Stephanie West-Allen has posted a commentary by Susan Cartier Liebel, shopkeeper at Solo Practice University, that followed yet another self-justifying article by a generational consultant at Forbes, about how Susan doesn’t care for the word “Slackoisie”.  The term, “coined by Dan Hull and April Boyer,” and one of my personal favs, offends Susan.

There’s a ridiculous term floating around ‘Slackoisie’ to describe Gen Y. It offended me because it implies wanting something ‘different’ then the same work model meant you were in your parent’s basement, eating potato chips in your pajamas playing on the internet waiting for your million dollar idea without working for it. I’m a tail-end baby boomer and I totally relate to this article. I want to fall down in a stupor when I hear that those who want to change the model are slackers (ergo the term ‘slackoisie’). If someone can build a better mouse trap, bring it on!

What these ‘elders’ are really offended by is something noted in this article, a lack of respect and skepticism for those over 30, that somehow those under 30 know more, are better qualified to do anything and resent those over 30 for the world we live in which isn’t to their current liking. But that’s a very different reason for ‘over 30’s’ disdain of Gen Y. It has nothing to do with their work ethic. It has to do with Gen Y’s lack of ‘respect’ and maybe even gratitude for those who are older.

And maybe this is simply nothing knew…except the terminology.

Let’s take this from the top.  The term “Slackoisie” is derogatory.  By definition, it’s supposed to offend those it describes, or else it wouldn’t be very derogatory, now would it?  Thus, if it offends you, then it’s doing its job.  This doesn’t make it ridiculous, but a term that serves its purpose. 

That said, it’s not left to those who are offended by a word to decide on its definition.  I realize that Susan is playing to an audience that is unfamiliar with logic, or logical fallacies, and wouldn’t be inclined to pick up her enjoyment of the strawman fallacy.  That’s the nature of the Slackoisie.  The symmetry of using a fallacious argument to rally those who couldn’t comprehend why it’s fallacious is nothing to sneeze at.  It’s a great tool, provided that no one points out that you can’t do that.  But there was little chance of that happening when it was used to bolster an article that no intelligent person would read.

So why was Susan so offended?

It offended me because it implies wanting something ‘different’ then the same work model meant you were in your parent’s basement, eating potato chips in your pajamas playing on the internet waiting for your million dollar idea without working for it.

 Well, it doesn’t “imply” any such thing.  That’s very clearly what it refers to, though it’s about Doritos and not potato chips.  Please get your snack foods right, Sue.  You don’t get to redefine it because you want to be the heroine of the Slackoisie.  But what you’re trying to convey, though somewhat obscured by some mixed tenses and dubious word choices, is that you’re offended by its denigration of  work/life balance, the touchstone of the Slackoisie.

Guess what?  Tough nuggies.  Now I realize as much as the next guy that work/life balance is a sacred cow of the Slackoisie, and these are your bread and butter at your version of pay-per-view, Solo Practice University.  You have to keep up appearances of agreeing with these kids who are willing to pay to learn the magic bullet of internet marketing so that they don’t have to put in the effort of gaining competence and wasting all that time providing excellent client service.  It’s so much easier to just market themselves online to make a quick buck and achieve success as solos.  We’ve crossed this bridge many times already.

But don’t blame me for refusing to keep this dirty little secret quiet.  My perspective is the practice of law, not the selling of SPU.  I hate to remind you of this, Susan, but you made your choice when you decided to put marketing ahead of competence.  I don’t blame you, since you can count on the marketers to do everything in their power to help you achieve financial success at SPU, as it also serves their pecuniary interests as well.  A guy like me would be terribly disruptive, saying mean things whenever the integrity of the profession was at risk.  You can’t have integrity when you’re trying to run a business.

So if you’re of the view that the millennials don’t fit the definition of the Slackoisie, then there’s no reason the word should bother you at all.  And yet it does.  You say, “if someone can build a better mousetrap, then bring it on.”  Better for whom, Susan?  That’s Stephanie’s point.  It’s all about what’s good for the Slackoisie.  There’s no mention of what’s better for the clients.

Until those who want to lead the great unwashed into successful solo practice recognize that this is a profession, the purpose of which is to serve our clientèle, the word Slackoisie will continue to appear.  And it will continue to sting and offend.  As it should.