4 ms·

The comment is factual, right? The person is young? Check. She is a content creator? Check. She promoted his books? Check. Nothing patronizing about that Edit

The comment is factual, right? The person is young? Check. She is a content creator? Check. She promoted his books? Check. Nothing patronizing about that Edit: meant as a response to sibling comment

zrail 3y ago
Ági Szabados is a 35 year old adult woman who runs a successful nationwide book club. "Young content creator" in this context absolutely is patronizing.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  I would trade my right arm to be young enough that I get offended when people call me “young.” Youth is really wasted on 20- and 30-somethings.
  - lukas099 3y ago
    Imagine this happened to Oprah (when she was younger) and somebody said "it is nice of him to try to take the heat off of a young content creator".
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - gilbetron 3y ago
      Roger Ebert helped Orpah when she was young (about the same age, 32ish) just before she exploded in popularity. I can't imagine Oprah being offended in that situation or seeing it as being patronizing.
      - bannedbybros 3y ago
        [dead]
      - lukas099 3y ago
        I meant after she exploded in popularity.
    - DangitBobby 3y ago
      That would be pretty weird because basically everyone knows who Oprah is but nothing wrong other than that.
- DandyDev 3y ago
  I didn't know her, so I googled her. What comes up the most: her YouTube videos and podcasts. That's the definition of "content creator". I find 35 young. Young != not adult. Having a successful nationwide bookclub does not stop her from (apparently) being a content creator. And vice versa, being a content creator does not diminish the success of her bookclub. You seem to suggest that being a content creator is somehow "less worthy" than having a bookclub. Many people are super successful being content creators on YouTube. Are they less because they don't run a bookclub? Sounds pretty elitist to me
  - developer93 3y ago
    Mostly I was objecting to young more than content creator, since it has connotations of inexperience. But yes I think in some circles books are regarded as "better" than videos. There's certainly a higher barrier to publishing books than electronic content, although obviously both and contain quality or crap. Edit: bawolff said it better than I could
- bimguy 3y ago
  Interestingly, you are the kind of person that Agi is facing ridicule from. Someone being offended FOR others, even though, nothing of offence actually occurred.
  - developer93 3y ago
    That is ironic ;-)
bawolff 3y ago
Things can both be literally correct and patronizing. Words have cannotations beyond their literal meanings In this case "Young content creator" can have the implication that she is not a real success but is only impressive because of her age. Since if she was on the level of a real media personality there would be no need to add the "young" adjective. She would just be a "content creator" Similarly, content creator can have the implication you run a blog or get your fame solely from social media instead of being good enough for more traditional venues (which could be true, i dont know this person). Is all that massively over thinking this? Probably. But i understand how the phrase could be seen as patronizing even if literally accurate.

The comment is factual, right? The person is young? Check. She is a content creator? Check. She promoted his books? Check. Nothing patronizing about that Edit: meant as a response to sibling comment

zrail 3y ago

Ági Szabados is a 35 year old adult woman who runs a successful nationwide book club. "Young content creator" in this context absolutely is patronizing.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
I would trade my right arm to be young enough that I get offended when people call me “young.” Youth is really wasted on 20- and 30-somethings.
- lukas099 3y ago
  Imagine this happened to Oprah (when she was younger) and somebody said "it is nice of him to try to take the heat off of a young content creator".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - gilbetron 3y ago
    Roger Ebert helped Orpah when she was young (about the same age, 32ish) just before she exploded in popularity. I can't imagine Oprah being offended in that situation or seeing it as being patronizing.
    - bannedbybros 3y ago
      [dead]
    - lukas099 3y ago
      I meant after she exploded in popularity.
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    That would be pretty weird because basically everyone knows who Oprah is but nothing wrong other than that.
DandyDev 3y ago
I didn't know her, so I googled her. What comes up the most: her YouTube videos and podcasts. That's the definition of "content creator". I find 35 young. Young != not adult. Having a successful nationwide bookclub does not stop her from (apparently) being a content creator. And vice versa, being a content creator does not diminish the success of her bookclub. You seem to suggest that being a content creator is somehow "less worthy" than having a bookclub. Many people are super successful being content creators on YouTube. Are they less because they don't run a bookclub? Sounds pretty elitist to me
- developer93 3y ago
  Mostly I was objecting to young more than content creator, since it has connotations of inexperience. But yes I think in some circles books are regarded as "better" than videos. There's certainly a higher barrier to publishing books than electronic content, although obviously both and contain quality or crap. Edit: bawolff said it better than I could
bimguy 3y ago
Interestingly, you are the kind of person that Agi is facing ridicule from. Someone being offended FOR others, even though, nothing of offence actually occurred.
- developer93 3y ago
  That is ironic ;-)

bawolff 3y ago

Things can both be literally correct and patronizing. Words have cannotations beyond their literal meanings In this case "Young content creator" can have the implication that she is not a real success but is only impressive because of her age. Since if she was on the level of a real media personality there would be no need to add the "young" adjective. She would just be a "content creator" Similarly, content creator can have the implication you run a blog or get your fame solely from social media instead of being good enough for more traditional venues (which could be true, i dont know this person). Is all that massively over thinking this? Probably. But i understand how the phrase could be seen as patronizing even if literally accurate.