Opinion Your opinion about "boomer" and "soy boy"

Gamer (ex-Cantavanda)

〜Flower Prince〜
in this current political climate, we are often confronted with the many likes of "boomer" and "soy boy", while this has no correlation with "libt***", sometimes it is real. Women must find more comfort in the presence of the percentage in arguments and online discussions about subjects like these. When there is no more a "soy bean" in the super market, there's three particular instances for is alpha males and chads. Normies do not understand this concept, and failed to devolve onto computer technology which "boomer" do not understand.
discuss.
 

Bearman_18

Fruit Stand Deadbeat
By Boomer and Soyboy, I assume you mean Baby Boomers and men who are not considered "manly", correct? By "opinion" do you mean whether I like such people?
If so, my answer is "I have no prejudice against Baby Boomers or Soyboys." But I fail to see the correlation between the two (unless it's "Baby Boomers raised a lot of Soyboys." Which is arguably true.)

Wait, am I being trolled? If so, well done.
 

Gamer (ex-Cantavanda)

〜Flower Prince〜
the typical "boomer" feels intuitively like mental rationality, while the "soy boy" is over the inexplicable edge. some times playing nintendo games without shooting is the answer, after buying "soy bean" from the grocery store and putting them in the oven. why do they call it oven when you of in the cold food of out hot eat the food? this "boomer" does not know how to use computer and turned to the tough guy pills, now he punches my head off. "libt***" feels like amateur ink wallets while they are in the room. now he wants to believe in tooth fairy while aching bark food.
 
A

Andy

Guest
Well...
I mean, there’s definitely a correlation between people who unironically use language like "soy boy", and not shooting inside Nintendo games.
I’m just saying, "both sides" reveals itself to be a golden mean fallacy almost every week.
 
A

Andy

Guest
They feel like machine generated messages to me. But I'm out of touch like a "boomer", so it could just be some new meme. :confused:
 
M

Misty

Guest
boomers cause the existence of doomers...

thank the boomers for your doomers...
 

Bearman_18

Fruit Stand Deadbeat
I think Cantavanda is playing with us. I just realized that his posts sound an awful lot like auto-complete malarky (no offence if it's not, of course.)
So, to argue with the auto-complete for fun:
the typical "boomer" feels intuitively like mental rationality, while the "soy boy" is over the inexplicable edge.
But again, I think many "Soyboys" were raised by Boomers. Boomers tended to have lots of children, and I think also tended to spoil them. It was a prosperous time.
 
M

Misty

Guest
But again, I think many "Soyboys" were raised by Boomers. Boomers tended to have lots of children, and I think also tended to spoil them. It was a prosperous time.
Prosperous for boomers, not for their descendants...
 
A

Andy

Guest
I don't blame "boomer" parenting for "soy boys":
Industrialization has changed the material conditions we exist in.
Strong "manly" men and submissive woman where products of their time. Arguably a necessity to survive in the pre-industrialized world.
You don’t need rippling muscles and a farmer's tan to make a living anymore.
Actually, some of the more toxic elements of masculinity (like the individualist - take no trash from others attitude) will hinder people trying to keep a modern service job.
Technology makes physical human labor less valuable.
Since our economic system demands constant growth that means more tame sensitive men who are ready for the service industry "soy boys", and more empowered working women.
The breakdown of tradition is just adaptation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Misty

Guest
Our economic system doesn't seem to be growing, but rather, collapsing. You call this empowerment, I prefer to call it wage-slavery. Talk to me about inflation...
 

Bearman_18

Fruit Stand Deadbeat
@Andy, believe it or not, if your managers are afraid of you, you can refuse to take trash from people and still keep a modern service job. Ironically, I learned this from my mother, who terrifies virtually every man she meets. Lol.
 
A

Andy

Guest
Misty, you have persuaded me. We need fix wealth inequality. I still do feel women may have more freedom today than in the past, but that’s beside the point. All people could use more freedom. Freedom from oppression by a system that’s economic growth benefits only the top. We need to demand more regulation, and housing, health care, education, etc... as rights, not privileges for a chosen few. :)

Andy, believe it or not, if your managers are afraid of you, you can refuse to take trash from people and still keep a modern service job. Ironically, I learned this from my mother, who terrifies virtually every man she meets. Lol.
This gives me hope. :p
 
Boomer, or baby boomers are people born post-WW2 (and the following war era). Basically: People rebuilding broken countries. You could search for how many people died from starvation alone during and after the war time, let alone from bombing. Ironically, people from this era actually ate a lot of soy. There simply wasn't enough meat for everyone.

These days the word is usually used to refer to someone who is middle aged, who technically are not baby boomers but ascribe to the same work ethic as the original baby boomers. They drink coffee black, normally at a desk.

