Michelle, I’m not sure I’d disagree with that. But what still seems to be absent from that criticism is any of the surrounding context. You might consider that “OK Boomer” isn’t meant to advance the dialogue in the first place because it isn’t being addressed to people who show they’re interested in having a real dialogue. And in that context, I don’t know why we should be jumping to criticize those using that term before we criticize the behavior that precedes it, which often is equally childish and equally devoid of substance, as in the case of Swarbrick’s heckler.

I’d like nothing more than to see more productive dialogue take place culturally. In one of my other articles, on the eclipse of the public, I noted how crucial this is to maintaining a healthy democracy. But we can’t pretend that everyone is interested in this, nor is it fruitful to blame one side of an argument for what amounts to little more than (an admittedly snarky) acknowledgment that the other side isn’t acting like they really want a conversation.