Replies (1)

• @wheezy@lemmy.ml 2026-09-07 08:13

  I’d ask yourself why you’re sensitive to a “stereotype” being used to explain the outcomes of capitalist exploitation. I would ask you if you’d understand and agree with the same type of comment but with replacing “generation” with “white privilege”? Would you be so quick to defend the white working class from a “stereotype” in a frustrated rant? My comment was off the cuff and crude. I think we can both agree there. But, I don’t think I was being unfair. Maybe a bit hyperbolic. My comment was definitely weighing in heavily to the “fuck boomers” feeling of the younger generations. But, it was not without a point of class structures, capitalist exploitation, and understanding that the stereotype is not all inclusive, but simply a venting of those frustrations. I think the “no war but class war” crowd has fallen pray to class reductionism and the methods in which to communicate with the working class. The “no war but class war” is literal, not figurative. I think people forget that. In the same way that “white privilege” in a vacuum is insufficient in describing the entire picture of of working class exploitation. Without it, it is insufficient in understanding how to address the issues of intersectionality in order to communicate with and radicalize the masses. Also, let’s be clear, “Boomers” as a term is never referring to black or otherwise oppressed people of that generation. I would hope that anyone reading a comment like mine would assume that in good faith. The issue is if class, the issue is if privilege, but for some reason i get more more people upset with a criticism of “boomers” than I do when criticizing “white people”. When the term is literally specifically about the most privileged generation of white people that ever existed.

  Open ##4695202