Hmmm, I don't think you don't get what I'm saying. Generations aren't cut and paste, they bleed into each other, hence the cuspers. People born in the second half of the 70s have some very early Millennial traits, and they are too young to define Generation X in any meaningful way, largely was because their heyday was mid 90s–very early 2000s. Those years were the X/Y cusp culture. However, someone born in 1975 isn't going to have the same Millennial traits as one who was born in 2000. Here is a link about this generation, made by people who were born within that timespan: http://www.buzzfeed.com/leonoraepstein/signs-youre-stuck-between-gen-x-and-millennials?s=mobile Since it is made by them, they know how to define their own generation the best.

Early 90s Gen Yers are just milder versions of 80s Millennials. They're rather undefined. When people think of Generation Y, people don't think of the early 90s Millennials, they think of the 80s Millennials, particularly those born in the mid 1980s. We 90s babies are too young to properly define Generation Y or Z, hence we are a lost generation. Right now, early 90s babies' heyday is right now, the first half of the 2010s. The Y/Z cuspers (a.k.a. my generation) will start their culture and their "heyday" in 2015.
But a person born in 1975 began high school in 1989/90 and graduated in 1993/94, so how are they millennials? If you mean their heydays as being 18 to 25 during that time period, then that would be 1994 to 2004 as 1979 borns were 25 in 2004 and that would end their heyday. The article you linked, I read it about 5/6 months ago and some of the people said they dont believe they are between the 2 generations. How are early 90s borns milder versions of 80s millennials? They were in high school with some of the 80s borns especially 1990 borns. Not only that, 1990 babies also graduated high school along with 1989 borns in 2008 or if they were born late, then 2009.

Here's a detailed list of early 90s babies being in high school with some 80s babies

1990 babies: C/O 2008/09 - Were in high school with 1986/87 (C/O 2005), 1987/88 (C/O 2006), and 1988/89 (C/O 2007) during their Freshman, Sophomore and Junior years and were with late 1989 babies during their whole high school career as they were in the C/O 2008 as well.

1991 babies: C/O 2009/10 - Were in high school with 1987/88 (C/O 2006), 1988/89 (C/O 2007), and 1989/90 (C/O 2008) during their Freshman, Sophomore and Junior years.

1992 babies: C/O 2010/11 - Were in high school with 1988/89 (C/O 2007), and 1989/90 (C/O 2008) during their Freshman and Sophomore years.

1993 babies: Only C/O 2011 - Were in high school with 1989/90 (C/O 2008) during their Freshman year.

One year or more in high school was enough time for early 90s babies to hang with the 80s babies, so they can't be a mild version of 80s millennials if they were literally there.

Another thing is that during the 2007-08 school year, people who were born in late 1989 were seniors at this time and a person in the C/O 2011 (1992/93 borns) had one full year to make 80s baby friends. This was also the last school year to have 2000s styled music before Electropop became popular in Summer 2008.

I do understand that when millennials are spoken about, it's usually 80s babies and not 90s, so yes, they are undefined as of right now, but one day it will change. One thing, not all 90s babies are too young to define a generation specifically early 90s (They are 21-24 years old), but yes, we are still a lost generation because of no conclusion. Wasnt the early 90s babies heyday also in the late 2000s as the first ones turned 18 in 2008 (if thats what you mean by heyday) Last, since you put 1994 as part of the Y/Z cuspers, that means your heyday has already started since they turned 18 in 2012 and you turned 18 last year and it's still continuing right now.

I am just wondering. Is it common to hang out with other students when there is a 4 year gap between their grades? In my school, it was normal maybe to talk with the ones one year older or one year below us. In Germany, we went to a school similar to high school from 7th grade on and we stayed at that school until grade 13. When I was in grade 11, the 1990ers came and were "the little ones from grade 7". I don't think we had so much in common just because we shared some years together at school. 4 years of still matter - at least until the younger person is 17, 18.

I've seen some sources that say Gen Y ends in 2000 or 2001. Personally, I think that's too late. Someone born in the 1980s is not going to have any similarities with people born in 2000 or 2001. Even early 90's born have more similarities to 80s born than 2000/2001 borns. I like the cutoff at 1995 with 1996 being a little y and little z. 1997 being fully Z.

I think 1997 would be the last year of Generation Y.
They would be the last to remember the whole 2000s decade.

But a person born in 1975 began high school in 1989/90 and graduated in 1993/94, so how are they millennials? If you mean their heydays as being 18 to 25 during that time period, then that would be 1994 to 2004 as 1979 borns were 25 in 2004 and that would end their heyday. The article you linked, I read it about 5/6 months ago and some of the people said they dont believe they are between the 2 generations. How are early 90s borns milder versions of 80s millennials? They were in high school with some of the 80s borns especially 1990 borns. Not only that, 1990 babies also graduated high school along with 1989 borns in 2008 or if they were born late, then 2009.

Here's a detailed list of early 90s babies being in high school with some 80s babies

1990 babies: C/O 2008/09 - Were in high school with 1986/87 (C/O 2005), 1987/88 (C/O 2006), and 1988/89 (C/O 2007) during their Freshman, Sophomore and Junior years and were with late 1989 babies during their whole high school career as they were in the C/O 2008 as well.

1991 babies: C/O 2009/10 - Were in high school with 1987/88 (C/O 2006), 1988/89 (C/O 2007), and 1989/90 (C/O 2008) during their Freshman, Sophomore and Junior years.

1992 babies: C/O 2010/11 - Were in high school with 1988/89 (C/O 2007), and 1989/90 (C/O 2008) during their Freshman and Sophomore years.

1993 babies: Only C/O 2011 - Were in high school with 1989/90 (C/O 2008) during their Freshman year.

One year or more in high school was enough time for early 90s babies to hang with the 80s babies, so they can't be a mild version of 80s millennials if they were literally there.

Another thing is that during the 2007-08 school year, people who were born in late 1989 were seniors at this time and a person in the C/O 2011 (1992/93 borns) had one full year to make 80s baby friends. This was also the last school year to have 2000s styled music before Electropop became popular in Summer 2008.

I do understand that when millennials are spoken about, it's usually 80s babies and not 90s, so yes, they are undefined as of right now, but one day it will change. One thing, not all 90s babies are too young to define a generation specifically early 90s (They are 21-24 years old), but yes, we are still a lost generation because of no conclusion. Wasnt the early 90s babies heyday also in the late 2000s as the first ones turned 18 in 2008 (if thats what you mean by heyday) Last, since you put 1994 as part of the Y/Z cuspers, that means your heyday has already started since they turned 18 in 2012 and you turned 18 last year and it's still continuing right now.


I see people born in 1990 as late 80s babies except in name only. They also graduated before summer 08.

Is Generation Z going to be the last generation?  :o :o :o

I think 1997 would be the last year of Generation Y.
They would be the last to remember the whole 2000s decade.


So your definition is that Generation Y remembers all of the 2000s? That's another interesting approach. I would hover set 1996 as the youngest birth year, as 1997ers only turned three in 2000.

Is Generation Z going to be the last generation?  :o :o :o


No, Generation Alpha starts next year.

The reason why I feel people born from 1975–1981 are cuspers is because they have some very early generation Y traits found in core Millennials. People born from 1975–1989 tend to be more optimistic and happy, whereas people born from 1990–2000 are more cynical and distant. I should know, I've been around these people before, and I'm not talking about just four or five. I see people born in the X/Y cusp range as the cool aunts and uncles, whereas I see anyone born from 1982 onwards as more of an older sibling.

I am just wondering. Is it common to hang out with other students when there is a 4 year gap between their grades? In my school, it was normal maybe to talk with the ones one year older or one year below us. In Germany, we went to a school similar to high school from 7th grade on and we stayed at that school until grade 13. When I was in grade 11, the 1990ers came and were "the little ones from grade 7". I don't think we had so much in common just because we shared some years together at school. 4 years of still matter - at least until the younger person is 17, 18.
Yes, it's common. When I was a sophomore, some of the freshmen (C/O 2012) were hanging with seniors (C/O 2009) and when I was a freshman (C/O 2011), I actually had Junior (C/O 2009) and Senior (C/O 2008) friends. At my school, it was mixed, so everyone hanged with other no matter what grade they were in.


I see people born in 1990 as late 80s babies except in name only. They also graduated before summer 08.
Most of them did while the last few thousand graduated in 2009.


The reason why I feel people born from 1975–1981 are cuspers is because they have some very early generation Y traits found in core Millennials. People born from 1975–1989 tend to be more optimistic and happy, whereas people born from 1990–2000 are more cynical and distant. I should know, I've been around these people before, and I'm not talking about just four or five. I see people born in the X/Y cusp range as the cool aunts and uncles, whereas I see anyone born from 1982 onwards as more of an older sibling.
Not everyone is more of the categories you listed. Some 1975-89 borns could also be cynical and distant while some 1990-2000 borns could be optimistic and happy as well. I do agree you with seeing 80s babies as more as siblings than parental figures as I have cousins and a sister born in the 80s and they definitely have millennial qualities in them.

No, Generation Alpha starts next year.


what does that consist of? ???

I am just wondering. Is it common to hang out with other students when there is a 4 year gap between their grades? In my school, it was normal maybe to talk with the ones one year older or one year below us. In Germany, we went to a school similar to high school from 7th grade on and we stayed at that school until grade 13. When I was in grade 11, the 1990ers came and were "the little ones from grade 7". I don't think we had so much in common just because we shared some years together at school. 4 years of still matter - at least until the younger person is 17, 18.

Our high schools go from 9th-12th grade. Some private schools might still add 7th and 8th grade to the grade school, with no jr. high between, but typically there is jr. high. Middle school adds 6th grade too. Unless older kids had younger relatives, it was not typical for them to associate with larger age gaps.


No, Generation Alpha starts next year.

Those people haven't been born yet, much less grown up enough to call their generation anything, so we don't know what it will be called.


