The Minimally Useful Guide to Boomers
There’s a Boomer in my Room-er and I’m Unsure what to Do-er: A Historical Retrospective of Formative Events and Observational Analysis of Psychosociological-driven Behaviors from a Sub-Category of Persons Born 1946 to 1964 and Successful Strategic Mitigation Strategies for Persons Born After 1981
By Minimally Useful et al
Originally Published in The Minimally Useful Journal of Science and Other Shit #208, p2001 — p2395 (2021)
This research article looks at two rival populations — those persons born between the years 1946 and 1964, known by their scientific name Boomicus Self-Centra aka The North American Boomer (henceforth to be known in this article as Boomer(s)), and those persons born after 1982 (henceforth to be known as Pretty Much Everyone Else, PMEE, The World, People Who Care About Others — Including Brown People, Doomers). This study attempts to analyze the “lens” through which Boomers see the world, the correlation to their behavior, and the nature of Boomer interactions with both Boomers and Non-Boomers. The study further attempts to analyze the mitigation techniques that best reduce the negative impacts of Boomers’ tendency to behave like selfish children with a room-temperature IQ and a superiority complex that would make Adolf Hitler blush.
It is important to make distinct what does and does not fall under the purview of this highly-respected and definitely well-researched study. A “Boomer” is a subsection of the population of people born between the years of 1946 and 1964. While all people born between this era are considered “Baby Boomers”, not all persons within this population would be considered a “Boomer”. A Boomer is classified as a subsection of the Baby Boomer population that has been affected by the themes prevalent in their formative years to develop a personality that bears the characteristics of low levels of empathy, moderate to high levels of racism, moderate to high levels of traditionalism, and moderate to high levels of perceived superiority. Based on this definition, it is both possible for a Baby Boomer to not be a “Boomer”, and possible for a person born outside the defined time boundaries to present the same personality archetypes as a Boomer — in which case they would also not be considered a Boomer on the definition outlined previously. The key emphasis is the connection between the themes during the formative years of their development and the presentation of certain behaviors. It’s possible (and probably highly likely) for a three year old (in the year 2021) to display these behaviors, but because the toddler has not experienced segregation (at the scale of the 60’s), the Cold War, nearly every progressive voice being murdered, and WASP Idolization (at the scale of the 60’s) that would have been the direct corollary to the aforementioned negative behaviors presented by the toddler. Therefore, it can be concluded that while the toddler acts like a Boomer, the child is not a Boomer under the purview of this study.
The following 394 pages follow an analysis template wherein the authors: 1) Observe and classify a Boomer behavior. 2) Analyze (READ: Guess at) the factor(s) impacting the behavior. 3) Classify Boomer personality archetypes. 4) Review a series of behavior mitigation practices and the resulting outcomes.
The authors of this article would like to emphasize that, while this research was conducted in settings designed to be as objective as possible, any learnings from this article should not be generally applied to the Boomer population as a whole (just an overwhelming majority), and all interactions with Boomers should be conducted with an air of caution. Carry forward with the same level of caution as you would a wild dog. If you’re not careful, you may find it staking claim to all your stuff and constantly barking at you. Whether this is in reference to the Boomer or the dog is left to the reader.
Boomer, Shitlord, Tomfuckery, Cunty, Selfish, Anti-Whimsy, Contradicting, Technologically Illiterate, Boomer-think
TRENDS AND THEMES ANALYSIS:
The Who-mer of the Boomer
Proper techniques for mitigating negative Boomer behavior (henceforth to be known as NBB) require a dissection and analysis of what current and past psychosociological factors play the most prevalent role in dictating their thought process and, ultimately, their execution of NBBs. In layman’s terms, the causes of the Boomer mindset must first be defined and categorized before attempting to dissect proper and effective NBB mitigation techniques.
Historical Analysis — Formative Factors of Boomer Personality Development:
Money Earned v Money Spent Numerical Analysis
The following table (Table 1) was used to base all spending power calculations throughout this article. The median income numbers were calculated by utilizing a cursory and non-scrutinized Google search.
The below table (Table 2) looks at the financial situation of your average Boomer in 1982* in regards to their buying power of several items that the researchers felt provided reasonable purchasing milestones to signal adulthood.
*the year 1982 was selected because it made for easier math and was a reasonable year to assume that even the youngest Boomer was 18 years of age or older.