Soy boy is an insulting term, and it's generally used to refer to a select few in the newer generation, who will order soy latte's from Starbucks, and talk about how Boomers are screwing up everything for them. This is normally done from the latest iPhone. Perhaps surprising to some, they'll even complain (while in Starbucks) about how much debt they are in now. This is debt that they decided to borrow to maintain their little luxurious lifestyle.

Both terms have been hijacked: Soy boy is often now used as an insulting way to describe an effeminate man. Boomer is used to describe someone who is viewed as economically greedy. Both wrong.
 
Both of these terms are just bull💩💩💩💩 stereotypes. Plenty of "boomers" are aware of the damage that was caused by the generation they're a part of and lots of them are computer literate. The whole soy boy thing is laughable at it's face i.e. being even remotely compassionate or not choosing to partake in a subsection of toxic internet culture (neo-nazi-ism, hatred of "cultural marxism", etc) means that you're a soy drinking girly boy because soy has a chemical that is slightly similar to estrogen and therefore gives you female boobs and makes you womanly which is, of course, the worst possible thing that could happen to a man *rolls eyes*.
 

Roa

Member
baby boomers are actually a group of people who came back from ww2, where years after (not before economic hardships as mentioned above) the economy skyrocketed upward, there was an influx in commodity products with a man and woman labor force now and a huge demand for things for people returning to normal life. Because of massive boom in the economy, the number of men and women ready to settle down with families, unprecedented growth of the middle class and the low cost of housing, people started building families all at the same time, hence the baby boom.

and soyboy was just a poking fun statement for pretentious yuppy college dudes who stated anything traditionally masculine in presentation was toxic..because you know, they have life figured out while also being scrawny effeminate people who couldn't fit the mold they condemned so much. It took off to really mean any guy aligned themselves with a new feminist ideology that men are inherently toxic and need social re-construction when they actually got mad about it.

You can be scrawny and effeminate (like me) , drink all the soy you want and not be a soy boy. It's really the superiority / inferiority complex that comes with them talking down to 95% of the male population trying to show how non-conforming they are. Its like the worst mashup of an emo and a vegan. Its also interesting to note a seeming alarm amount of them are under achievers, violent, sexual predators, and flip on a dime once the whole "thanks for being an ally, but we are not equal, now get to the back of the bus" mentality feminist have kicks in. AKA, they're hypocrites of the worst kind.
 
Last edited:
[snip]
You can be scrawny and effeminate (like me) , drink all the soy you want and not be a soy boy...
[/snip]
This guy gets it. Soy itself is great.. a real superfood! Because it's sooo cheap. If you can't afford a lot of meat, you can mix it with TVP or Tofu. Still carries the taste ok, fills you up, and good nutrients. A bottle of soy milk costs a fraction of the price of real milk... no, not the stuff at the supermarket, in the 'organic' section. Just down at the local Asian market. It's just the leftover from when they make the also-cheap Tofu. They almost give it away.

Paying extra for a shot of soy in a coffeehouse is the definition of a luxury.
 
A

Andy

Guest
It’s slang, so the definition is loose.
The term is commonly used to insult effeminate men, or the "left": https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Soy Boy
The idea soy estrogen (no, not that estrogen) might cause men to become feminine has floated around for a while:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogen#Effects_on_humans
Fun video exploring the term’s origin, made by a SOY BOY :p:

I remember the good ol' days when we just glued captions to cats and didn't have any other memes. Those were the days.
Back then I considered horrible statements made online as innocent fun and jokes.
I then learned about Poe's law, and it ruined everything. :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Misty

Guest
Misty, you have persuaded me. We need fix wealth inequality. I still do feel women may have more freedom today than in the past, but that’s beside the point. All people could use more freedom. Freedom from oppression by a system that’s economic growth benefits only the top. We need to demand more regulation, and housing, health care, education, etc... as rights, not privileges for a chosen few. :)


This gives me hope. :p
Would help if the wealthy didn't hoard half of the wealth. But people always revert to Darwinian survival of the fittest arguments rather than enlightened arguments about reducing total net suffering of the world. I'm not really a communist because I do believe some rich deserve to be rich, but how much ridiculous wealth do they actually need, a lot of it they have no use for and is just sitting around collecting dust, they could give it to us and still be a rich human...
 
A

Andy

Guest
Would help if the wealthy didn't hoard half of the wealth.
People with wealth are usually under constant competition.
If they redistribute resources that could be used to further their wealth, someone more ruthless who horded resources can come along and push them out of the picture.
I feel this plays a role in private charity failing to adequately address wealth inequality. But that's just a personal opinion. Anyway, you don’t have to be communist to demand a fairer system. There are many, many ideologies. There are even versions of capitalist ideology like: Mixed, Nordic, Rhine, Welfare (and more) that demand a fairer system. :)