The reason why I feel people born from 1975–1981 are cuspers is because they have some very early generation Y traits found in core Millennials. People born from 1975–1989 tend to be more optimistic and happy, whereas people born from 1990–2000 are more cynical and distant. I should know, I've been around these people before, and I'm not talking about just four or five. I see people born in the X/Y cusp range as the cool aunts and uncles, whereas I see anyone born from 1982 onwards as more of an older sibling.

A 79er you can safely call a cusper, but earlier than that no way. They are younger Generation X. They're pushing 40 if they were born in 1975. 1981 is early Y. Depending on when they were born they could have graduated high school in 1999 or 2000, when mid 80's kids were in jr. high. You can't define everyone's personality traits by when they were born either because they're individuals. When they're born isn't what should define their personalities.

A 79er you can safely call a cusper, but earlier than that no way. They are younger Generation X. They're pushing 40 if they were born in 1975. 1981 is early Y. Depending on when they were born they could have graduated high school in 1999 or 2000, when mid 80's kids were in jr. high. You can't define everyone's personality traits by when they were born either because they're individuals. When they're born isn't what should define their personalities.


The idea is to generalize, we don't put everybody's individual perks into consideration. The reason why you have generations and their distinctive personality traits is because of societal trends that occur years past. What a large group of people the same age do affects those of a younger age, who may disagree with it.

You had The Greatest Generation, and the Silent Generation; which were strict, conservative, and disciplined. The Baby Boomers didn't like the uptight environment of the previous generations, so they rebelled. Their selfish behavior continued into adulthood and marriage. They had kids, and these kids were Generation X. Their Boomer parents were concerned with themselves, such as working and being busy when their kids needed them, resulting in many Generation Xers being latchkey kids. The Boomer's selfishness and immaturity led to divorce, which explains why Generation X is cynical and distant from their parents. Generation Y came along, whose parents were generally from Generation Jones. They didn't like the cynicism and pessimism of Generation X, so they decided to be optimistic and happy. Millennials generally trust people and they are outgoing.

Not everyone is like this, but most are. The reason why generations exist is because of mass movements in civilization, which do affect people's personalities.

My opinion only.

Baby boom- 1946 to 1964
Generation X- 1965 to 1979
Generation Y/Millenials- 1980 to 1997
Generation Z- 1998 to 2014
Generation Alpha- 2015-???

The reason why I feel people born from 1975–1981 are cuspers is because they have some very early generation Y traits found in core Millennials.
I think I know why you consider this group as the X/Y cuspers. Not only did they have some early Y traits, but they were also still targeted as the mainstream audience during the mid 90s to early 00s. In many late 90s/early 00s teen movies and teen dramas/sitcoms, this group were playing teens and young adults and not the parents like they are today. Examples of these movies/sitcoms are the first 3 American Pie movies, Cruel Intentions, Can't Hardly Wait, Varsity Blues, She's All That, Get Over It, Not Another Teen Movie, Sister Sister, Boy Meets World, 7th Heaven, Dawson's Creek, Buffy the Vampire, Charmed, the first Bring It On, Family Matters, 10 Things I Hate About You, Sabrina, The Teenage Witch (Live-Action), and Jawbreaker.

They were also the teen pop (Britney, Christina, N'Sync), nu-metal (Limp Bizkit, Korn, Linkin Park) and club styled hip-hop (Nelly, Ludacris, Lil' Jon) listeners. I can see them listening those genres as they were still the audience of that time. 

1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1 9 9 7

Ok, maybe 1996. Depends on if they remember the September 11 attacks or not.

My God, don't you guys ever get maybe a little tired of generationology? Has it really gotten to the point that we need to revive 2-year-old threads just to reinforce our dogmatic opinions about the specific ages of a group of people that has hardly even defined itself yet?

My God, don't you guys ever get maybe a little tired of generationology? Has it really gotten to the point that we need to revive 2-year-old threads just to reinforce our dogmatic opinions about the specific ages of a group of people that has hardly even defined itself yet?


More like 11 year old thread

But yes, it does get tiring especially since the core of the Plural generation is still in secondary school anf haven't made a difference in the world yet.

Maybe by 2020, the new generation will make great impact  considering they will be the new voting block and half of them will be finished with high school.

My God, don't you guys ever get maybe a little tired of generationology? Has it really gotten to the point that we need to revive 2-year-old threads just to reinforce our dogmatic opinions about the specific ages of a group of people that has hardly even defined itself yet?


YES!!!

STOP bumping these old generation threads we've long already had the same old dried out conversations where no one will ever agree with each other about the topics!

It's 2001! Okay?! You wanna know why? Because it's the actual start of the new millennium. But I find any kid born before September 11 of 2001 to be more of a Gen Y/Z cusp, especially when they were at least alive during one of the most brutal terrorist attacks in America. I don't see how a lot of 1997-2000 babies would remember 9/11 in detail, especially since they were only toddlers/preschoolers by the time it happened. Some of 2001 babies weren't even born when the attacks happened, and that's a difference compared to being babies or toddlers during 2001. They were still being developed in their mother's stomach as a fetus, and they wouldn't physically see two airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers, one airplane crashing into the Pentagon, and one airplane crashing into Shanksville, PA. Even though that's quite morbid for something that a toddler could understand, it's at least worth noticing that.

What about their core childhood, you ask? Well, they were already five years old in 2006 up to ten years old in 2011. They're literally the first year of children who had their core childhood by more than one year in the 2010s. Two full years worth of being in their core childhood throughout their life. How the hell do people not see that? How?!


1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1 9 9 7

Ok, maybe 1996. Depends on if they remember the September 11 attacks or not.


No. Just no. Zelek, you may be a decent member on this site alone, but what the hell does 1997 babies have to deal with Generation Z starting? They already started Kindergarten during the 2002-03 school year, which still had late 90s/early 2000s influences along with being Gen Y dominant. Even with that, what did they even do that was different from early-mid 90s babies. They could have a Nintendo 64 as preschoolers, along with having a Gamecube or Wii when they were in elementary school. Not to mention that they're the most definitive towards all 2000s kids, since they were 3 in 2000 to 12 in 2009. That's the entire 2000s decade, which is honestly Y/Z cusp.

My God, don't you guys ever get maybe a little tired of generationology? Has it really gotten to the point that we need to revive 2-year-old threads just to reinforce our dogmatic opinions about the specific ages of a group of people that has hardly even defined itself yet?


Well honestly, this is the only site that actually talks about pop culture and generations as a whole. Especially when I go here often. The other forums that I go to are rather more dominant about other topics. Even though I joined this website because I wanted to talk about 2000s nostalgia without getting hated by a group of members.

Well honestly, this is the only site that actually talks about pop culture and generations as a whole. Especially when I go here often. The other forums that I go to are rather more dominant about other topics. Even though I joined this website because I wanted to talk about 2000s nostalgia without getting hated by a group of members.


You're completely missing the point. It's not simply that you guys are talking about generations that bothers me – I've even occasionally joined in some of these discussions myself depending on the situation – it's that this entire board has become so obsessed with this Gen-X/Gen-Y/Gen-Z/Gen-Alpha schtick that now every possible excuse is being made to debate when a person should be called a millennial versus a plural. It's to the point that we're needlessly reviving old, tired topics when there are already so many generationology threads near the top of each sub-board that it's as bad as the decadeology infestation around the time Donnie Darko visited this place. Whether you're on the cusp of a particular generation or not, does it really matter that much? I know you enjoy these types of discussions, but do matters of "pop culture and generations" really span almost nothing more than rigidly classifying entire groups of people simply based on their age or whether or not they remember 9/11 or whatever?

Oh, and just for the record, you're not going to put a conclusive end to the debate by dogmatically claiming 2001 the start of Generation Z instead of 1997. On the contrary, you're just encouraging more insipid, pedantic threads/revivals to flood this place in the near future.

I'm frankly starting to lose a lot of interest in this board as of late, and much of that is due to the remaining members only wanting to define the absolute ages of Y/Z-cusp babies or generalize late 00s teens versus early 10s teens for the 50th time, rather than fueling discussions that actually go somewhere or at least feel intimate. Sorry, but it's just how I feel.

Whether you're on the cusp of a particular generation or not, does it really matter that much?


Not really. I'm just manipulative over this schtick, even though I don't really care about being in either Generation Y or Z. In fact, I don't really support using the generation labels on people so much. If I did, then I would've been worried if I were Generation Y or Z. I just cared more about being a child in the 2000s, since that was the purpose on why I joined this forum. Hell even before I joined this forum, I was more into shoving my thoughts on the 2000s more than generation labels. I've been doing that since 2014, but I just did it to make myself happy.

I didn't really have a lot of real life friends, after my best friend stopped seeing me in the summer of 2012. I was rather depressed, and I was obsessive over my autism. Add to the fact that I already got bullied so much during that summer, it made my life a living hell. What's worse is that it grabbed attention for my mom to get me counseling (outside my school) and get me friends from social programs, both of which didn't work out well. I didn't get a lot of jokes, and all I did was listen to rock and metal, along with watching horror movies and repetitive amounts of Family Guy, Spongebob, and The Cleveland Show. It got slightly better when I entered high school (around late 2013), especially when one of my past friends was there. I didn't see him after early December, and it made me nostalgic of my childhood. So, I've just been like that ever since. You know what? F*ck it! I'm already showing pedantic bullsh*t in my posts.

I know you enjoy these types of discussions, but do matters of "pop culture and generations" really span almost nothing more than rigidly classifying entire groups of people simply based on their age or whether or not they remember 9/11 or whatever?

Well..., I'm not that opinionated over generations, like I said. I think it came from me over the 9/11 part, since I was only an infant when the attacks happen. I keep seeing people saying negative stuff about the 2000s, simply because 9/11 was there and that everything sucked after the attacks. Even in this site, they kept saying a lot of negative stuff about the 2000s over 9/11.