A frame-of-reference table (Table 3) has been provided to illustrate the numerical differences between median Boomer buying power and the median buying power of individuals in 2020.
A table (Table 4) has been provided below for reference to education requirements for a population of the job-going population. Assuming a static available job to population ratio, it can be surmised that the population with a higher percentage of jobs available that do not require at least a 2-year college degree would be able to enter the job market 4 years earlier to begin the process of wealth accrual.
An analysis of the proceeding numbers contained within the tables of this section suggests that, on-the-whole, Boomers had to work less to acquire more wealth than that of a person in 2020. Additionally, Boomers had a wider availability of jobs that did not require additional schooling beyond a high school education — allowing them to enter the job market two to four years earlier to begin wealth accrual.
Potentially Impacting Historical Events (and overarching themes) of the Period Between the Formative Developmental years of Boomers 1946 and 1972:
1947 — The Beginning of the Cold War
1949 — Communist Revolution in China
1950 — Joseph McCarthy and McCarthy-ism
1953 — The First Color TV
1954 — Brown v Board of Education
1957 — Sputnik is Launched
1961(ish) — Vietnam Tomfuckery
1962 — Andy Warhol Paints A Soup Can and People Call It Art for Some Reason
1962 — Silent Spring Published
1963 — MLK’s “I Have a Dream…” Speech and JFK Assassinated
1964 — Civil Rights Act and the “End”** of Segregation
** Author’s Note: It did not end in 1964.
1965 — Malcolm X Assassinated
1966 — Star Trek Premiere
1966 — Miranda Rights Established
1968 — MLK Assassinated
1969 — Stonewall Riots
1969 — Moon Landing
1969 — Woodstock
1970 — Four Students Shot Dead at Kent State University
1972 — Watergate
The research team has taken these events and the underlying implications from them and attempted to distill them into distinct and pervasive themes that occurred throughout the Boomer formative timeframe:
Racism and the Civil Rights Movement
Many prevalent voices in the public eye opposed the integration and equal rights of black Americans (including our current president). Brown v Board of Education was not exactly welcomed with open arms. The KKK was still a prominent organization that proliferated law enforcement agencies and enacted great violence on civil rights protesters throughout the United States. The Boomer population was OVERWHELMINGLY exposed to racist tones throughout their formative years.
Additional groups attempted to advocate for an equalization of rights: Women, Gays, People who didn’t want to get the shit beat out of them by the cops then have “that whole incident” brushed under the rug, etc… The majority of these groups were met with interference / violence from a various and diverse selection of local and national law enforcement agencies and government officials.
American Exceptionalism in the Face of Communism
Communism, and more specifically the “Red Scare” during the Cold War is likely one of the most prevalent themes in the developing mind of the Boomer. Not only is the denial of Communism prevalent, so too is the enthusiastic “dick sucking” of everything USA — as the people of that time viewed it on a singular spectrum where you were either a dirty no-good communist OR a god-loving, red-white-and-blue bleeding, freedom-loving supporter of capitalism and democracy. At its pinnacle, the suggestion by an anonymous source that you may have any relation to a communist was grounds for punishment, famously led by US Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Authors Note: This theme continued on to include manufacturing of automobiles in Asian countries (Toyota, Honda, et al) and textile manufacturing in China. While a general disdain of the manufacturing of goods in these countries existed, it did not slow the consumption of said goods.
Hand-in-hand with both the Racism and the American Exceptionalism in the Face of Communism themes, the Boomer was also raised on a healthy dose of WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) Idolization. Looking through the popular culture of the time there were very few pop-culture icons (both real and fictional) that strayed from the WASP mold.
Minimal Mainstream Exposure to the Concept of Environmental Conservation
The release of Silent Spring in 1962 marked one of the first times that nature conservation and environmentalism was thrust into the spotlight. It had very little effect, as evidenced by the fact that Cleveland somehow managed to catch a river on fire. That’s right. They caught water… on fire.
Author’s Note: This event has been immortalized in various ways by Ohioans, including being the focus of the name of beers by numerous Ohio breweries. We could not determine whether this is due to a sense of pride or as Ohioans being jazzed about being remembered for anything.
