[jhayward]

Think about the rhetoric being used whenever someone refers to "boomers" today.

First, identify a sub-group. Begin referring to the group as "they", as "other" than "us". Make sure they are not seen as heterogenous individuals - "they" are a single, malevolent entity.

Next, ascribe to them great power, unearned, over "us".

Then, ascribe to them ill-gotten wealth, power, control. All nefarious and self-aggrandizing.

Now describe them as "the problem", as "intractable", implying that something must be done - about them - to them.

Begin to use the language of violence, attributing it to "them". A blockade is an act of war, committed by an aggressor.

What do you think the outcome of this kind of rhetoric will be?

[SketchySeaBeast]

In this case that group is, in fact, our parents. It's not an abstract group - it's people we know in our life. In order to make it an abstract "other", the people need to stay abstract. I don't begrudge my parents their success, I just know that I may not share the same.

[abathur]

I agree that it's important to be conscious of the rhetorical currents we create, and vigilant about what follows from carrying them to their logical conclusions. This is, for example, why we don't call people vermin or cockroaches. It's rhetoric that has obvious logical conclusions.

But inter-generational strife isn't quite the same thing. It's conflict largely between parents and their children, shaped by that intimacy. And it's a conflict that cuts both ways...

Think about the rhetoric being used whenever someone refers to "millennials" today.

First, identify a sub-group. Begin referring to the group as "they", as "other" than "us". Make sure they are not seen as heterogenous individuals - "they" are a single, entitled entity.

Next, give them trophies, unearned.

Then, ascribe to them the rise of avocado toast, end of homeownership, and lack of ambition. All overeducated and self-defeating.

Now describe them as "increasingly falling for socialism's trick", as "unpatriotic", implying that something must be done - about them - to them.

Begin to use the language of violence, attributing it to "them". Killing the date, and romance, and marriage, and golf, and the motorcycle.

What do you think the outcome of this kind of rhetoric will be?

[plussed_reader]

A conflict in pursuit of the demise/revisioning of atrophied systems?

[jhayward]

> pursuit of the demise/revisioning of atrophied systems?

So, you see the outcome as killing off the olds?