Oh, and just for the record, you're not going to put a conclusive end to the debate by dogmatically claiming 2001 the start of Generation Z instead of 1997. On the contrary, you're just encouraging more insipid, pedantic threads/revivals to flood this place in the near future.


It's not like people are going to see my post about 2001, and then start countless threads about how Generation Z happened because of that.


I'm frankly starting to lose a lot of interest in this board as of late, and much of that is due to the remaining members only wanting to define the absolute ages of Y/Z-cusp babies or generalize late 00s teens versus early 10s teens for the 50th time, rather than fueling discussions that actually go somewhere or at least feel intimate.


Oh...  :-\\

Not really. I'm just manipulative over this schtick, even though I don't really care about being in either Generation Y or Z. In fact, I don't really support using the generation labels on people so much. If I did, then I would've been worried if I were Generation Y or Z. I just cared more about being a child in the 2000s, since that was the purpose on why I joined this forum. Hell even before I joined this forum, I was more into shoving my thoughts on the 2000s more than generation labels. I've been doing that since 2014, but I just did it to make myself happy.

I didn't really have a lot of real life friends, after my best friend stopped seeing me in the summer of 2012. I was rather depressed, and I was obsessive over my autism. Add to the fact that I already got bullied so much during that summer, it made my life a living hell. What's worse is that it grabbed attention for my mom to get me counseling (outside my school) and get me friends from social programs, both of which didn't work out well. I didn't get a lot of jokes, and all I did was listen to rock and metal, along with watching horror movies and repetitive amounts of Family Guy, Spongebob, and The Cleveland Show. It got slightly better when I entered high school (around late 2013), especially when one of my past friends was there. I didn't see him after early December, and it made me nostalgic of my childhood. So, I've just been like that ever since. You know what? F*ck it! I'm already showing pedantic bullsh*t in my posts.

What you crossed out isn't pedantic garbage, it's actually very personal and candid. What is repetitive and boring is forcing a very personalized perspective about an ultimately trivial matter on others without at least trying to understand their viewpoint as well.

Well..., I'm not that opinionated over generations, like I said. I think it came from me over the 9/11 part, since I was only an infant when the attacks happen. I keep seeing people saying negative stuff about the 2000s, simply because 9/11 was there and that everything sucked after the attacks. Even in this site, they kept saying a lot of negative stuff about the 2000s over 9/11.

I'm not complaining about 2000s nostalgia threads, even if I'm personally more interested in discussing movies and music than kid shows. I just think this community has crossed the line of overexposure with all the generationology discussions, which have gone from fun and interesting to just meaningless and stupid.

It's not like people are going to see my post about 2001, and then start countless threads about how Generation Z happened because of that.

You're unwittingly encouraging the generationology discussions to continue because you're responding to the comments made on the matter rather than ignoring them.

Oh...  :-\\

After a while, the same topic gets pretty boring. I, for example, came here pretty enthusiastic about outlining decade sub-eras, but have since mostly lost interest in the matter. Mapping out cultures by generation was also fun at first, but after such an over saturation of essentially the same points repeating in circles, I'm just eagerly looking for something fresh and different to discuss. I don't mean for you to take anything personally – it's not like you're the only person engaging in these topics anyway – but I would like to at least encourage a little more topical variety.

#Infinity I feel your pain! I've discussed my opinions on generations for over a year, but after awhile it gets dried out and repetitive. I don't argue or discuss about generations anymore because no matter how people feel no one will agree with what they're apart of, I've retired from doing it. It's nothing but a bunch of arbitrary BS.

What you crossed out isn't pedantic garbage, it's actually very personal and candid. What is repetitive and boring is forcing a very personalized perspective about an ultimately trivial matter on others without at least trying to understand their viewpoint as well.


Which is what I've been saying throughout the entire time I've been here. I mean, when was the last time I didn't complain about the 2010s in an extremely repetitive manner? I just regretted the fact that I said this crap to you, and even I have to say that it's stupid.

I'm not complaining about 2000s nostalgia threads, even if I'm personally more interested in discussing movies and music than kid shows. I just think this community has crossed the line of overexposure with all the generationology discussions, which have gone from fun and interesting to just meaningless and stupid.

But that's the thing. Considering I was a kid during the 2000s, I usually watched kids shows. Especially when that's the reason why I joined this site in the first place. I obsessed over being nostalgic on them for a long time, and it doesn't f*cking stop for me. There are music and movies that I'm nostalgic for, but it just makes me wish I thought about them as much as other crap.

You're unwittingly encouraging the generationology discussions to continue because you're responding to the comments made on the matter rather than ignoring them.

What about the others? What about those who just post nonsense crap? It just makes the thread/topic more unsatisfying.


#Infinity I feel your pain! I've discussed my opinions on generations for over a year, but after awhile it gets dried out and repetitive. I don't argue or discuss about generations anymore because no matter how people feel no one will agree with what they're apart of, I've retired from doing it. It's nothing but a bunch of arbitrary BS.


I don't know why I keep doing it. It just makes me happy, but then I realized that it gets boring throughout the entire thread. It makes me a hypocrite of when I said that this site should be more nostalgic, but I continued to talk about generations over and over again with little to no differences. It used to be more exciting when I met you on YouTube, since most of the time we talked about being 2000s kids. Nowadays, it's just pedantic talk about mindless generation labels.

It's 2001! Okay?! You wanna know why? Because it's the actual start of the new millennium. But I find any kid born before September 11 of 2001 to be more of a Gen Y/Z cusp, especially when they were at least alive during one of the most brutal terrorist attacks in America. I don't see how a lot of 1997-2000 babies would remember 9/11 in detail, especially since they were only toddlers/preschoolers by the time it happened. Some of 2001 babies weren't even born when the attacks happened, and that's a difference compared to being babies or toddlers during 2001. They were still being developed in their mother's stomach as a fetus, and they wouldn't physically see two airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers, one airplane crashing into the Pentagon, and one airplane crashing into Shanksville, PA. Even though that's quite morbid for something that a toddler could understand, it's at least worth noticing that.

What about their core childhood, you ask? Well, they were already five years old in 2006 up to ten years old in 2011. They're literally the first year of children who had their core childhood by more than one year in the 2010s. Two full years worth of being in their core childhood throughout their life. How the hell do people not see that? How?!


How about the beginning of Gen Y? When does it belong in your opinion? I'm guessing 1980 or 1981?

I think it's ironic that everyone agreed that it is a waste of time arguing about generations. Now, look at what's happened...

You're completely missing the point. It's not simply that you guys are talking about generations that bothers me – I've even occasionally joined in some of these discussions myself depending on the situation – it's that this entire board has become so obsessed with this Gen-X/Gen-Y/Gen-Z/Gen-Alpha schtick that now every possible excuse is being made to debate when a person should be called a millennial versus a plural. It's to the point that we're needlessly reviving old, tired topics when there are already so many generationology threads near the top of each sub-board that it's as bad as the decadeology infestation around the time Donnie Darko visited this place. Whether you're on the cusp of a particular generation or not, does it really matter that much? I know you enjoy these types of discussions, but do matters of "pop culture and generations" really span almost nothing more than rigidly classifying entire groups of people simply based on their age or whether or not they remember 9/11 or whatever?

Oh, and just for the record, you're not going to put a conclusive end to the debate by dogmatically claiming 2001 the start of Generation Z instead of 1997. On the contrary, you're just encouraging more insipid, pedantic threads/revivals to flood this place in the near future.

I'm frankly starting to lose a lot of interest in this board as of late, and much of that is due to the remaining members only wanting to define the absolute ages of Y/Z-cusp babies or generalize late 00s teens versus early 10s teens for the 50th time, rather than fueling discussions that actually go somewhere or at least feel intimate. Sorry, but it's just how I feel.


As someone who has been a member of this board for well over 10 years and who has seen pretty much all of my friends leave for almost the exact same reason as you just gave, I can relate.

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that the people who are bumping these old generational threads and making 10 new ones every day couldn't care less whether you stay or go. They're just going to keep on doing what they're doing and as far as they're concerned you can just try not to let the door hit you in the ass on the way out if you don't like it. That was certainly the attitude that the decadeologists (and those God-awful "90's kids") had when all of the old-timers left.

When I first started here in 2004, this was a close-knit community and when someone was new they would politely introduce themselves, make a few posts and threads here and there and just kind of gradually assimilate into the board, and things worked fine that way. But then we had the Donnie Dorko decadeology debacle, and that changed everything. It wasn't his concept of dividing decades into years that bothered us so much as it was the way he just kind of came charging in here and blowing the board up and ignoring all the original members who at first politely asked him to restrain himself a little, to the point where he acted like he ran the goddamn place. Of course Dorko ended up getting banned but his group of followers kept blowing up the boards and shutting out the original members until most of them quit.

This all happened several years back, almost all of the old-timers who tried to stop it are long gone now and because of that, it is now perfectly acceptable behavior for newbies to come in here and bomb the place with as many repetitive threads as they like.

The decadeologists won, this is the way things are now, so I guess you're just going to have to deal with it.

How about the beginning of Gen Y? When does it belong in your opinion? I'm guessing 1980 or 1981?


It doesn't really matter when Gen Y starts. I don't even think early 80s babies even give a crap about what generation belong, nor any person born in any year in that matter. Hell, I don't even care what generation I'm in, since it doesn't make a lot of sense.

When I first started here in 2004, this was a close-knit community and when someone was new they would politely introduce themselves, make a few posts and threads here and there and just kind of gradually assimilate into the board, and things worked fine that way. But then we had the Donnie Dorko decadeology debacle, and that changed everything. It wasn't his concept of dividing decades into years that bothered us so much as it was the way he just kind of came charging in here and blowing the board up and ignoring all the original members who at first politely asked him to restrain himself a little, to the point where he acted like he ran the goddamn place. Of course Dorko ended up getting banned but his group of followers kept blowing up the boards and shutting out the original members until most of them quit.