The Silencing of Progressive Figures / Movements
Many progressive voices / movements were silenced during the period of time being analyzed. Silence came in the form of assassination, military and police violence, and excessive jail time. Of note, gay rights, black rights, women’s rights, communist and socialist progressives… for the sake of brevity, it’s easier to assume if someone(s) asked for equal rights, they usually met the wrong end of a police baton in the “best-case” scenarios.
Lack of Police / Military Oversight
The concept of oversight — protecting citizens from law enforcement from infringing on citizen’s rights — was a newer concept arising at this time — and was greatly resisted by law enforcement and military organizations. Lack of oversight, proliferation of racism, and prominent movements protesting for the rights of non-WASPS created a situation of near-constant abuse from law-enforcement agencies.
Mainstream Exposure to Political Corruption
Spiro Agnew. Watergate and other Nixon bullshit. Ted Kennedy drove a car into a tidal channel and let the passenger drown (pleaded guilty to fleeing the scene of a crime and received 2 months of suspension).
The Growth of the Peace Movement (Hippies)
In the shadow of the conflict* abroad in Vietnam and the calls for equality from non-WASP populations arose the Hippie movement that focused on peace, egalitarianism, sexual exploration, and drug experimentation. Hippies were in the minority and considered counter-cultural.
*The USA names wars they don’t win “conflicts”.
Slow Technological Advancement and Low Demand for Technical Knowledge
Very little changed as far as technological advancement requiring new knowledge sets during the Boomer formative years and beyond. Devices requiring a modicum of technical knowledge during the Boomer formative years, including but not limited to: microwave, TV, radio, car, two cups connected by a string, a wooden wheel that you push around with a stick, and asbestos applicator.
Meta Analysis (READ: Sweeping Generalization) of Personality Impacts of the Socio-Economic Factors Prevalent in the Formative Years of Boomers
Financially, Boomers were raised, and thrived, in a world where they experienced unprecedented privilege and luxury with minimal (comparatively) effort to achieve aforementioned levels of wealth, privilege, and prosperity.
Boomers were exposed to themes of exceptionalism on the national and personal level. They were additionally exposed to themes of racism and a stifling (mostly murdering) of progressive ideals.
Lastly, a predominant theme with the period of Boomer formative years is a lack of continued learning required for nominal function and engagement with society. This is especially apparent with technological demands with rapid modern advancements.
The first third of the study looked at socioeconomic impacts to the developing Boomer psyche — and established parameters drawing direct correlations from the financial and social backdrop to their formative years and beyond. This section of the study seeks to draw parallels to themes impacting formative Boomer personality development and how the Boomer personality reacts to modern stimulus. For the sake of organization, the study will first categorize modern Boomer behaviors and further categorize collections of behaviors into personality archetypes. The Boomer responses to modern stimulus have been collected from a population nearing n=17 of technologically illiterate Facebook and Twitter posters identifying as Boomers. However, they seem to yell and bitch enough for n=2,000,000.
Parallels From Themes to Modern Stimulus Responses
The preconditioned Boomer response to modern cries for additional reinforcement/expansion of Civil Rights is to assume that:
The Civil Rights movement was immediately and totally successful in all facets of society, and that they (the Boomers) solved the “equal rights problem” long ago.
In order to totally explore this concept, the themes must be subdivided to fully grasp the Boomer-think involved. As a result, Boomers believe that those asking for processes to be put in place to ensure their rights are preserved is overstated, and ultimately unnecessary. These thoughts can be subdivided into
1) Perceived Boomer task completion efficacy is high.
2) The belief that a set of standards allowed by elderly white guys would provide for a completely fair and egalitarian baseline to Civil Rights for all citizens of the United States.
3) Boomers view themselves as the benevolent givers of gifts in this scenario, and they’re making the assumption that in order to give rights to others it requires a loss of rights on their part.
3a) The failure to identify the distinction between privilege and rights.
Prosperity / Success / Perceived Effort
The Boomer response to prosperity, success, and the perceived effort involved to achieve a high level of both is skewed when attempting to build a response framework to the modern desire to ensure the availability for more citizens of the United States to attain and accrue wealth. Boomers are dismissive of complaints that the wages of workers have not appropriately paralleled the production curve. The Boomer-think rationalization involved is as follows:
- The intellectual framework for wealth accrual that Boomers developed during their formative years still applies — despite colossal amounts of technological / productivity advancements (Figure 1), the widening gap between the effort involved to accrue wealth, the available pathways for new entrants to the job market to accrue wealth, and the value of work. Essentially, Boomers have failed to recognize the changing trends in the workplace, and the requirements (College Degree, Work Experience) have evolved to a far more hostile position to the incumbent worker.
