" at a gay bar, mum, who accuses people of homophobia as a defence for her and her son's actions..

                  @nuffman

                  'happy to be a bigot' haha yeah, that much has been clear for a while now (btw what happened to if it's wrong, it's wrong?)

                  Anyways, if you can't grasp that I haven't said you are a bigot then you're clearly not reading and/or responding to what I'm actually saying - just bringing up the same two incredibly specific examples sans context again, and again, and again....Good luck to you punching on with the strawman.

                  Sans context... What context do you want?

                  In what context would any of that be ok? What context would you want to justify such things?

                  You want "less specific" examples. Go have a look at the actual curriculum that the safe schools program is wanting to push through public schools... Oh wait... You can't find the curriculum? Even on their website? Unlike literally every other subjects curriculum which is readily available online? I wonder why.

                  Go have a look at what reachout(.)org are pushing through. They are pushing through a very specific survey/questionnaire into schools asking 11-12 yr olds questions in regards to their sexual activity, including a whole checklist stating numerous forms of sexual positions, etc, to check off what you have done. Why would anyone want to know that?

                  Go look for the information on their website... Just like with safeschools, they hide their information, so you don't know what is included unless you work in a school.

                  Why do you think there has been so much backlash over the program? Because people privy to the information and have read through the curriculum have shared it and spoken up about it.

                  They aren't "incredibly specific" scenarios either, that's what a certain group of people are trying to push through the public schooling system. But hey, how dare I give you two specific examples... Next time I'll be super vague

                  @nuffman

                  lol deflecting onto safe schools isn't going to help dude. I'm not sure how to explain what I've said in simpler terms. Re-read my initial comment again if you're still confused.

                Oh yes, they should. Because only then can you dismiss them as garbage. Or actually take them on and learn something.

                This is fallacious and one of the real issues of our world today. Under the banner of "freedom of speech", "tolerance" and some bizarre misinterpretation of equality, we find that misinformation, lies, and equivocation are being demanded to get as much air time, consideration and respect as truth or fact. That's how we get anti-vaxxers, flat-Earthers and climate change denialists. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but should not expect that opinion to be taken seriously if they are lies, idle speculation, fearmongering or ignorant arrogance.

                If the current ideal is to automatically shut down any form of discourse without hearing them out, then you are only doing so based on the fact that that person is white, straight or male. Which makes you no better than those you presume to be against.

                Ah yeah, I keep hearing this argument now. "If you don't publicly support me being a bigot, YOU are the bigot! The person who believes that certain groups of people should not exist should have exactly as many rights as those people have, according to SJWs!" perverting and weaponizing progressive people's anti-discrimination stance to protect discrimination.

                Thankfully, this generation seems to be pretty aware of the Paradox of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance).

                  Everybody is entitled to their opinion but should not expect that opinion to be taken seriously if they are lies, idle speculation, fearmongering or ignorant arrogance.

                  Kinda like how I said, "Oh yes, they should. Because only then can you dismiss them as garbage..." which you quoted... it's almost as if we agree on that *shock*

                  As for your other silly comment.. unless you hear what that person has to say, how would you know they are a bigot? (You do know the definition of a bigot yeah, I mean, what you described is the very definition of one, someone intolerant of those with differing opinions). If you are dismissing someone, based purely on their gender, race, sexuality, religion, and not on what they are saying or their actions, then you are racist/sexist/whatever-ist/phobic.

                  perverting and weaponizing progressive people's anti-discrimination stance to protect discrimination.

                  Literally read what I wrote, you're implying that anyone male, white, straight is inherently "discriminatory" since I was specific in my words, "If the current ideal is to automatically shut down any form of discourse without hearing them out, then you are only doing so based on the fact that that person is white, straight or male."

                  You're literally basing your opinion of someone solely on their race/gender/sexuality, which, if I'm not mistaken, and I'm not... is a big no no.

                  Last edited 15/11/19 4:19 pm

                  Just furthering your "paradox of intolerance"

                  Don't forget what Popper followed it up with: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."

                  Popper, himself argues discourse is the way.

                  Last edited 15/11/19 4:19 pm

                  And because I can, further looking into Popper's work on the Paradox of Tolerance: "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

                  Gee whizz, sounds pretty much what you're (and others upset by what i said) advocating for "begin by denouncing all argument", also mentions what a lot of of people on the "left" are doing these days, "they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive" *cough* echo chambers. and then following closely by, exactly what people like antifa do, "and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists..." and all this when a conservative speaker is prepared to give a talk.