So in other words, nobody who gave a crap about the decadeology debacle would still make these threads. It makes me wonder why people would stay here in the first place?


This all happened several years back, almost all of the old-timers who tried to stop it are long gone now and because of that, it is now perfectly acceptable behavior for newbies to come in here and bomb the place with as many repetitive threads as they like.

The decadeologists won, this is the way things are now, so I guess you're just going to have to deal with it.


If only people told me that, I would've made my own nostalgia board on Zetaboards.

I think it's ironic that everyone agreed that it is a waste of time arguing about generations. Now, look at what's happened...



It doesn't really matter when Gen Y starts. I don't even think early 80s babies even give a crap about what generation belong, nor any person born in any year in that matter. Hell, I don't even care what generation I'm in, since it doesn't make a lot of sense.


Well if you two want to know, generations are arbitrary in a way; however, so is race/ethnicity, political parties, and even gender. So, it's not just generations that don't make sense, it's pretty much most concepts that we discuss.

Well if you two want to know, generations are arbitrary in a way; however, so is race/ethnicity, political parties, and even gender. So, it's not just generations that don't make sense, it's pretty much most concepts that we discuss.


To me, it makes sense with race and gender since that's what we identify with in our lives. Even if you want to be a transsexual, it's much more interesting than talking about crappy generation labels to common people. Political parties on the other hand depends on what person are you talking to. Especially when both political parties were extremely different during the 19th and early 20th century.

Still surprised people are debating on this. Thought discussions on when Y or Z starts/ends stopped a while back. I'm more into discussions that involve pop culture as there is always a lot of interesting things to talk about. But all generation topics pretty much start and end the exact same way with the exact same set of responses from members. Stuff on music, celebrities, games, cartoons, sitcoms, movies, comics, novels, fashion, aesthetic etc are always nice whether it's something old or new.

Still surprised people are debating on this. Thought discussions on when Y or Z starts/ends stopped a while back. I'm more into discussions that involve pop culture as there is always a lot of interesting things to talk about. But all generation topics pretty much start and end the exact same way with the exact same set of responses from members. Stuff on music, celebrities, games, cartoons, sitcoms, movies, comics, novels, fashion, aesthetic etc are always nice whether it's something old or new.


I think it came from those who were members of Personality Cafe (including me). They always talk about generations in which they gave us labels on what year we were born.

To me, it makes sense with race and gender since that's what we identify with in our lives. Even if you want to be a transsexual, it's much more interesting than talking about crappy generation labels to common people. Political parties on the other hand depends on what person are you talking to. Especially when both political parties were extremely different during the 19th and early 20th century.
Well so do generations. It's just that some folks are confused because they don't understand the concepts of them. It's not just for marketing, but also for sociological purposes. Generations are even talked about in the media (usually in a negative way) regarding events, demographics, pop culture etc. and that can apply to all us as on here, we are always discussing these topics. They aren't made up just to irritate others as some people believe, they are actually a concept. Yes, they ARE arbitrary; however, they DO work as well.

In addition, are you aware that race/ethnicity, religion, and the other identifications CAN have these types of arguments as well? I have seen it on many different message boards especially when it comes to discussions about liberals, Muslims, transgenders and immigrants.

In addition, are you aware that race/ethnicity, religion, and the other identifications CAN have these types of arguments as well? I have seen it on many different message boards especially when it comes to discussions about liberals, Muslims, transgenders and immigrants.


Well yeah. I used to be a member of a few political boards, but I was afraid that people might attack because I was a liberal. But it's not a small community, it's the entire Internet that does this. We have it everywhere, especially Youtube and Reddit. As for transgenders, Muslims, and immigrants, it depends on how people show sympathy or empathy with them.

Well yeah. I used to be a member of a few political boards, but I was afraid that people might attack because I was a liberal. But it's not a small community, it's the entire Internet that does this. We have it everywhere, especially Youtube and Reddit. As for transgenders, Muslims, and immigrants, it depends on how people show sympathy or empathy with them.
Yeah, we all do regardless of the topic. We get mad over the smallest things.  ;D

Well the majority are NOT like that. They actually want to ridicule those groups for having those identities since they are in the minority.

Well so do generations. It's just that some folks are confused because they don't understand the concepts of them. It's not just for marketing, but also for sociological purposes. Generations are even talked about in the media (usually in a negative way) regarding events, demographics, pop culture etc. and that can apply to all us as on here, we are always discussing these topics. They aren't made up just to irritate others as some people believe, they are actually a concept. Yes, they ARE arbitrary; however, they DO work as well.

In addition, are you aware that race/ethnicity, religion, and the other identifications CAN have these types of arguments as well? I have seen it on many different message boards especially when it comes to discussions about liberals, Muslims, transgenders and immigrants.


Just because generation-ology is rigid and seemingly has a set of rules, doesn't mean it's like the other things you mentioned. As it is, it's closer to astrology than anything else.


Although, that's not to say it has no use (unlike astrology). But it's a bit pointless to go back and forth about whether 1997 or 2001 is the first or last year of whatever generation. You won't find the dividing line because it doesn't exist. I admit, I still like talking about generations, but more in terms of common experiences, (I had fun in the Older Millennials vs Younger Millennials thread) rather than what year is millennial and what year is Gen Z. Just my two cents.

Edit: to be fair, I personally don't care what other people talk about, and admit I've been posting in a lot of the threads as well and share the blame.

Yeah, we all do regardless of the topic. We get mad over the smallest things.  ;D


Not everybody does all the time, but it's true.


Well the majority are NOT like that. They actually want to ridicule those groups for having those identities since they are in the minority.


Which is why I said they don't have a lot of empathy towards transgenders, Muslims, and immigrants. They just want everything to be in their way, even though getting rid of thousands of Muslims would be risky. Same with immigrants, unless they're illegals. But with that, I actually wish somebody just pardon them if it's for a political cause.

Just because generation-ology is rigid and seemingly has a set of rules, doesn't mean it's like the other things you mentioned. As it is, it's closer to astrology than anything else.


Although, that's not to say it has no use (unlike astrology). But it's a bit pointless to go back and forth about whether 1997 or 2001 is the first or last year of whatever generation. You won't find the dividing line because it doesn't exist. I admit, I still like talking about generations, but more in terms of common experiences, (I had fun in the Older Millennials vs Younger Millennials thread) rather than what year is millennial and what year is Gen Z. Just my two cents.

Edit: to be fair, I personally don't care what other people talk about, and admit I've been posting in a lot of the threads as well and share the blame.


Yeah, I hear what you're saying. That's why sociologists and other references use demographics, events and other misc when talking about generations because it will measure who's part of one cohort and who's associated with another.


Not everybody does all the time, but it's true.

Which is why I said they don't have a lot of empathy towards transgenders, Muslims, and immigrants. They just want everything to be in their way, even though getting rid of thousands of Muslims would be risky. Same with immigrants, unless they're illegals. But with that, I actually wish somebody just pardon them if it's for a political cause.
I know, and that's not acceptable. Not everyone wants to follow the mainstream and be apart of it. Some want to have their own.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. That's why sociologists and other references use demographics, events and other misc when talking about generations because it will measure who's part of one cohort and who's associated with another.


Even though I find that to be bullcrap, since it's not like everybody listens to the same music that their generation does. I'm technically part of Generation Z (since for one, a lot of sources say that it started around 1995), but I don't listen to the same auto-generated music that my classmates listen to on a daily basis.


I know, and that's not acceptable. Not everyone wants to follow the mainstream and be apart of it. Some want to have their own.


Same. I don't want to follow a lot of mainstream media, since they aren't worth watching after the United States elected Trump.

Sorry or causing these arguments, guys. I just wanted to pitch in what I thought Gen Z was... one last time.

I won't do it again. :P

It still has yet to be determined. The earliest sources that end Y are usually 1994 while the latest are usually 2001. So by that basis you could make the objective assumption that if you're born after 2001 you would Z, born before 1994 you would be Y, born anytime in between a Y/Z cusp (similar to how the X/Y is cusp is generally 1977-1982 or so).

Now if you were to ask my own personal subjective opinion looking at evidence and studies I typically go with two theories. One thing to note before I begin is that I also use an unorthodox view of 'coming of age'. While most people typically use age 18 as the most important in finding out what generation (and further more sub generation) you'd belong to (ie, someone turning 18 during the Vietnam War vs. someone turning 18 after the Vietnam War aka the division between Older & Younger Boomers), I view the main important age to be 16. The reasoning for this is because you're 'prime' (or you're 'youth') is when you are physically, mentally, and culturally speaking youthful and coming of age. This is a WIDE range that could begin potentially as early as age 9 (starting your tweens or early puberty phase for girls) and end as late as age 23 (right before you enter your mid twenties). This from a U.S perspective would be most of your secondary education and under graduation educational years where you're defined the most. Thus the core years would be your teen aged years, 13-19, with your 16th birthday being the peak,  I would also consider it ages 16 1/2 upto one's 17th birthday, aka someone's Junior year of high school (assuming one's youth is ages 11-22, with 16.5 being the center). This makes sense biologically since most teens are at the peak of puberty at around 16, but it also makes sense culturally since in the U.S 16 (along with 18 in many respects) is major 'rite of passage age' when people are usually getting their driver permits/licenses, girls have their Sweet 16's, teens get their first jobs, enter Junior year in high school and start to think about their future, etc. This would also be when they are most in tune with pop culture of their era so for instance two 16 year olds going to a Twenty One Pilots Concert, or a teen getting tickets to see the new Star Wars film. So understanding how I'm equating this to my personal theories, this is how I'd end Y and start Z.


