Hate to break it to you my dude but 1986 is 40 years ago.

Skeletor will return next week with more disturbing reminders about passage of time...

Hate to break it to you, but you’re arguing with me about something I never said.

The term is recent in a linguistic sense. Even if you personally think it’s ancient history, there are plenty of us alive where it was invented in our lifetime.

What? You had a whole thing about rewriting history because the parent said the NYT adopted 40 years ago, then you made a big deal about how it was in 1986 and resurrected in the 80s and talked about rewriting history.

What was that all about if you both perfectly agree on the timeline?

> Classy edit, btw.

Edit? I did not edit my post. I think you may not understand what that means. It is neither classy nor unclassy, it is a type of meme.

> What? You had a whole thing about rewriting history because the parent said the NYT adopted 40 years ago, then you made a big deal about how it was in 1986 and resurrected in the 80s and talked about rewriting history.

I am the parent of the thread. It's all me.

It's simply a fact that the term was revived in the 70s and popularized in the 80s.

The 70s was 50 years ago. You may have been alive then, but that doesn't make it "recent".

Given the magnitude of more recent shifts in language around equity, 50 years is ancient.

So your argument is that anyone with a memory longer than yours, yet well within the median human lifespan, is “ancient”.

Okay, then. Good luck with that.

> So your argument is that anyone with a memory longer than yours, yet well within the median human lifespan, is “ancient”.

Deftly convincing my rhetorical opponent of my youthful vigor by misunderstanding what they wrote and getting noticeably worked up about being called ‘ancient’

It’s recent linguistically, but not culturally, which I think is more important here.

It's recent both linguistically and culturally. It was a thing in my lifetime, to the point where I remember explaining it to other people in high school.

For what it's worth, the median human is 31.1 years old. I wouldn't call something older than the median human "very recently, culturally."

That’s cute. Now try searching for the median age in developed countries, where people care enough to make up revisionist history about minor culture debates? (nevermind, I did it for you; it’s around 50)

More to the point, what’s the median human lifespan, in first-world countries? (average lifespan in the US is almost 80)

The person you're responding to isn't disparaging you. They're simply stating their opinion. That's all a judgment about whether something is recent can be.

Fine, that’s fair. It’s not explicitly disparaging, it’s just implying that facts older than you, personally, can remember are irrelevant.

I don’t know what to call this, but none of the words that come to mind are positive.

The only thing I was "disparaging" was your grasp of the standard meaning of phrases such as "very recently, culturally".

You could have avoided the issue entirely by using clearer language like "in the last 40 years."

The idea that I was claiming things older than me are "irrelevant" is nowhere near orbit of anything I wrote.

I didn't use the phrase "very recently". You did.

As far as I can tell this conversation has gone on because you've also chosen to "die on this hill". Have a good day.

I think you've misdirected anger at GP towards me and OP.

I hope your day looks up.