But people always revert to Darwinian survival of the fittest arguments rather than enlightened arguments about reducing total net suffering of the world.
I completely agree. Funny enough their arguments are usually not rooted in reality. :p
Many arguments for "survival of the fittest" (a term Darwin didn't make) come from an interpretation of Darwin's work called Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is an ideology from the gilded age, not to be confused with the theory of natural selection.
It helped forward the concept poor people are poor because they are lesser, or that some races are better than others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest#Interpreted_as_expressing_a_moral_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Khan Academy has an interesting course that tackles some of the rhetoric Social Darwinists use to justify laissez-faire capitalism, racism, etc...
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit...lded-age/a/social-darwinism-in-the-gilded-age

I highly encourage considering the academic consensus on subjects before listing to one figure (especially online, and including myself).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Misty

Guest
People with wealth are usually under constant competition.
If they redistribute resources that could be used to further their wealth, someone more ruthless who horded resources can come along and push them out of the picture.
I feel this plays a role in private charity failing to adequately address wealth inequality.
Nonsense. Greed is a mental illness and causes the collapse of societies. It leads to paranoia and apathy. If someone has a giant pile of gold, rival companies cannot simply steal their gold. Rival companies that become more popular, simply reduce the speed at which they pile up more gold. It is simply paranoia to be afraid of rival companies. If you are a billionaire, rival companies can at most reduce profits, but never take from you the gold you already have. And the reason rival companies are ruthless is because they are driven by greed also. Greed destroys the environment and causes lower quality products. It is a form of insanity, it is not healthy. The fact our society is divided into have's and have nots, and that majority are the have nots, is very backwards, to have the majority of the population suffering, but only the very few have freedom and health.
 
A

Andy

Guest
I sympathize with how you feel Misty.
Frankly though, I’m just happy to know someone read that post. I’m not the fastest thinker, and it took me wasting every free game making hour of the day to compile that blob of text. I seriously need to unplug my internet – I'm losing all my capable of "doing computer stuff" time. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nonsense. Greed is a mental illness and causes the collapse of societies. It leads to paranoia and apathy. If someone has a giant pile of gold, rival companies cannot simply steal their gold. Rival companies that become more popular, simply reduce the speed at which they pile up more gold. It is simply paranoia to be afraid of rival companies. If you are a billionaire, rival companies can at most reduce profits, but never take from you the gold you already have. And the reason rival companies are ruthless is because they are driven by greed also. Greed destroys the environment and causes lower quality products. It is a form of insanity, it is not healthy. The fact our society is divided into have's and have nots, and that majority are the have nots, is very backwards, to have the majority of the population suffering, but only the very few have freedom and health.
I'm kind of curious, which country is this? Or are we just talking about wealth difference between 1st world, and 3rd world nations?

Stephen Pinker has a good ted talk where he runs some numbers on how we're all doing, which might make you feel a bit more chipper.
Obviously, still lots of things wrong in the world. But the idea that the next generation have it(or are going to have it) harder than the previous one is wrong.
 
I'm kind of curious, which country is this? Or are we just talking about wealth difference between 1st world, and 3rd world nations?

Stephen Pinker has a good ted talk where he runs some numbers on how we're all doing, which might make you feel a bit more chipper.
Obviously, still lots of things wrong in the world. But the idea that the next generation have it(or are going to have it) harder than the previous one is wrong.
Most countries...? Wealth disparity both between and inside countries has grown wildly over the last 50 years:
According to the OECD in 2012 the top 0.6% of world population (consisting of adults with more than US$1 million in assets) or the 42 million richest people in the world held 39.3% of world wealth.
The simple fact that I'm not a peasant eating dirt in the middle ages, or that there's less violent crime in the world despite most media outlets pretending otherwise, doesn't mean things are headed in a great direction. I'm 30, I've gone to uni, worked hard and have literally 0% chance of owning a home without incurring debt that would financially cripple me for the rest of my life. People younger than me have it worse. The obscene amount of wealth being hoarded at the tippy top of the capitalistic system is gross and deranged. The golden shower that trickles down onto the rest of us is abhorrent.

There is no world in which a CEO is working 1000% harder than the workers under them (https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/), especially when a lot of the lowest paid workers are working two full time jobs and still unable to make ends meet. People in third world countries work tirelessly, endlessly in hellish conditions just to be paid a percentage of 1 cent on the dollar that other people earn from their product, for the simple reason that capitalism values capital over production.

Also, "millennials" (god I hate that term) are actually doing worse than their parents were at the same age (https://www.thecentersquare.com/nat...cle_c368cabe-03c5-11e9-85aa-1bf441595d2d.html). This, despite the fact that (clashing with popular wisdom) millennials are no lazier or "bad at working" than baby boomers (there's some detail about that in the article, plus way more you can research independently that shows this). There's so much wrong with the way the system is set up that it's beyond exhausting to even discuss it. Things are 💩💩💩💩ing bad, despite the fact that in some ways things were a bit worse earlier.

(Btw, saying that people can't complain about X because Y is worse is a trope that is most often used in order to derail a discussion and deflect people from engaging in a topic. I've taken you in good faith that you're not intending to do that.)
 
Top