The First Theory
The first is the traditional demographic theory which puts Millennials as those born from 1982-2000. The reason for this is because it would be the same year range as the Baby Boomers (18 years, ie 1946-1964) and using the Chinese Zodiac as a reference the years for both 1946-64' and 1982-00' match up identically. It also matches up based on Presidential years and even coincidental pop cultural occurrences throughout the years. For example, I see the most recent election of 2016 as similar to the 1980 election, 'a political outsider who was a celebrity defying the odds and winning the presidency'. This was also a major turning point for the Baby Boomer and Millennial elections respectively and the following Reagan Era and our subsequent Trump era were/will most likely be the defining years for the next generations, Gen X & Gen Z respectively. In other words theoretically someone who turned 16 in 2016, 2000 born, would be the last to have spent most of their youth during the Obama presidency which is a Y trait. Now the definition isn't 100% perfect because by this definition those born in 1982, 1983, & 1984 would technically be VERY Late Gen Xers because they were the last to turn 16 when Clinton was in office. However, some may argue that due to the zeitgeist of the 90's already changing by that point, ie. the early-mid 90's being more angsty and depression which was more of an X vibe to much more poppy and optimistic due to the urgent dawn of the new millennium would be more targeted towards Y (and if you think about it makes sense, ie, mid 90's star Alanis Morissette being more X targeted while late 90's star like Britney Spears being more Y targeted). These are just some of the example of how the eras nearly match up perfectly and why the 1982-2000 definition is accurate, implying that Z would begin around 2001.


The Second Theory
However, as stated before that presidential years (while helpful) aren't the only determinant for determining whose apart of a respective generation, but it also has to match the overall zeitgeist of the era. And because of this some people don't believe we are currently living in Y targeted pop culture today (sure the musicians themselves are Yers such as Taylor Swift or Ariana Grande, but its not actually targeted at Yers themselves), but rather Z targeted pop culture. As I stated before, looking through evidence based on cultural trends it seems that X culture began around 1981 with the debut of MTV and ended around 1996/1997 with the deaths Tupac & Biggy, the official death 90's Grunge with Soundgarden disbanding, and the launch of the N64 officially kicking off the 5th generation of gaming (the first gaming era in the 3rd frontier), the re-election of Bill Clinton in record numbers who was once VERY unpopular which helped fuel the mid 90's angst was now VERY popular which helped fuel the late 90's optimism, and most notably the commercialization of the internet in the second half of the decade.

Around the 1998-1999 school year, we started to officially enter Y dominated pop culture and people turning 16/17 years old during this time period and thus were at the peak of the their youths, were those born in 1982 & 1983, also generally speaking the common definitions of starting Y. I've also stated that the youth period could peak at ages 16.5 upto ages 17, so if we were to use high school Grad classes as a guide (Late of the previous year upto middle of the following year) then the first truly Millennial Grad Class would be 2000. Not only because they were the first to graduate in 2000 and thus never be an adult in the 1990's (which is crucial when trying to define the difference between X & Y) but they were at the peak of their youths during the 1998-1999 school year. Now the Later Clinton Years in my mind would be the start of Y culture.

The core Y cultural years would be the Bush 43' era which was defined by 9/11, the War in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, & the Great Recession. Basically if you were ages 16/17 throughout this era you're safely Y.

The Obama years is when it starts to get to tricky. The Great Recession is a first hand experience that Y would know the most be it graduating from college with massive student loan debt, competitive jobs markets, stagnated wages, etc. Heck what came out of it was the Occupy Wall Street Movement in 2011. Because of this being ages 16/17 or older during the Great Recession or the stagnated aftermath is crucial in being considered Y. With this it would make sense for the Grad Class of 2014 to be the last true Millennials since they were 16/17 years old during Obama's first term when the economy was still struggling and thus one of the youngest to have potentially worked during that era, aka coming of age in 2012-2013 which culturally (for the most part) leaned early 2010's.

Now based on this definition it would be reasonable to assume that the Class of 2015 would be the first of Z, but technically no. They would be the first Y/Z cusp class under this definition. I typically consider Obama's 2nd term during the mid 2010's as Gen Y passing the torch to Gen Z (similar to how I see the period from 1994 following Kurt Cobain's death to 1998 with the rise of Britney Spears as Gen X passing the torch to Gen Y). The era of SJWs, trigger warnings, Rise in BLM, The Alt Right, Neo Cold War, etc. are Y/Z cusp events. There's also a major pop cultural change from the late Y targeted music of the late 00's/early 10's (Lady Gaga, Flo Rida, Katy Perry, etc.) into the early Gen Z targeted modern teen pop and 'trash' rap acts of the mid 10's (Shawn Mendes, Ariana Grande, Lil Yachty, etc.). You cannot forget to even mention the popularity of Gen Z targeted apps like Vine, SnapChat, & Musically and the steady decline (or major reform) of Y targeted social media site facebook. The point is it seems that anybody who came of age (ages 16/17) during the 2013-2014 school year through the 2016-2017 are a Y/Z cusp. Those in the Class of 2019 would technically be the first true Gen Zers by this regard as they would come of age in the 2017-2018 school year when the  Y/Z pop culture would be nearly complete and would be the first 100% full on school year of the Trump administration, thus relation to the era of the Iraq War, Great Recession, & 'Change' wouldn't click with them, however as I'll further elaborate later, I think the C/O 19' just barely squeezes into the cusp territory. I personally sense a massive right wing shift in politics right now, something so trans formative not felt since Reagan's election in 1980 which was a backlash against the counter culture movement of the 60's & 70's and seemingly ended Boomer's reign on pop culture. Hence why spending most of your youth in the 2000's and or the early-mid 2010's is crucial if trying to be considered Y or Z.


In Conclusion
So going by both of my PERSONAL definitions, I would conclude that Gen Z would begin around those born in Late 2001 or 2002. Technically it should start with the Class of 2019, but because they were all born before 9/11, the event that massively effected Millennials similar to how JFK effected Boomers, I still consider the C/O 2019 cusp, but just barely. Early Y aka those born Late 1981-Mid 1986 (ages 15-19) would have been in high school or their first years in college for the most part during 9/11, core Yers would have been in middle school for the most part (ages 10-14), Younger Yers mostly in grade school (ages 5-9), & Y/Z cuspers in the childhood mortality range (ages 0-4) thus they would have been alive (thus their cusp status) but unlikely to process a vivid recollection of it (vivid memories begin around ages 5/6).

So the first true Gen Z Grad Class would be 2020, not just because they would be the first to graduate in the first score of the 21st century (completely devoid of any Gen Y relations) but was the first to have been born after 9/11 and spend their youth period in the 2018-2019 school year when the Y/Z pop culture transition (in which I predict) will be 100% complete. But of course this is my SUBJECTIVE opinion and shouldn't be received as gospel if you shall not believe it. I'm just giving out how I see things on the topic. (NOTE: This is from a U.S perspective, if you DO NOT live in the U.S completely disregard what I just said because every country has difference ground rules on what defined certain generations and thus have different definitions and rough approximations. Although FWIW, for most of the Western World, the definitions I laid could translate reasonably well.).


So to graph it out using high school grad classes:

X/Y Cusps:

HS C/O 1996 - C/O 2000: Youth spent Late 1994 - Mid 1998, during the Core Clinton years, 90's angst-optimism transition with events like the The OJ Simpson Trial, Atlanta 96' bombings, & the shocking Death of Princess Diana, technologcial advancements such as the release of Windows 95 & 4th to 5th generation of gaming transition, Music like Post Grunge & peak in Gangsta Rap, movies like Clueless & Romeo & Juliet (96'), tv shows like My So Called Life & Boy Meets World, etc. (born Late 1977 - Mid 1982)

(Now those in the Classes of 96' & 97' would lean X, those in the classes of 99' & 00' would lean Y,the class of 98' would be the ULTIMATE X/Y cusp class)


Millennials:

Early Millennials: HS C/O 2000 - C/O 2004: Youth spent Late 1998 - Mid 2003, during the Late Clinton & Bush 43's first term, the late 90's/early 00's mixed optimism & fears with events like the Columbine shooting, Y2K, & 9/11, tech advancements such as the standardization of internet and adoption of DVDs, The Core 5th generation & 6th generation gaming years, Music like teen pop & nu-metal, movies like American Pie & Bring it On, tv shows like Dawson's Creek & Jackass, etc. (born Late 1981 - Mid 1986)

Core Millennials: HS C/O 2005 - C/O 2009: Youth spent Late 2003 - Mid 2008, during the Core Bush years, the Mid-Late 00's during political and economic turbulence with events like the Iraq War (mainly its massive backlash 2004 on wards), Hurricane Katrina and lackluster relief efforts, & the housing bubble, tech advancements such as the start of the Web 2.0 era of internet which made the internet a necessity which simultaneously saw the rise of social media sites like Myspace, YouTube, & Facebook & of course the popularization of the iconic Gen Y flip phone the Motorola Razr, the transition from 6th gen to 7th gen gaming, Music like Crunk rap & emo, movies like Mean Girls & Star Wars Episode III, tv shows like The O.C & Laguna Beach, etc. (Born Late 1986 - Mid 1991)

Late Millennials: HS C/O 2010 - C/O 2014: Youth spent Late 2008 - Mid 2013, during (Mostly) Obama's first term & the Great Recession of the Late 00's/Early 10s with events like Michael Jackson's Tragic Death, The killing of Osama Bin Laden, & the tragic Sandy Hook Shooting, tech advancements like the standardization of smartphones during this era mainly due to Blackberrys then later on iPhones & the rise of smartphone apps most notably Angry Birds, the core 7th generation gaming years, Music like Electropop & Dubstep, movies like the Twilight Series & The Hunger Games, tv shows like Breaking Bad & Jersey Shore, etc. (Born Late 1991 - Mid 1996)


Y/Z Cusps:

HS C/O 2015 - C/O 2018/maybe 2019?: Youth spent Late 2013 - Present during (Mostly) Obama's second term & rising political division (ie, SJW Left & Alt Right, which led to the controversial 2016 election) during the Mid-(Late?) 2010's with critical events (so far) such as the 2014 Government shutdown, Russia invading Ukraine, & the rise of ISIS, tech advancements such as the rise in popularity for Wearable tech like virtual reality & smartwatches, core 8th generation gaming years, Music like Modern Teen Pop & Trash rap, movies like The Duff & Star Wars Episode VII, tv shows like Orange is the New Black & House of Cards, etc. (Born Late 1996 Onwards)

(Now those in the classes of 15' & 16' would lean Y, while those in the classes of 18' & 19' would lean Z, the class of 17' would be the ULTIMATE Y/Z cusp class)


Anyways I barely talk about generations anymore because its tiring and drains my life away (heck I'm supposed to be writing a college paper right now ;D), so if you have any questions about my theory please be sure that their substantive and I'll be happy to answer them!