- Boomers’ effort is PEAK effort. All other efforts and levels of efficacy are lower.
Personal Authority / Efficacy
The Boomer-think belief is that their personal authority is only second to their capital-G God.
- Due to unprecedented levels of privilege and prosperity, the Boomer believes that their perceived level of authority is VERY HIGH.
- The perceived level of effort that they have put forth is also VERY HIGH.
- Overexposure to American Exceptionalism and outright rejection of community-enhancing policy (to avoid being perceived as Communist) has created a self-centric worldview.
The Rejection of Progressive Themes
The Boomer-think framework has been forged and tempered with the rejection of progressive themes. Boomers tend to reject progressive thinking in both social and financial aspects. Despite being exposed to significant amounts of cronyism, fraud, swindles, and general chicanery prevalent in both business and government, Boomers still seem to be attracted to embracing more conservative ideals of social structure and economics. The Boomer-think denial of progressive themes is further exacerbated by permanent mental scarring left by the Cold War — Boomers are especially quick to deny every socialistic policy because they believe it a slippery slope to the hellscape of Communism.
Embracing of Authoritarianism
As Boomers perceive a loss of privilege due to the increasingly egalitarian progressive policy being implemented and enforced, the appeal to Authoritarianism grows stronger. The idea that any sort of social policy or norm could be easily overthrown from a single undeniable source is very appealing to a population that perceives a need to subvert and overpower progressive trends.
In recent years, a confluence of Boomer personality traits, including: High confidence in Boomer efficacy, Narcissistic tendencies, a failure to understand safe and smart technology consumption, and an exposure to rampant corruption during formative years has led many Boomers to begin absorbing misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories whose focus is largely anti-progressive or pro-authoritarian. In many cases, the content is anti-US Government. The appeal of an anti-progressive message combined with the Boomer proclivity to have a high opinion of themselves creates a scenario so desirable to the Boomer they will distort / deny any source, regardless of informational quality in an effort to maintain interpersonal mental harmony.
Boomer “Humor” — Punching Down
The Boomer sense of humor has been crafted by the formative themes outlined in this paper. The most prevalent of these themes are: An aversion towards progressive thought, an aversion towards loss of privilege, and an emphasis of a Boomer’s perceived high self efficacy and self authority. The combination of these themes create a humor that is often described as “punching down”. It’s often targeted at the younger generations, groups advocating for progressive change, Women, black populations, foreign populations, and non-heteronormative populations. The humor is often a flaunting of a WASP male idol’s efficacy over a minority group bearing less privilege than the WASP male idol. Many artifacts of Boomer humor include dated stereotypes that reinforce and stroke the ego of the Boomer at the cost of groups they perceive as inferior. Additional artifacts of Boomer humor are also largely anti-technology and, for some (authors note: godforsaken) reason seem to include a “minion” character from the Dreamworks’ movie series Despicable Me. This is not to say the humor is strictly pushed by the male gender though. Despite all reasoning there are female Boomers pushing for decreased female rights under the guise of a return to “normal” (READ: 1950’s TV lifestyle).
High Sense of Self Authority
Boomers are widely regarded as having a high score on the narcissism scale. A commonly held social “meme” has been the prevailing theme of a Boomer’s high sense of self authority. Boomer’s appear to believe that their desires should be met and any person who provides resistance to a Boomer attaining their goal will likely be met with a Boomer request for escalation of authority — otherwise known as the Law of “Let me talk to your manager, I’m very popular on yelp and you don’t even want to know the kind of damage a negative yelp review from me would do to your business. I don’t care if your manager has the day off, I’m a goddamn customer and if you want my business you’ll get your manager here pronto. You can’t deny me service! This isn’t right. It’s only the free market when it protects me. This is because of you stupid SJWs — always asking for more more more. [sobbing and mumbling]. I really need this right now and I was just kidding, I’m sorry ok? OK? Please tell the cops that it’s ok and just let me return this thing I didn’t even buy here. [sobbing again].” Or, more colloquially known as, Karen’s Law. The law states that, in the event a goal is obscured, the first course of social bargaining should be an escalation of authority, until said goal becomes unobscured.