                  Yeah, the paradox of tolerance thing is quite interesting

                  Last edited 15/11/19 4:19 pm

                  @nuffman I find it ironic that your passionate defense of free speech has been triggered by your feeling of relevance deprivation because a young person casually mocked your demand for books to be removed from public libraries with an "okay boomer". lol

                  @AngoraFish

                  Passionate defence of "free speech" (which we in Australia don't have)...

                  Nah man, I just schooled this guy on his own argument.

                  @nuffman

                  re: Popper - DARVO the "left" (lolol) as much as you want, but you don't seem to understand what Popper is driving at. Intolerance of absolute intolerance in furtherance of tolerance (e.g. racism bad so racist opinions must paradoxically not be tolerated), is very obviously different to just straight up intolerance (e.g. racism is OK). Although both are functionally intolerant - hence the paradox! - the former furthers tolerance, the latter furthers intolerance.

                Kinda like how I said, "Oh yes, they should. Because only then can you dismiss them as garbage..." which you quoted... it's almost as if we agree on that *shock*

                A reminder of what you were initially referring though: "all views should be listened to". (emphasis mine). If you had initially said all people should be listened to at the beginning, perhaps I wouldn't have replied how I did: it's obvious that only listening first to someone is how we know whether they are bigoted, mistaken, etc. and we simply cannot and shouldn't make guesses before listening. However, you used the word "views", which has a different colloquial meaning. A view is a set of beliefs and worldviews shared by groups of individuals. Views are made out of known and agreed on opinions that, in turn, inform the individual thoughts of each person.

                So when you say "all views should be listened to" it doesn't sound like advocating for listening to unique individuals but rather to the much fewer worldviews of our modern world. It sounds as though you are saying that both the view that all humans are equal, must be listened to just as much as the view that some humans are inferior and as such, they should be discriminated against. From your response, I infer that's not what you were trying to say, so we can chalk it to miscommunication.

                As for your other silly comment..

                Good to know that we're both engaging in mutually respectful discourse, btw.

                Literally read what I wrote, you're implying that anyone male, white, straight is inherently "discriminatory" since I was specific in my words, "If the current ideal is to automatically shut down any form of discourse without hearing them out, then you are only doing so based on the fact that that person is white, straight or male."

                I am reading and rereading trying to figure out a way how you could infer what I put in bold from my response. You'll have to both walk me through the logic and then convince me that's what I was trying to say since it's something I currently don't believe, what with being myself male and straight. Sorry to impose.

                exactly what people like antifa do, "and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists..." and all this when a conservative speaker is prepared to give a talk.

                Whoa, so you went there. Literally up until this last sentence in your comment chain, I was happy to just let the disagreement fall through as the seeming result of a misunderstanding, even with your unwarranted hostility. But you had to go and close with this pearl of a bad faith argument and reminder that you subscribe to disingenuous blanket dislike for all things "SJW" or "antifa".... So those violent devils, am I right? Aggressively going against these merely "conservative" speakers instead of listening to them. They unmistakably were protested against for being conservative and reasonable and not because of their known views (hey, that little word made a comeback) regarding the rights of women or minorities, yes? Maybe if instead of publicly reviling them the protesters listened, they would have come to learn why we must discriminate some human beings and "reason" would triumph!

                Since you have said this, I no longer know what you actually meant when you said "views", so I am going to ask you outright and clearly: are you arguing that individuals must be listened to without prejudice the first time and then judged according to their words, or are you actually arguing that every worldview is worthy of receiving airtime and consideration?

                  @nuffman

                  Oh hahah, I love it! To think that this whole conversation started because you were annoyed by having that thrown that at you. Good thing that it not only fails to annoy me, I'm also greatly amused by your hypocrisy. Hell, have an upvote for making my day.

                  Nah, just using a "harmless way to dismiss all that hostility." Apparently

            Since you are not a parent, and one suspects, not a teacher, librarian, child psychologist or book publisher either, I'm curious as to why you felt that your personal perspective was so important that it was necessary to "speak out" on the appropriateness or otherwise of public libraries owning copies a particular example of children's literature.

              Highschool teacher for 10 years, before I changed career, with PE and maths my main subjects, but bridged into Psychology also, because it was interesting.

              As for why I felt it "necessary"... Well considering public libraries are funded using taxpayer money...

