OPINION: I would start this piece by saying there's nothing more dangerous to human relations than sweeping generalisations, if I didn't think that was probably a sweeping generalisation in itself.

Besides which it would almost certainly be an exaggeration, though I do think the way generational generalisations are sometimes lobbed, grenade-like, between different 'groups' is potentially hugely damaging. There is plenty that should unite us inter-generationally at this juncture in our history. The over-reaction - it went global - to Chloe Swarbrick's completely throwaway comment of "Ok Boomer" to a heckling Opposition MP in Parliament just over a week ago, for which I believe the media is partly to blame, certainly didn't need to reach the hysterical levels it has.

I imagine some readers are already bristling, bracing for an attack on 'Baby Boomers', but that's not the point of this at all. The point, really, is to see the fallout for what it is, a regrettable and, for some, convenient, distraction from talking about the important issues of the age, in this case the biggest one, climate change, and what we can collectively do about them.

It's hard to look at some of the protestations without genuinely wondering if they're just taking the proverbial. A poll on Twitter this week framed it this way: "The term 'boomer' is being used by Millennials and stupid little kids as an ageist slur against older, mature people. Considering this is an equivalent of the n-word, should it be banned on Facebook?"

It's not, and neither is Boomer. Let's not forget we're talking about a slur that has been a tool in the oppression of a huge portion of the world's population over centuries. Please demonstrate, with working, how Boomer or Pom have been used to oppress vast numbers of people even over decades. You can't. It's like calling me a Japie (that's the correct spelling, not Yarpie). If anything I take it as a term of affection.

Chris McKeen/STUFF Green Party MP Chloe Swarbrick's parliamentary comment has sparked a hysterical over-reaction.

There are only a few equivalent slurs to the n-word I can think of. One begins with a k and was wielded with hatred and venom in South Africa throughout much of the 20th century. Others also take aim at race, encouraging generalisations about people on that basis.

I'm not suggesting other labels can't cause hurt or offence, or that we shouldn't be particularly careful about any we use, and how. We should. I'm asking, as someone born only a couple of years outside the Boomer generation, and with Boomer siblings, for some genuine perspective, and wisdom.

It would suit some narratives to suggest Chloe Swarbrick had used a slur equivalent to the n-word in Parliament. Those of people who'd rather discuss anything other than climate change, for example. But she didn't. With a slight grin on her face, she threw it out without breaking stride and continued on. Watch the video. It takes James Shaw a couple of seconds to even recognise what she's said.

She wasn't trying to slur anybody, but as she explained so eloquently in a piece for The Guardian last weekend, she was expressing the frustration of her generation. It was as though being heckled for saying her piece in the debate brought to mind how much this problem has grown in previous generations, starting even before the Baby Boomers, without its severity being recognised, and now her generation - my children's - and those following stand to be most affected by it.

As she concludes she expresses a truth that, at times in our political history, has simply been glossed over. "If democracy is to work for all of us, it has to look like all of us." Precisely. Politics is not just about dudes my age, and older, in suits, deciding for everyone, as was once the case. Democracy is by definition representative, and her line was a young politician eloquently making that point to a member of the aforementioned club. She had the right to make her point without being shouted down. In a sense her message was, simply, "Grow up".

DOMINION POST Chloe Swarbrick during the speech in Parliament that got plenty of global attention for something that wasn't even its point.

I particularly like her explanation of why wisdom is not just about age.

"Wisdom – that being the skillset of a critical mind and solid judgment – comes from consistently exposing oneself to new and novel situations, in turn developing greater understanding of the world, those in it and how to solve evolving problems. When you close yourself off to new ways of looking at things ... you become intrinsically less likely to hold the requisite open, critical and creative ability to tackle unprecedented, evolving socio-political challenges."

There was a time in western history when the old dudes in the suits were somehow revered as the authority on everything, but the closer I get to joining their ranks - old, not in a suit - the more it dawns on me that age isn't the key to wisdom. I mean, those old dudes are Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Boris Johnson, Scott "stop politicising bushfires" Morrison, et al, men who seem to be actively trying to hold back growing understanding, because it's politically and financially inconvenient.

What we need right now is to be reaching across generations with open minds and finding solutions to our global challenges that work for all of us.