That should be "demographic generalization" in the last post, of course. And
speaking of such generalizations, I'd guess the median age of this list's
membership is somewhere around fifty. Just a guess of course.
jd
On 3/27/07, Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I don't think so, Peter. Notice the qualifiers in my response to Candice:
> "uninformed," "some," and "self-righteous." My original point was that
> lumping an entire generation under the heading of a (misbegotten) political
> opinion was intellectually lazy. In my response, I did not say that Gen-Xers
> (or whomever) all hold the same opinion & are to be dismissed from the
> conversation forthwith. I made an observation that includes some demography
> generalization, yes, but I qualified that generalization three times in four
> sentences.
>
> jd
>
> On 3/27/07, Peter Cudmore <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Aren't you using 'young' in a similar way, Joe?
> >
> > P
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Joseph Duemer
> > > Sent: 27 March 2007 16:29
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: David Hicks
> > >
> > > It is also a common political dismissal by the uninformed
> > > young, some of whom assume that "boomers" are too morally &
> > > politically corrupt to have valid political opinions. Most
> > > often used by self-rightous young leftists.
> > > Even if the phrase itself were merely descriptive, making the
> > > broad assumption that someone "must be a Baby Boomer" because
> > > he holds a particular political opinion is offensive in
> > > itself, as well as intellectually lazy. Hell, it doesn't even
> > > come up to the level of lazy.
> > >
> > > jd
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Duemer
> Professor of Humanities
> Clarkson University
> [sharpsand.net ]
>
--
Joseph Duemer
Professor of Humanities
Clarkson University
[sharpsand.net]
|