              Also the fact I'm not currently a parent is besides the point, like I said, I have a tribe of children around me, who's parents entrust me with, you know, as uncles are supposed to do. But, if you're going to use that argument, or the similar ones you tried to pull, you better use that against those you would seem "allies" to those causes also.

              If you're cis and straight, you can't speak against LGBT issues, but you should also not be allowed to speak in support of it also. But we all know that's not how things work hey

              (No edit, but it'll prolly be out of moderation sooner than a month)

              Last edited 15/11/19 4:18 pm

                It's not about "allies" and arguments, it's about extremely well qualified and experienced professionals making exactly the decisions we pay them to make, versus outsiders butting their noses into areas that they literally have not a single significant reason to care about other than that they are "taxpayers" in a "democracy" and read an article on the topic once and now feel as qualified as anyone with a PhD to have an opinion, an opinion that needs to be "called out" as if other people should give a shit what they personally think.

                Or we can just respond with "okay, boomer" and move on with our lives.

                  But you'd allow "outsiders butting their noses into areas that they literally have not a single significant reason to care about other than that they are "taxpayers" in a "democracy" and read an article on the topic once and now feel as qualified as anyone with a PhD to have an opinion." As long as that opinion followed what you believe to be right and true, correct?

                  Go back to silently downvoting any post that triggers you.

                  @nuffman But FWIW, no. I am a fan of letting experienced professionals make the decisions that they are trained to make. And incidentally, that they typically agonise over, consult over, and balance many competing interests in their determinations.

                  A good majority of scientists agree that global warming is real I'm up for that. Also, a large majority of scientists agree that GMOs and Glyphosate (RoundUp) are safe. I'm happy to take them at their word.

                  If librarians feel that Mein Kampf has a place on their shelves I have no argument with that, nor do I object to A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo, or any of the other most commonly challenged books in libraries.

                  Seriously, don't run your psuedo moral equivalence argument with me, as if you and I are different sides of the same coin.

                  Oh no.. we are definitely cut from different cloth.

                  But you continue to sit there on your high horse, thinking you are far more moral than those around you, when really...

                  Hell, you questioned my "professional" status, and when I told you what I was (of which none of it is a lie and I'm more than welcome to back that up), all of a sudden you move the goal posts. It's all you and your ilk are good at, moving goal posts.

                  So like I said, go back to silently down voting comments that trigger you. And no, for it to be an "ad-hominem" you'd be suggested that I'm using that to discredit your argument, which I'm not, it's just a more hostile "ok boomer" ;-)

                  @nuffman I didn't move the goalposts, I just did not further engage with you on the topic of you being the centre of the universe. But for what it's worth, you acknowledged yourself that you have out of date qualifications in an unrelated specialty in a field that you no longer work in. All credit to you, however, for admitting it.

                  Also, you keep referring to me silently down-voting people, which I would have thought this thread thoroughly refutes. Regardless, as we have both discovered, Kotaku's moderation system being what it is, thumbs are sometimes the only option available.

                  You asked if I was a teacher (which going by your comment was a pre-requisite for some form of whatever), I was, and now you're saying that's not good enough... If that's not moving the goal posts, what is? I'm 32, so if I spent 10 years teaching, you tell me how "out of date" that is. Spent 3 and a half years doing Psychology at the same time. I'd hazard a guess and say I'm "more qualified" than you are to make any sort of "educated opinion" on such matters.

                  "further engage with you on the topic of you being the centre of the universe."

                  You're the one that made me the "centre of the universe" by asking, "I'm curious as to why you felt that your personal perspective was so important that it was necessary to "speak out""

                  All I did was respond to your comment, and now you say that I'm making it about me... My gosh.

                  @nuffman You keep arguing as if the topic of discussion is anything other than why anyone should care that you got a little bit huffy when called out for your insistence that we take you seriously in your one-man culture war against the local public library.

                  I gave you a little bit of a lead-in to help you make that case, yet all you came back with was that you are a taxpayer, some of your relatives have kids, and someone paid you to run games of medicine ball for a decade.

                  There's nothing you've said so far that might lead a reasonable person to conclude that your personal opinion should be taken as seriously, if not more seriously, than the people we employ specifically to make judgements about which books it is appropriate for a public library to own.

                  Whether I am more or less qualified than you is irrelevant since this is not a pissing contest. I've ventured no personal opinion whatsoever on the literature that you feel so passionate about.

                  Also, your attempt to sum up what I did for 10 years as a profession, shows that you either, didn't get by yr 8 schooling, or you're possibly American... In which case, both answer a lot.