Karen’s Law seems to imply that the Boomer involved believes that they exist in a perpetually escalating superstate of authority as authority is escalated. Here is an excerpt from the article Karen’s in the Wild: A Mathematical Model to Summarize Perceived Value and Interaction Quotients — First appearing in The Journal of Math and Other Bullshit #501 By Minimally Useful et al:
In an attempt to simulate the logic of a person, the research team developed the concept of representing the thinking software of the brain as programmatic representations utilizing a series of conditional evaluations.
Karen’s Law expressed programmatically: Karen’s Law is divided into two evaluations. The first equation is to determine whether a Karen perceives they are more important than the person with whom they are interacting. The primary evaluation is as follows:
Evaluation 1: Are my needs being met?
If the needs of the Karen have not been met, then E1 = 0. If the needs of the Karen have been met, then E1 = 1. However, it is important to note that in both states there’s an air of dissatisfaction. Additionally, it is important to remember that E1 is being evaluated at a point in time, and that even if an entity is taking actions to meet the Karen’s needs, the evaluation will still create a result of unmet needs and an air of dissatisfaction.
E1 = IF (Needs not being met) SET (E1=0) ELSE SET (E1=1)
Evaluation 2: Are my needs more important than with whomever I’m interacting?
If the value of K, the perceived authority value of the Karen, is less than the perceived authority value of the entity with which the Karen is interacting, N for Non-Karen — then increment K until the value of K exceeds the value of N. It can be surmised when reviewing this evaluation, that there will never be a scenario in which the Karen perceives herself as having less authority than the entity in which the Karen is interacting, and therefore the Karen will always evaluate their needs as being more important.
E2 = IF (K>N) SET (E2=TRUE) ELSE (K++)
Evaluation 3: Is the person I’m interacting with Brown or Foreign?
In this stage of the evaluation process, the Karen evaluates the boolean “is the entity (expressed as P) with which I’m interacting perceived as Caucasian?”. For this expression it is important to note that this is evaluated from the perception of the Karen, so the true nature of the ethnicity or origin of P exists irrespective of this evaluation. Expressed programmatically:
E3 = IF (P=White) SET (E3=Human) ELSE SET (E3=Sub-human)
Evaluation 4: Do I need to escalate to a higher level of authority?
Using the results of evaluations 1 and 2, the following third evaluation can be established. If Evaluation 1 results in a determination that the Karen’s needs F are not being met (F=0) and the results from Evaluation 2 establish that the perceived authority of the Karen (K) exceeds N, the perceived authority value of the entity with which the Karen is interacting (which it always will), then the Karen must escalate the fulfilment of her needs to a higher level of authority — expressed programmatically as:
E4 = IF ((E1=0) AND (E2=TRUE) AND (E3 = Human)) SET (E4=”Let me talk to your manager!”) ELSEIF (E3 = Sub-human) SET (E4=”I feel threatened and I’m calling the police.” OR “My boyfriend is joining the Marines in March and he’s coming to kick your ass!”)
Additionally, in the event E1 evaluates to anything less than >1, the Karen will leave with the parting remark “I hope you know that I have a huge instagram following and I’m going to let them all know how you treated me.”
Refining the Definition of Boomer. When is a Boomer, not a Boomer, and can a not-a-Boomer, be a Boomer?
To reiterate a statement made in a previous section of this study:
It is important to make distinct what does and does not fall under the purview of this highly-respected and definitely well-researched study. A “Boomer” is a subsection of the population of people born between the years of 1946 and 1964. While all people born between this era are considered “Baby Boomers”, not all persons within this population would be considered a “Boomer”. A Boomer is classified as subsection of the Baby Boomer population that has been affected by the themes prevalent in their formative years to develop a personality that bears the characteristics of low levels of empathy, moderate to high levels of racism, moderate to high levels of traditionalism, and moderate to high levels of perceived superiority. Based on this definition, it is both possible for a Baby Boomer to not be a “Boomer”, and possible for a person born outside the defined time boundaries to present the same personality archetypes as a Boomer — in which case they would also not be considered a Boomer on the definition outlined previously. The key emphasis is the connection between the themes during the formative years of their development and the presentation of certain behaviors. It’s possible (and probably highly likely) for a three year old (in the year 2021) to display Boomer-esque behaviors, but because the toddler has not experienced segregation (at the scale of the 60’s), the Cold War, nearly every progressive voice being murdered, and WASP Idolization (at the scale of the 60’s) — the toddler would not be considered a Boomer, despite behaving like one. The toddler however, would still be considered an asshole by all that interact with them.