Even though I find that to be bullcrap, since it's not like everybody listens to the same music that their generation does. I'm technically part of Generation Z (since for one, a lot of sources say that it started around 1995), but I don't listen to the same auto-generated music that my classmates listen to on a daily basis.

Same. I don't want to follow a lot of mainstream media, since they aren't worth watching after the United States elected Trump.
It's not just the music, but even the movies, and TV shows as well. Anything that is teenage/college/high school related is targeted towards the Plural (Z) cohort. Furthermore, this generation is also the last that may have a Caucasian majority and they are more conservative than the Millennials (Y). In fact, a survey found that during the mock election, the Zeds were overly voting for Trump rather than Clinton.

As for the sources and date, that goes back to the reasons supported by evidence.

Oh, I don't blame you for that. It honestly seems like a nightmare.

Zelda, you're back!

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. That's why sociologists and other references use demographics, events and other misc when talking about generations because it will measure who's part of one cohort and who's associated with another.


Sociology isn't my speciality; how would you scientifically measure how someone is millennial in sociology?  :o

For some reason I doubt it's the ability to vaguely recall 9/11 or watching Bring It On in high school  ;D

It still has yet to be determined. The earliest sources that end Y are usually 1994 while the latest are usually 2001. So by that basis you could make the objective assumption that if you're born after 2001 you would Z, born before 1994 you would be Y, born anytime in between a Y/Z cusp (similar to how the X/Y is cusp is generally 1977-1982 or so).


I don't want to delve too much into the generation discussion, as we are never going to come to a definitive conclusion as to when Generation Y ends. However, the boundaries you have suggested have largely tied-in with the results which I have received for my primary research into generations (the link to it can be found in the "off-topic" sub-forum, for people who were unaware of it). Based on the results I have received, people born between 1994-1996 generally lean more towards Generation Y. Things start to become interesting with people born between 1997-2000, as there genuinely seems to be confusion among this cohort as to what generation they belong to.

I don't want to delve too much into the generation discussion, as we are never going to come to a definitive conclusion as to when Generation Y ends. However, the boundaries you have suggested have largely tied-in with the results which I have received for my primary research into generations (the link to it can be found in the "off-topic" sub-forum, for people who were unaware of it). Based on the results I have received, people born between 1994-1996 generally lean more towards Generation Y. Things start to become interesting with people born between 1997-2000, as there genuinely seems to be confusion among this cohort as to what generation they belong to.

Can you please put a link to your study results?

I'm a 50/50 split between early and mid Y.

It's not just the music, but even the movies, and TV shows as well. Anything that is teenage/college/high school related is targeted towards the Plural (Z) cohort. Furthermore, this generation is also the last that may have a Caucasian majority and they are more conservative than the Millennials (Y). In fact, a survey found that during the mock election, the Zeds were overly voting for Trump rather than Clinton.


With all due respect, it might have to deal with SJWs saying that all white straight men are evil as sh*t. Even though they say that they aren't biased, they tend to be hypocritical in that sort of way.


Oh, I don't blame you for that. It honestly seems like a nightmare.


Yeah. I bet it would be a turn for the worse, since they wouldn't be confident when Trump becomes our president.

Sociology isn't my speciality; how would you scientifically measure how someone is millennial in sociology?  :o

For some reason I doubt it's the ability to vaguely recall 9/11 or watching Bring It On in high school  ;D


They use that tactic with events, demographics and other misc since those are the things that shape people very well.

You're right, it's not. It's the ability to remember events that had a great impact on the generation as a whole.

Now regarding pop culture, it's not just when the movies and songs were released, but also how they affected a generation as well.


With all due respect, it might have to deal with SJWs saying that all white straight men are evil as sh*t. Even though they say that they aren't biased, they tend to be hypocritical in that sort of way.

Yeah. I bet it would be a turn for the worse, since they wouldn't be confident when Trump becomes our president.

Right on! That's exactly why SJWs are not the real deal.

Oh, yeah it will. I really hope that the hatred for certain folks doesn't turn into a genocide.

Oh, yeah it will. I really hope that the hatred for certain folks doesn't turn into a genocide.


Me too. As much as I'm neutral over Trump, he could probably be unpredictable at some points during his presidency.

They use that tactic with events, demographics and other misc since those are the things that shape people very well.

You're right, it's not. It's the ability to remember events that had a great impact on the generation as a whole.

Now regarding pop culture, it's not just when the movies and songs were released, but also how they affected a generation as well.
Right on! That's exactly why SJWs are not the real deal.


What events/demographics/misc.?

By events I'm guessing you mean 9/11? Is there any reputable sociology paper that examined the impact that 9/11 had on millennials? Is there proof that the 8 year old who remembers 9/11 but was mentally/developmentally incapable of processing it was impacted differently by the event than a 4 year old who doesn't remember it at all? Is the 16 year old who understood the implications of what was happening more similar to the 6 year old who caught a glimpse of 9/11, than he is to someone who was a 40 year old at the time and supposedly processing things in a similar way? What does sociology say about 9 year olds who don't remember 9/11 at all? Are they measurably less millennial than a 6 year old who does?

I understand sociology is a soft science with many unknown variables playing at once, but these would be important questions to ask to see if this "generation theory" has any predictive or scientific value, even in the super specific context of 9/11. If the generation theory can't tell us something new about how people behave, or is in fact even a terrible predictor, then really, what use is it? It's not scientific.

There are sociology papers that measure millennial-ness based on their historic pop culture consumption?  :o I think you're confusing marketing for sociology here. I strongly doubt there is a measurable  difference between me watching Toy Story in 1998 at 5 year olds and my little sister watching it in 2010 at the same age, unless you can prove otherwise. Marketing may use some science to attain its end goals, but it's not a discipline of science in of itself.

tl;dr y'all got any more of that SCIENCE?

What events/demographics/misc.?

By events I'm guessing you mean 9/11? Is there any reputable sociology paper that examined the impact that 9/11 had on millennials? Is there proof that the 8 year old who remembers 9/11 but was mentally/developmentally incapable of processing it was impacted differently by the event than a 4 year old who doesn't remember it at all? Is the 16 year old who understood the implications of what was happening more similar to the 6 year old who caught a glimpse of 9/11, than he is to someone who was a 40 year old at the time and supposedly processing things in a similar way? What does sociology say about 9 year olds who don't remember 9/11 at all? Are they measurably less millennial than a 6 year old who does?

I understand sociology is a soft science with many unknown variables playing at once, but these would be important questions to ask to see if this "generation theory" has any predictive or scientific value, even in the super specific context of 9/11. If the generation theory can't tell us something new about how people behave, or is in fact even a terrible predictor, then really, what use is it? It's not scientific.



I was born in 1996 and I don't remember 9/11 yet I still considered myself a Millennial.

By events I'm guessing you mean 9/11? Is there any reputable sociology paper that examined the impact that 9/11 had on millennials? Is there proof that the 8 year old who remembers 9/11 but was mentally/developmentally incapable of processing it was impacted differently by the event than a 4 year old who doesn't remember it at all? Is the 16 year old who understood the implications of what was happening more similar to the 6 year old who caught a glimpse of 9/11, than he is to someone who was a 40 year old at the time and supposedly processing things in a similar way? What does sociology say about 9 year olds who don't remember 9/11 at all? Are they measurably less millennial than a 6 year old who does?


Honestly, I think they chose 9/11 because it started the 21st century to a lot of people. I mean, everyone thought that America had changed ever since the attacks, although I kinda doubt it now since we're already going through a massive political change. Plus, it wasn't as insane as it was when George W. Bush as president, to be honest. Yes, I know he did a lot of f*cked up sh*t, but Obama barely gave a crap about helping his country in need when we had all of these incidents. It was also not racially divided as it is now, especially when every liberal college-aged adult is a joke to conservatives. When '43 Bush as president, we at least put up political satire to poke fun at him. Nowadays, when you put up "Trump 2016", everyone gets offended and started to protest in a ridiculous manner.

I understand sociology is a soft science with many unknown variables playing at once, but these would be important questions to ask to see if this "generation theory" has any predictive or scientific value, even in the super specific context of 9/11. If the generation theory can't tell us something new about how people behave, or is in fact even a terrible predictor, then really, what use is it? It's not scientific.

THIS!

OMG, there isn't enough that I could agree with you. As much as I think generations aren't definitive, they should probably get the hell out of our society. Nobody gives a f*ck about using them anymore, unless it's used to generalized young adults today. Nobody gives a crap if you call them Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, Millennials, Gen Zers, etc. It brings in no effort for the people who believed that crap 60 years ago.


There are sociology papers that measure millennial-ness based on their historic pop culture consumption?  :o I think you're confusing marketing for sociology here. I strongly doubt there is a measurable  difference between me watching Toy Story in 1998 at 5 year olds and my little sister watching it in 2010 at the same age, unless you can prove otherwise. Marketing may use some science to attain its end goals, but it's not a discipline of science in of itself.

tl;dr y'all got any more of that SCIENCE?


Tell that to the generation-ologists on New York Times, BuzzFeed, etc.

What events/demographics/misc.?

