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]
|