To distill down further — a Boomer is a collection of negative beliefs and behaviors formed as a result of exposure to themes from the 50’s, 60’s, and (early) 70’s.
Methods for Categorization
In order to properly classify the varying Boomer sub-types, the research team chose a core set of key Boomer aspects and assigned values based on the prevalence of that aspect. See the table below for a list of possible outcomes:
Each archetype will be rated on the intensity of the prevalence of each of these characteristics. This matrix will provide the framework for identifying specific types of Boomers. This is because each Boomer archetype will require a different approach for mitigating their negative Boomer behaviors.
What’s in a Name?
In an effort to assist with easy, quick, and effective identification of each Boomer archetype in the wild, names have been assigned to ease the effort of identification. It should be noted that most names have been adopted from already the current zeitgeist with respect to Boomer identification.
The Common North American Karen AKA Karen
Like the common American Robin (Turdus migratorius — heh. Turd. Turd Bird.), the Karen is thought to be one of the most prevalent populations of the Boomer subspecies.
Karen’s are known for their high perception of personal authority, and will commonly attempt to escalate authority levels quickly to assert their personal authority on others. A unique identifier amongst other populations of Boomers is the Karen’s low level of traditionalism. This is likely due to the conflicting beliefs in their own high personal authority compared to the anti-woman tenets of traditionalism.
Guy Who Looks Like Kenneth Copeland, and Acts Like Kenneth Copeland, but Our Lawyers Said We Can’t Directly Call This Person Kenneth Copeland AKA Kenny Copes
This Boomer is like one of those parasites you occasionally hear about that swims up your pee hole while you swim in some lake in Michigan and it travels to your brain and you get some kind of fever and end up in a coma a day later and everyone just kind of has this collective “what the fuck?” feeling about it because they will still probably go swimming in a lake at some point, but they’ll swim knowing there’s a small chance that a tiny dick-loving parasite will make you braindead and leave everyone close to you with a non-specific feeling of dread.
The “Good” Christian AKA Gina / Greg
Christian as a title and tax write off, but not actually religious — beyond believing that Jesus was whiter than fresh fallen snow. These folks tend to have a photographic memory of Bible scripture — despite having never actually read it. Their level of empathy fluctuates widely between the level they wish to be perceived as having (2) vs the level they actually portray (4) when they get a wine buzz at Thanksgiving and talk about how brown people and white people getting married just gives them the “heebie jeebies”, and in the same breath will happily tell you about their photo op at the local soup kitchen.
Rhymes with “Owner of the Callas Dowboys Gary Bones” AKA JerJer the Billionaire
The JerJer the Billionaire stands out amongst the Boomer sub-species because of their view on race — as if in some sort of quantum racism superstate, JerJer is capable of simultaneously saying “No player of mine will be kneeling during our masturbatory song about ‘splosions” and “Some of my best employees are black.” The vast majority of JerJer the Billionaires aren’t in fact billionaires. However, despite making just above $38,000 a year, the non-billionaire JerJers sympathize with billionaires and advocate for big gubment stepping the fuck back with taxes and shit because they truly and honestly believe there is a non-zero chance that they too may be a billionaire one day, and that their advocation for billionaire rights will lead to even more significant gains for them when they are a billionaire.
WHADDAYA GUNNA DO ‘BOUT IT
The final section of this research paper outlines the impact of various strategies to implement to mitigate the impact of negative Boomer behaviors. The team of researchers attempted every conceptual orientation of response and measured the impact to the Boomer and the outcome of the interaction. In an effort to maintain brevity, the findings have been classified by archetype and effectiveness. Additionally, a selection of several types of negative Boomer mitigation have been included that seem to apply to the vast majority of the Boomer population.
The Fuck Up
Author’s Note: Before we discuss the successes in behavior mitigation, we felt it important to discuss a significant failure. In one attempt of conducting research, we assumed that it might be possible to “reset” a Boomer’s negative behavior by encouraging them into significantly worse behavior — eventually causing a moment of self reflection where they arrive at the realization that their behavior is unacceptable. Unfortunately, it seems as though there was a slight miscalculation on our part and we managed to build the worst thing ever.