                  Maybe, while you're tap tap taping away on your keyboard all the way up there on your high horse, perhaps look up some curriculum. Who knows, you might even be able to understand some of it this time around.

                  Now, since you have admitted to having "no personal opinion whatsoever on the literature that you feel so passionate about." Or at the very least, aren't willing to share it.. but we all know it'd be the first thing you preorder, then the only reason you have for making any comment is to stroke your own ego and check "moral high ground" card.

                  So "ok, boomer." Now run along

                  @nuffman LOL. Perhaps now might be the time to share the title of the scary book that we're all so worked up about because I'm in the dark. We should have a book club! I think you said it was YA? I trust you've read it already, but if it's YA it'll probably only take me a day or two to catch up.

          You don't have the keen financial instincts that I had when I walked into the bank I already had an account with, took whatever loan terms they put in front of me, picked a house based on trivial factors, over invested in it, then got bailed out by urban sprawl massively increasing the value of any land within 10km of the city. And I got a free pen!

          Ok boomer

            yes, moron that exactly how it happend, because there robots, sometime i forget this.

              You're a gem, buddy. Don't ever change.

        No dude that's just ridiculous, it's just the latest iteration of "Ok Grandpa"

        The conflict and dismissals between the older and younger generations isn't new or political or subcultural, it repeats every generation gap the same bloody way.

        That, and PewDiePie has kinda made it go big in the meme world. lol

    This whole 'ok boomer' meme just feels like one more way to divide everyone up and get them sniping at each other.

    Makes you wonder who's ultimately responsible for sowing this type of social discord.

      What makes you think that anyone is ultimately responsible for "sowing this type of social discord"? Was there an ad on Seek that I missed?

        I wouldn't say that anyone's directly responsible but intergenerational conflict is a popular means of division and distraction for politicians and financial institutions.

        It would prob be better to say that it's amplified by special interests through various forms of media.

        I guess it depends on whether you believe these passing trends are the result of organic social consciousness or not. With the amount of division and discord that has been sown through social and other forms of media in the past few years, the cynic in me can't help but think that this is all part of a greater trend in social manipulation.

      Its more of a result of the boomer generation dismissing the younger generation's opinions because of their age.

      The boomer generation including politicians regularly dismiss our concerns because according to them we are "Too young to understand".

      We are turning it on them by saying they are too old to understand as well.

      Thats what the original intention of it was. Now it's just a funny meme to trigger boomers.

      We've been seeing "Millennials are killing ____" articles for years now from disgruntled small business owners who don't understand how come that people nowadays don't have the disposable income to spend in their non-essential products and services, chalking their financial struggles as irresponsibility, "too much avocado toast", or whatever utterly ill-informed and arrogantly self-congratulatory theory is in vogue at the moment.

      And when finally, this weary, exasperated generation developed an entirely harmless way to dismiss all that hostility, that's what causing a divide? It only goes to show that some people can dish it but not take it.

    Boomers just need to start using it themselves, then it'll become uncool and the kids will stop.

      They could just use the phrase “Ok Junior” and engage in Mutual Assured Dismissal.

      The most dire thing about the situation is that in the article I was reading, the person using it was having it refer to anyone over 30.

      So it’s Gen Z calling Millennials Boomers? I’m a quite happy 41 year old Gen Xer, and I’m mortified at being mislabelled as being the same generation as my parents, my father being a literal baby boomer born shortly after the end of World War 2.

        Wait... Isn't intentional mislabeling someone a form of violence these days?? Lol

        Just be glad we got the coolest generation name and promotional era.

        It seems to have morphed into a reference to more or less anyone who is expressing a self-satisfied opinion based almost entirely on their own personal experience rather than any objective facts

        One might say that the term is inspired by a stereotypically common boomer attitude, it no longer exclusively refers to them.

          One might say that the term is inspired by a stereotypically common boomer attitude, it no longer exclusively refers to them.

          This person gets it.

        Anyone can be a Boomer. It's named after the Baby Boomers who make up a lot of its ranks, but a Boomer is anyone who uses their privilege as a shield from caring about how life actually is for other people.

    Intended as a reply to @akeashar

    Oddly, that might actually be what bothers me the most about stuff like this... People insulting each other incorrectly.

    Last edited 12/11/19 5:15 pm

    GenX'er here... I'm like "This doesn't involve me, it's those two other generations fighting as usual, so meh."

    My god I'm living a meme :O

      For the meme, you would be the one eating popcorn.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now