Barack Obama used to be black. Now he’s a boomer because he just doesn’t get it.
There is, of course, a generation gap between Millennials and their elders, Baby Boomers and, to a lesser extent, Gen X. After all, young people suffer from the same hubris as they always have, certain they know everything and similarly certain that anyone who doesn’t share their passionately unassailable views is wrong, if not downright evil. Welcome to the club, Barry.
Boomers and Gen-Xers, along with a handful of younger people with more regressive views, have been agitated by the way many young Americans — and especially young people of color — use social media, the only platform many of us have, to talk about the causes we care about.
But they are going to have to get over it.
Will we have to get over it? Get over what?
The issues that my fellow millennials, along with even younger people in Gen Z, tend to be “judgmental” about are the same ones many of our parents and grandparents have been debating for decades. Being outspoken about climate change, women’s rights, racial justice, LGBTQ inclusivity and gun control — and critical of those who stand in the way of progress on these issues — is work that’s been left to us.
These are all wonderful issues of concern, even if your word choice gives a hint of the underlying problem. Do you think Obama is unconcerned about them? Do you think he’s against racial “justice,” even if you’ve attached a self-proving word to the back end so as to beg the question?
No one says you’re not allowed to express your views on these matters. Opine all you want. It’s a big internet and there’s plenty of room for you to express your views. But that’s not your complaint either.
As a millennial who has participated in using digital platforms to critique powerful people for promoting bigotry or harming others, I can assure you it wasn’t because they had “different opinions.” It was because they were spreading the kinds of ideas that contribute to the marginalization of people like me and those I care about. It was because I didn’t want them to have a no-questions-asked platform to do this.
There it is. There’s the problem. You want to express your views, but you can’t stand the fact that other people get to express theirs as well. You’re expressing correct views. They’re “spreading the kinds of ideas that contribute to the marginalization of people like me and those I care about.” And you don’t want them to.
On the one hand, there is an arrogance of exceptional magnitude in the inherent belief that these very progressive voices know better than the entirety of humanity up to today. Everything and everybody has been wrong up to now; they’re right. But not just right. Absolutely right. Unquestionably right. Unchallengeably right.
On the other hand, this infantile certainty gives rise to their abuse of the logical fallacy of “begging the question,” as every issue begins with the assumption their child-like belief is correct and the only issue up for discussion is why anyone who doesn’t share it shouldn’t be silenced with extreme prejudice.
It’s telling that it’s the powerful and privileged people in society who are most agitated by this form of online activism, and most convinced that it represents unnecessary evil that is tearing away at our civil discourse. The group that Mr. Obama joins in his scolding of outspoken young people is dominated by white straight men, far-right conservative talking heads, and celebrities who feel entitled to audiences who appreciate their art and dutifully ignore their missteps.
Everyone who doesn’t share your zeal gets characterized in pejorative terms, because doesn’t that nasty old boomer Barry hang around with “white straight men, far-right conservative talking heads”? That’s why Obama can’t grasp the absolute necessity, not to mention right, to destroy the evil people.
The R&B singer R. Kelly deserved to be “muted” after decades of sexual abuse allegations against him. Similarly, harsh scrutiny of Hollywood heavyweights Harvey Weinstein and Roman Polanski is appropriate. The National Football League doesn’t deserve my viewership after blackballing former player Colin Kaepernick for standing up against racist police brutality. Dave Chappelle should be ridiculed for making transphobic jokes, especially at a time when black transgender women continue to be murdered. It’s not rude or intolerant to say Kevin Hart’s homophobia isn’t funny.
Are all of these criticisms worthy of discussion? Sure. But that’s the problem. There’s no discussion with the children. They know who to condemn and destroy, because someone on Facebook told them and then the insipid little gnats swarmed to prove their purity and allyship to each other.
There’s irony here, beyond the minor detail of Barack Obama being black just like the writer, Ernest Owens, except with accomplishments that this child will never deserve or attain, is that no one is disputing that the concerns are legitimate issues, or that even simplistic children shouldn’t be allowed to express their views, even when they’re childish.
The irony here is that you adore your tummy rubs, adults agreeing with you or telling you how smart and wonderful you are. You need that validation, that red balloon of approval from the grownups who give you permission to express your passionate nonsense in public. But you collapse into a puddle of childish fury when your feelings aren’t validated.
The babies cry about adults being “condescending” when they talk down to them. That’s not condescending, little ones. We talk down to you because we’ve been there and have something you lack. Experience. We’re not peers.