In our failed attempt, we created a facebook meme that had a minion (A character from Dreamwork’s series, Despicable Me) suggesting certain assertions (that were all unequivocally false) about how the deep state is partnering with an ANTIFA conspiracy to make everyone black and gay with Covid and technology words that they don’t understand and that it’s all being orchestrated by the same media conglomerates that tell them bullshit like “they shouldn’t just hate foreigners” and “all their beliefs about what makes a better America are likely counterproductive to the progression of society”). That meme ended up with nearly 100 million shares and over 2 million Boomers joined the associated Facebook group. After that we started suggesting more and more idiotic and unlikely conspiracy theories (like how brown people were invented by the North during the American Civil War in order to pull the peace-loving South into a war that the South definitely won, but Abraham Lincoln used radio waves to wipe everyone’s minds so that they would THINK the North won the American Civil War) — one thing led to another and those dipshits started taking the reigns, calling us pussies, and they began spreading even more outlandish and insane theories (like how Osama Bin Laden did a Face/Off face-switch with Obama and he’s using wavelengths from the stock market translated into 5G signals to make everyone overly sensitive to Boomer’s being able to drop the “hard R” every once-in-a-while in polite company). We were eventually removed from the group because the group began to doubt our dedication to “the cause”. They kicked us out of the group and sent a message telling us to go with Christ.
The key impact to a Karen displaying negative behaviors appears to hinge around a disruption to their self perceived authority. In order to prove authoritative superiority, the researchers worked with the incredibly talented minds at Minimally Useful Industries to help provide the reader with a card bestowing the ultimate managerial power on the person wielding the card. Here’s a picture, and a link to a printable version.
In the field, displaying this card showing ultimate authority seemed to have the greatest impact in disrupting the Karen feedback loop.
The most successful strategy for Kenny Copes seems to be to wait several days for some sort of sexual assault / caught in some weird sex act / investigated by the FBI — type claims to be leveraged against them. Kenny Copes archetypes seem to accrue these allegations fairly frequently. In the case where a fresh allegation is lobbed at them, they seem to shut up pretty fucking quick. When engaging a Kenny Copes, we found it was best to just ask them in conversation if they’ve “taken care of that thing yet”. They will generally clam up because they aren’t sure which thing you’re talking about and have been cautioned by their lawyer not to implicate themselves further.
Gina and Greg
The bad behavior mitigation for Gina and Greg requires near photographic memory of the Bible. In order to subvert their bad behavior, one must call out the bad behavior using a bible quote. In order to subvert their immediate refutations (their general refutations will be in parenthesis), the quote must be new testament (old testament doesn’t count because God retconned everything with the new testament), the quote must be from a well known book of the new testament (Titus and Philemon don’t count), and the quote has to stroke their ego — fear inducing quotes won’t work. “Blessed are the…” quotes were found to be 89% more effective than “Damned are the…” quotes because Gina and Greg assume that they’ve already purchased a luxury airliner straight to the pearly gates after that *gasp* $5 donation in the collection plate and purchasing that shitty shiplap sign with white wash paint that says some bullshit about how “this is a family that supports Jesus and that if you don’t like it, you can go the fuck back to Mexico”. Authors note: This is a direct quote, we don’t get it either.
JerJer the Billionaire
The mitigation strategy that had the most positive set of results had to do with continually talking (lie / embellishment or truth are acceptable here) about recent financial windfalls due to a direct result of (perceived) millennial / progressive behaviors. Some of the most effective statements “I’m on my phone all the time because I enjoy investing in black-owned businesses with core values that I believe in, and have seen significant gains over my traditional retirement accounts. It’s looking like I may be able to retire almost 10 years earlier.” and “Thank god I got that coffee at Starbucks! I never would have overheard that hot investing tip if I would have just made coffee at home.” Any good news regarding a combination of financial windfall and progressive thoughts will cause most JerJers to flee. Additionally, a JerJer will inevitably bring up “SJW’s / Millennials killing another beloved brand of (shitty) cheese, (shitty) beans, (shitty) pillows, etc…” make sure to make a statement marveling at the colossal power of the free market, and how you’re glad that the USA wouldn’t be a bunch of pussies and implement policies that would bail out companies that fail in a free market.