By events I'm guessing you mean 9/11? Is there any reputable sociology paper that examined the impact that 9/11 had on millennials? Is there proof that the 8 year old who remembers 9/11 but was mentally/developmentally incapable of processing it was impacted differently by the event than a 4 year old who doesn't remember it at all? Is the 16 year old who understood the implications of what was happening more similar to the 6 year old who caught a glimpse of 9/11, than he is to someone who was a 40 year old at the time and supposedly processing things in a similar way? What does sociology say about 9 year olds who don't remember 9/11 at all? Are they measurably less millennial than a 6 year old who does?

I understand sociology is a soft science with many unknown variables playing at once, but these would be important questions to ask to see if this "generation theory" has any predictive or scientific value, even in the super specific context of 9/11. If the generation theory can't tell us something new about how people behave, or is in fact even a terrible predictor, then really, what use is it? It's not scientific.

There are sociology papers that measure millennial-ness based on their historic pop culture consumption?  :o I think you're confusing marketing for sociology here. I strongly doubt there is a measurable  difference between me watching Toy Story in 1998 at 5 year olds and my little sister watching it in 2010 at the same age, unless you can prove otherwise. Marketing may use some science to attain its end goals, but it's not a discipline of science in of itself.

tl;dr y'all got any more of that SCIENCE?


It's not just 9/11, but all events for each generation.  There were events that impacted Boomers such as JFK's assassination, man on the moon, Nixon's resignation, Death of John Lennon, and Woodstock. For the MTV (X) cohort, they were Challenger Explosion, Berlin Wall Fall, Demise of USSR,Rodney King and the LA riots, and the OJ Simpson case. For the Millennials (Y), it was The Columbine Shootings, Y2K, 9/11, Invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, and The Great Recession. For the Zeds, they are 2008 Election/First Black President, Assassination of Bin Laden, Boston Marathon Bombing, ISIS, and the 2016 Election/Trump's Victory/Election Riots.

Now regarding your question, the measures sociologists use are surveys, experiments and other methods because it give them an average number of people that have answered their questions and utilize it towards their studies. As for the ages, there are obviously huge differences between 4 and 8 even when it comes to mental development and that fact comes from psychology study after study.

When I was talking about pop culture, I didn't mean childhood movies. I meant in general. The teenage/coming of age/college movies work very well when it comes to describe the generations at best. It's the same thing with songs they can have not only a cultural impact, but even a generational impact as well.

Haven't you seen articles where the author will discuss which movies and tracks were the best description for a generation?

Here are two examples of a song and movie for the Boomers and the MTV cohort.

Boomers:

Movie
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjI5NjM5MjIyNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjg2MTUxMDE@._V1_UY1200_CR89,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg

Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F0ytNzHDj8

MTV (X):

Movie
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Ferris_Bueller's_Day_Off.jpg

Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg

2004.

It's not just 9/11, but all events for each generation.  There were events that impacted Boomers such as JFK's assassination, man on the moon, Nixon's resignation, Death of John Lennon, and Woodstock. For the MTV (X) cohort, they were Challenger Explosion, Berlin Wall Fall, Demise of USSR,Rodney King and the LA riots, and the OJ Simpson case. For the Millennials (Y), it was The Columbine Shootings, Y2K, 9/11, Invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, and The Great Recession. For the Zeds, they are 2008 Election/First Black President, Assassination of Bin Laden, Boston Marathon Bombing, ISIS, and the 2016 Election/Trump's Victory/Election Riots.


These are the "events/demographics/misc." that sociologists are using? To what end result? I know we here like to associate cultural events and items with cultural generations, but I've never heard of sociologists doing it. Would the JFK assassination be an accurate measure of who's a Boomer and who isn't (and wouldn't most people born 1957-1964 not be able to remember it)?


Now regarding your question, the measures sociologists use are surveys, experiments and other methods because it give them an average number of people that have answered their questions and utilize it towards their studies. As for the ages, there are obviously huge differences between 4 and 8 even when it comes to mental development and that fact comes from psychology study after study.


Hey, that's what I was asking for  ;D a scientific sociology study that confirms the existence of generations. I've never seen one, the whole concept doesn't seem scientific to me. Of course, I don't deny that you can find differences about just about anything based on age group, but does that span across multitudes of statistics? Are people born 1982-1994 going to have the same opinion on everything or most things? Because, if not, then it makes no sense to continue grouping those ages any more than 1983-1995 or 1989-2001.


When I was talking about pop culture, I didn't mean childhood movies. I meant in general. The teenage/coming of age/college movies work very well when it comes to describe the generations at best. It's the same thing with songs they can have not only a cultural impact, but even a generational impact as well.


Generation defining songs and pop culture can come out any year and effect any age range, though. What makes Bring It On a millennial teen movie when we were only 5/6 when it came out? Wouldn't Gen X relate to it as well? Would early '80s babies care about our teen movies like Superbad?


Haven't you seen articles where the author will discuss which movies and tracks were the best description for a generation?


No, I haven't, actually  :o Nonetheless,  anyone can write an article. And maybe I'll read it, and maybe I'll enjoy it, but it doesn't mean they have authority on the subject.


Here are two examples of a song and movie for the Boomers and the MTV cohort.

Boomers:

Movie


Song


MTV (X):

Movie


Song


You see, this is a prime example of where such a rigid definition of generation falls apart. I don't deny that Smells Like Teen Spirit is generation defining to an extent. But what about the song makes it specifically Generation X (1965-1980)?  My mom born 1966 is Gen X. When Smells Like Teen Spirit came out, she was 25, married, on her honeymoon, and trying to start a family. Smells Like Teen Spirit absolutely does not define her generation. Her teenage years were already history. On the other end, there are a lot of people born 1980-1984 who proclaim to be a huge Nirvana fans in their childhoods and bought all their CDs, went to concerts etc.

If Smells Like Teen Spirit defined a generation, it wasn't Generation X.  And that's the problem with generation defining pop culture items, they can come out at any time and target any random age group, regardless of whether they're millennial/Gen X/Boomer etc.

These are the "events/demographics/misc." that sociologists are using? To what end result? I know we here like to associate cultural events and items with cultural generations, but I've never heard of sociologists doing it. Would the JFK assassination be an accurate measure of who's a Boomer and who isn't (and wouldn't most people born 1957-1964 not be able to remember it)?


I think people born in 1957 would remember because they'd be 6 at the time. I see 1957 as a year that can go either full Boomer or full Jones depending on the person.
Some of them don't have the Gen Xer influence but others do. It's a very cuspy year.

I think people born in 1957 would remember because they'd be 6 at the time. I see 1957 as a year that can go either full Boomer or full Jones depending on the person.
Some of them don't have the Gen Xer influence but others do. It's a very cuspy year.


But it's not like they could understand the consequences after JFK was assassinated. Even in age 6, it's not like you would know what's going to happen since you didn't learn that much.

But it's not like they could understand the consequences after JFK was assassinated. Even in age 6, it's not like you would know what's going to happen since you didn't learn that much.


If a person was gifted or advanced for their age would it make them generationally different from their peers if they could understand or get it?

If a person was gifted or advanced for their age would it make them generationally different from their peers if they could understand or get it?


I don't think you could be in a different generation just for be gifted or advanced. But if they knew that a vice president could become president, along with people not coming back after they die, then I guess they could remember it greatly.

These are the "events/demographics/misc." that sociologists are using? To what end result? I know we here like to associate cultural events and items with cultural generations, but I've never heard of sociologists doing it. Would the JFK assassination be an accurate measure of who's a Boomer and who isn't (and wouldn't most people born 1957-1964 not be able to remember it)?


Hey, that's what I was asking for  ;D a scientific sociology study that confirms the existence of generations. I've never seen one, the whole concept doesn't seem scientific to me. Of course, I don't deny that you can find differences about just about anything based on age group, but does that span across multitudes of statistics? Are people born 1982-1994 going to have the same opinion on everything or most things? Because, if not, then it makes no sense to continue grouping those ages any more than 1983-1995 or 1989-2001.


Generation defining songs and pop culture can come out any year and effect any age range, though. What makes Bring It On a millennial teen movie when we were only 5/6 when it came out? Wouldn't Gen X relate to it as well? Would early '80s babies care about our teen movies like Superbad?


No, I haven't, actually  :o Nonetheless,  anyone can write an article. And maybe I'll read it, and maybe I'll enjoy it, but it doesn't mean they have authority on the subject.


You see, this is a prime example of where such a rigid definition of generation falls apart. I don't deny that Smells Like Teen Spirit is generation defining to an extent. But what about the song makes it specifically Generation X (1965-1980)?  My mom born 1966 is Gen X. When Smells Like Teen Spirit came out, she was 25, married, on her honeymoon, and trying to start a family. Smells Like Teen Spirit absolutely does not define her generation. Her teenage years were already history. On the other end, there are a lot of people born 1980-1984 who proclaim to be a huge Nirvana fans in their childhoods and bought all their CDs, went to concerts etc.

If Smells Like Teen Spirit defined a generation, it wasn't Generation X.  And that's the problem with generation defining pop culture items, they can come out at any time and target any random age group, regardless of whether they're millennial/Gen X/Boomer etc.


Yeah, and for demographics that includes politics, ethnicity, sexuality, education, social class, etc.

No. You don't have to remember the JFK assassination to be considered a Boomer. I don't know why some people believe that is the only qualification to be associated with the generation. There were other events that had an effect on them and some even come from the 1970s.

No. That's why generations are not monolithic because everyone is obviously going to have a different viewpoint. It's the same thing with ethnicity, politics and religion.

That's true. In fact, there are actually more than just one defining song and movie that describes each generation perfectly. Now regarding the movie Bring It On, no, not exactly since we're not the center of the Millennial cohort. That would go to those who were in secondary school during that period; however, since you're Canadian the movie wouldn't have any effect on you because it was out in the U.S. Gen Xers, were actually too old for that movie considering they were over the college age when it was released.

I agree and that's not just with generations, but all topics as well.

Well that's because she's not the center of the generation which the song had strongly bonded with. She would be one of older Xers, but this would not affect her since generations are based off the American Society and she is Canadian.

