But, the response it warrants wouldn’t really fly by forum rules, so I can only attempt to explain the case for objection.
I fail see how it warrants much of a response at all.
Well, the context in question is this forum. I’m assuming that’s not acceptable here?
You used the word, so... I guess it is acceptable.
If it was used in reference to a specific person, what exactly would that do, except show the maturity (and possibly intelligence) level of the person using it? (rhetorical question)
I make the comparison, because you suggested that the term “OK Boomer” is often not directed at someone actually of that generation.
Which is an entirely accurate statement, used to argue that assuming the worst possible intent may not be accurate.
My first reply to this branch of the discussion was "I don't think that is how it was intended."
because of the negative stereotype implied, which remains pretty obnoxious.
Sticks and stones...
The term faggot is practically a term of endearment in Australia. You've completely ignored examples of 'boomer' being used in a friendly manner, dismissing those examples as just being about not applying to the actual boomer generation.
I will answer you if you carry on rationalising and attempting to dismiss the argument by portraying those irritated by such an attitude as less than charitable and in need of a “fainting couch”.
I am not rationalising, I am arguing a point. Disagreeing is not dismissing.
You are literally
being less than charitable. That doesn't necessarily mean wrong, but there is no way you can claim you are being charitable and giving Sordak the benefit of the doubt about intent. There is also no way you took a reference to a fainting couch seriously.
You reacted to Sordak's post, and the discussion turned to the style and not the content (not a big deal 8 or 9 pages into a topic, but not exactly constructive).
IMO you overreacted, though who is more accurate in their interpretation of the post in question is ultimately irrelevant.
What is relevant is that you keyed in on certain phrases, which though they can be used with the intent you assumed, there are other, more common usages of those words and phrases with much less negative connotations.
I thought (in an apparently unreasonable bout of optimism) by pointing out these other usages, a reasonable person capable of self reflection could concede the possibility that maybe Sordak was not necessarily intending the worst possible meaning, even if that remained more likely than not, and discussion could return to anything else.
I see why you might sympathise with the poster, coming from a similar school of argumentation.
You know that third section of my post that you ignored? There was a reason I quoted both sentences, rather than just the second.
When you said "how people behave", were you only referring to how other