Analysis of Mitigation Strategies
The unfortunate downside in attempts to use “facts” and “widely known truths” to mitigate negative Boomer beliefs and behaviors is that the usage of these seem to be mostly lost on Boomers due to their deeply rooted beliefs in their individual exceptionalism and there seems to be a general refusal to adopt new narratives in their mental framework due to their inherent aversion to progressive ideals — this makes any mitigation attempt that attempts to classify their behavior as negative, moot.
Seeing as how mitigation strategies essentially boil down to changing the Boomer’s mind (not likely), escaping the Boomer, or causing the Boomer to flee. The results of the study correlate best with two global Boomer mitigation strategies that are irrespective of personality archetype.
OK Boomer — Outright Dismissal / Ignoring
While the volatility of the response elicited from dismissing / ignoring the Boomer is high, the OK Boomer strategy has the fallout of encouraging further expressions of negative Boomer behaviors, and needs to continually be applied until the Boomer becomes exhausted and returns to their (Russian moderated) Facebook group to vent and recharge with misinformation that confirms their worldview through shitty minion memes and Boomer comics.
Dust in the Wind — Toleration Until Death
Due to the Boomer resistance to change, it seems as though the only way to entirely eliminate their negative beliefs and behaviors is to wait for them to die. While this strategy is the least involved in terms of active mitigation, it remains the singular option to mitigate all negative Boomer beliefs and behaviors. It also bears the unfortunate correlation with the eventual loss of all Baby Boomers — some of whom are totally rad and will be missed.
Based on our online research in preparing to write this comprehensive accounting of Boomer behavior and mitigation tactics, we found it was important to really set the stage with a lot of text and anecdotes before you get to the central message of the paper, so without further ado:
The Minimally Useful Insta-pot Beef Stew Recipe
Estimated prep time: 10 -15 minutes
Estimated assembly time: 10 minutes
Cook time: 22 minutes
Cool-down time: 20 minutes
Total: ‘bout an hour
- 2 very hungry people
- 6 people who could eat, but don’t need to right now
- Like, a million ants
2 lbs of beef chuck or round cubed
4 cups unsalted beef broth
Veggies ‘n Shit
4 large stalks of celery, large dice
4 large carrots, sliced into rounds
1 bag frozen peas
1lb bag of russet potatoes, quartered
3 tablespoons tomato paste
Aromatics / Other
½ sweet onion, chopped
2 cloves garlic, diced
1 tbsp ginger, small diced
2 tbsp Olive Oil
1 ½ tsp salt
3 tbsp flour
1 ½ tsp pepper
1 tsp paprika
1 tsp thyme
1 tbsp crushed red pepper
(optional) 1 tsp cumin or curry powder
See the chopping instructions above and handle your shit.
Get out your Insta-pot or whatever other brand of cooking instrument that could be easily turned into a pressure cooker bomb. Turn that bitch to sauté and throw the 2 tbsp of olive oil down for some lube.
While the Instant-pot is doing it’s thang heating up, throw all the Flava ingredients onto a plate and roll those beefy cubes around in it. Get them nice and coated. Set aside for a minute and wash ya damn hands.
Roast up those aromatics in that olive oil. Pretend you’re a medieval king condemning some unruly peasants to die by molten oil, then feel bad because that’s a really sick thought, then realize that no one can read your mind so you’re probably fine. Then maybe contemplate if you’ve been watching too many violent movies. HEY. DON’T LET YOUR FUCKING AROMATICS BURN — EYES ON THE PRIZE.
Throw those coated beefy cubes in with the aromatics — which you did not let burn, right? RIGHT?
Let the beefy cubes brown. Do the dance with a stirring spoon where you’re letting them sit enough to brown, but not letting them burn that flava coating to the bottom. If you need to add a little more olive oil to help facilitate this — do so. Use good judgement.
Once your beefy cubes are browned, dump a bit of the beef broth in (about half). Stir that concoction around to make sure you scrape up any shit sticking to the bottom of the pot. Add the tomato paste and stir in until it’s mixed about with the beefy cubes et al.
Dump the veggie mix in. Mix things up a bit so that everything is pretty evenly distributed and coated in all the good juices we’ve been cultivating.
Dump in the rest of the beef broth.
Close up the cooking bomb and set it to pressure cook. Use high pressure and make sure the cooldown period is on. Set the time to 22 minutes. Hit start.
Let the Instant-pot sit for about 20 minutes after the 22 minute alarm beeps.
EAT YOUR STEW.