While you are allowed an opinion, it doesn’t mean our opinions are equivalent. You haven’t earned the right to have your opinion taken seriously, because you have yet to do anything worthy of being taken seriously.
Mr. Obama is right that “the world is messy.” But the messiness we see looks like people who are suffering because others stubbornly reject progress and refuse to show compassion. Millennials and Gen-Zers are doing what we can to take down the Goliath many of our parents have been rightfully casting stones at for decades. We have a tool that has helped democratize public debates about these issues, and we hope it will move us to a more just world.
Barack Obama was the President of the United States. He’s earned the right to tell you little shits that your inability to consider any thought that doesn’t comport with your infantile emotionalism is wrong, dumb and childish. Now go to your room without dinner and don’t come out until you’re ready to apologize for calling Barry a boomer.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

I am curious about the author’s decision to lump R. Kelly and Roman Polanski into the same paragraph as Kevin Hart and Dave Chappelle without making any effort to distinguish between the nature and magnitude of their alleged offences. Perhaps it is poor or manipulative writing, but I am concerned that it may reflect the author’s inability or unwillingness to assess proportionality, such that any offence against what he sees as justice demands cancellation.
There is no proportionality for heresy.
The more op-eds I see from the Times, the more convinced I am the sole requirement for publication is a lack of a functional brain.
“The National Football League doesn’t deserve my viewership after blackballing former player Colin Kaepernick for standing up against racist police brutality.”
See, I figured they didn’t deserve my viewership after tolerating his infantile and misguided “protest” (“standing up” is exactly the opposite of what he did) for an entire season.
I have no problem whatsoever with Kaepernick’s protest. Nor do I have any problem with anyone who chooses never to watch NFL football again because of their support for Kaerpernick. But that’s not enough. They demand that no one watch NFL, no one be allowed to watch NFL, because of Kaerpernick. It’s not their right to believe, but their enforcement of their beliefs on everyone else.
Scott, I think you are wrong to say this young man, Ernest Owens, hasn’t achieved much.
As his website [Ed. Note: Link deleted per rules.] attests, he is “the CEO of Ernest Media Empire, LLC”.
I think you’re just envious. I bet you didn’t have your own media empire when you were his age.
I didn’t at his age. I still don’t. He’s so privileged.
When we were his age, it took serious money to have a media empire. Now, at our age, we’re just too friggin’ old to have one. (His website is atrocious to this old fart, but maybe the kiddies like it.)
Is there a reason you’re going out of your way to steer people to his website? Are you at least getting paid well for this?
Too bad there’s not a time machine so that we can send Ernest and his fellow “marginalizing my existence” folks back to experience, say, 1955. Or 1968. Back when minorities and gays had no time to get mad about frat boys wearing sombreros or white girls wearing their hair in cornrows or people saying mean things on the internet because they had to worry about somebody killing or beating them them and the police not caring about it. Hard to be worried about being marginalized when you have to hope you wont be physically injured. I seriously doubt the woke could physically handle witnessing that era – their delicate minds would be destroyed.
And things have improved dramatically since then. America is less racist than it’s ever been. And that improvement happened across the prime of the boomers. You know, me and you and Obama and the people he hangs around with.
> While you are allowed an opinion, it doesn’t mean our opinions are equivalent. You haven’t earned the right to have your opinion taken seriously, because you have yet to do anything worthy of being taken seriously.
While I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, I disagree with this specific point. An opinion should be taken seriously based on the quality of its argument, regardless of the person’s age, accomplishments, race, or any other external criteria. The reason these arguments should be rejected is because they don’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny, not because their proponents are inexperienced.
An opinion and an argument are different things. Some opinions require no argument (Vanilla ice cream is the best flavor). Some opinions reflect a balance of values (It’s better than 10 innocent men go to prison than one guilty rapist goes free on my college campus). Some opinions are grounded in sound reason and facts and some is grounded in fallacies and ideology. But the opinion, alone, means nothing: I don’t care what you think, but I might care why you think it.
Of course, very few are interested or capable of rational argumentation as they’ve been led to believe they win merely be echoing pop ideology.
Wut? Maple walnut ice cream was your favorite flavor. What changed?
I was channeling millennials. Please.
Chocolate Chip.
Less than four years gone, and he’s a shitlord already. That’s how fast the fanaticism has pressed onward.
As we just saw with Katie Hill, the right-wingers have these wonderful “tools” as well. It may further something, but not “democracy.”