And  ;D ;D ;D

Those folks were way too young to be affected by Nirvana. they were clearly in elementary school when the band was popular.


2004.
The sources don't agree with Howe even though he has done a great job with the generational theory.

I don't think you could be in a different generation just for be gifted or advanced. But if they knew that a vice president could become president, along with people not coming back after they die, then I guess they could remember it greatly.


Not a totally separate generation but because it's on the line it can push you to another side of the line because of understanding things more at an earlier age. However I think this can only be done if someone's on the extreme line. It could push the gifted person with a 1957 birth from Boomer/X Cusper into the Boomer category.

I think people born in 1957 would remember because they'd be 6 at the time. I see 1957 as a year that can go either full Boomer or full Jones depending on the person.
Some of them don't have the Gen Xer influence but others do. It's a very cuspy year.

Gen Jones is 1954-1964. The guy who coined the term said so.

Gen Jones is 1954-1964. The guy who coined the term said so.


True but I think 1954 is too early to be part Gen Xer.
Sure some people of all gens can act Gen X but you know what I mean.

Not a totally separate generation but because it's on the line it can push you to another side of the line because of understanding things more at an earlier age. However I think this can only be done if someone's on the extreme line. It could push the gifted person with a 1957 birth from Boomer/X Cusper into the Boomer category.


Okay. I find late 50s babies to be more like Baby Boomers, even though I don't agree with the generation crap.

Okay. I find late 50s babies to be more like Baby Boomers, even though I don't agree with the generation crap.


When do you think Gen X traits start to show though?

When do you think Gen X traits start to show though?


Around the early 60s.

Yeah, and for demographics that includes politics, ethnicity, sexuality, education, social class, etc.

No. You don't have to remember the JFK assassination to be considered a Boomer. I don't know why some people believe that is the only qualification to be associated with the generation. There were other events that had an effect on them and some even come from the 1970s.


But if you don't have to remember the JFK assassination, then what makes it a Boomer event? Why not a Silent generation event? And weren't those born 1977-1981 in college when it came out?


No. That's why generations are not monolithic because everyone is obviously going to have a different viewpoint. It's the same thing with ethnicity, politics and religion.


Ethnicity is yes, a social construct, but based on mostly evident things, like what country one's ancestors are from, what language they speak at home, appearance etc.

But I don't see what it is that makes a 1993 born any more similar to a 1982 born than a 2004 born? You haven't provided any evidence that the similarities and differences exist and span a multitude of statistics.

Political party and religion is an individual choice and fluid. It's not really at all like the generations you're proposing.


That's true. In fact, there are actually more than just one defining song and movie that describes each generation perfectly. Now regarding the movie Bring It On, no, not exactly since we're not the center of the Millennial cohort. That would go to those who were in secondary school during that period; however, since you're Canadian the movie wouldn't have any effect on you because it was out in the U.S. Gen Xers, were actually too old for that movie considering they were over the college age when it was released.


Okay, so how can you identify Bring It On as belonging to your cohort when you admit you were too young? How is it anymore yours than it is someone born 2000's?


Well that's because she's not the center of the generation which the song had strongly bonded with. She would be one of older Xers, but this would not affect her since generations are based off the American Society and she is Canadian.


The song peaked at #9 in Canada and #7 in the US so I don't see what the difference is. Are you saying if she was American she would be listening to teen rock?


And  ;D ;D ;D

Those folks were way too young to be affected by Nirvana. they were clearly in elementary school when the band was popular.


When are you too young to be affected by Nirvana? When are you too old? Weren't those born 1980-1982 already in middle school when Kurt Cobain died?

Yeah, and for demographics that includes politics, ethnicity, sexuality, education, social class, etc.

No. You don't have to remember the JFK assassination to be considered a Boomer. I don't know why some people believe that is the only qualification to be associated with the generation. There were other events that had an effect on them and some even come from the 1970s.


But if you don't have to remember the JFK assassination, then what makes it a Boomer event? Why not a Silent generation event?


No. That's why generations are not monolithic because everyone is obviously going to have a different viewpoint. It's the same thing with ethnicity, politics and religion.


Ethnicity is yes, a social construct, but based on mostly evident things, like what country one's ancestors are from, what language they speak at home, appearance etc.

But I don't see what it is that makes a 1993 born any more similar to a 1982 born than a 2004 born? You haven't provided any evidence that the similarities and differences exist and span a multitude of statistics.

Political party and religion is an individual choice and fluid. It's not really at all like the generations you're proposing.


That's true. In fact, there are actually more than just one defining song and movie that describes each generation perfectly. Now regarding the movie Bring It On, no, not exactly since we're not the center of the Millennial cohort. That would go to those who were in secondary school during that period; however, since you're Canadian the movie wouldn't have any effect on you because it was out in the U.S. Gen Xers, were actually too old for that movie considering they were over the college age when it was released.


Okay, so how can you identify Bring It On as belonging to your cohort when you admit you were too young? How is it anymore yours than it is someone born 2000's? And weren't those born 1977-1981 in college when it came out?


Well that's because she's not the center of the generation which the song had strongly bonded with. She would be one of older Xers, but this would not affect her since generations are based off the American Society and she is Canadian.


The song peaked at #9 in Canada and #7 in the US so I don't see what the difference is. Are you saying if she was American she would be listening to teen rock?


And  ;D ;D ;D

Those folks were way too young to be affected by Nirvana. they were clearly in elementary school when the band was popular.


When are you too young to be affected by Nirvana? Weren't those born 1980-1982 already in middle school when Kurt Cobain died?

It still has yet to be determined. The earliest sources that end Y are usually 1994 while the latest are usually 2001. So by that basis you could make the objective assumption that if you're born after 2001 you would Z, born before 1994 you would be Y, born anytime in between a Y/Z cusp (similar to how the X/Y is cusp is generally 1977-1982 or so).

Now if you were to ask my own personal subjective opinion looking at evidence and studies I typically go with two theories. One thing to note before I begin is that I also use an unorthodox view of 'coming of age'. While most people typically use age 18 as the most important in finding out what generation (and further more sub generation) you'd belong to (ie, someone turning 18 during the Vietnam War vs. someone turning 18 after the Vietnam War aka the division between Older & Younger Boomers), I view the main important age to be 16. The reasoning for this is because you're 'prime' (or you're 'youth') is when you are physically, mentally, and culturally speaking youthful and coming of age. This is a WIDE range that could begin potentially as early as age 9 (starting your tweens or early puberty phase for girls) and end as late as age 23 (right before you enter your mid twenties). This from a U.S perspective would be most of your secondary education and under graduation educational years where you're defined the most. Thus the core years would be your teen aged years, 13-19, with your 16th birthday being the peak,  I would also consider it ages 16 1/2 upto one's 17th birthday, aka someone's Junior year of high school (assuming one's youth is ages 11-22, with 16.5 being the center). This makes sense biologically since most teens are at the peak of puberty at around 16, but it also makes sense culturally since in the U.S 16 (along with 18 in many respects) is major 'rite of passage age' when people are usually getting their driver permits/licenses, girls have their Sweet 16's, teens get their first jobs, enter Junior year in high school and start to think about their future, etc. This would also be when they are most in tune with pop culture of their era so for instance two 16 year olds going to a Twenty One Pilots Concert, or a teen getting tickets to see the new Star Wars film. So understanding how I'm equating this to my personal theories, this is how I'd end Y and start Z.


The First Theory
The first is the traditional demographic theory which puts Millennials as those born from 1982-2000. The reason for this is because it would be the same year range as the Baby Boomers (18 years, ie 1946-1964) and using the Chinese Zodiac as a reference the years for both 1946-64' and 1982-00' match up identically. It also matches up based on Presidential years and even coincidental pop cultural occurrences throughout the years. For example, I see the most recent election of 2016 as similar to the 1980 election, 'a political outsider who was a celebrity defying the odds and winning the presidency'. This was also a major turning point for the Baby Boomer and Millennial elections respectively and the following Reagan Era and our subsequent Trump era were/will most likely be the defining years for the next generations, Gen X & Gen Z respectively. In other words theoretically someone who turned 16 in 2016, 2000 born, would be the last to have spent most of their youth during the Obama presidency which is a Y trait. Now the definition isn't 100% perfect because by this definition those born in 1982, 1983, & 1984 would technically be VERY Late Gen Xers because they were the last to turn 16 when Clinton was in office. However, some may argue that due to the zeitgeist of the 90's already changing by that point, ie. the early-mid 90's being more angsty and depression which was more of an X vibe to much more poppy and optimistic due to the urgent dawn of the new millennium would be more targeted towards Y (and if you think about it makes sense, ie, mid 90's star Alanis Morissette being more X targeted while late 90's star like Britney Spears being more Y targeted). These are just some of the example of how the eras nearly match up perfectly and why the 1982-2000 definition is accurate, implying that Z would begin around 2001.


The Second Theory
However, as stated before that presidential years (while helpful) aren't the only determinant for determining whose apart of a respective generation, but it also has to match the overall zeitgeist of the era. And because of this some people don't believe we are currently living in Y targeted pop culture today (sure the musicians themselves are Yers such as Taylor Swift or Ariana Grande, but its not actually targeted at Yers themselves), but rather Z targeted pop culture. As I stated before, looking through evidence based on cultural trends it seems that X culture began around 1981 with the debut of MTV and ended around 1996/1997 with the deaths Tupac & Biggy, the official death 90's Grunge with Soundgarden disbanding, and the launch of the N64 officially kicking off the 5th generation of gaming (the first gaming era in the 3rd frontier), the re-election of Bill Clinton in record numbers who was once VERY unpopular which helped fuel the mid 90's angst was now VERY popular which helped fuel the late 90's optimism, and most notably the commercialization of the internet in the second half of the decade.

Around the 1998-1999 school year, we started to officially enter Y dominated pop culture and people turning 16/17 years old during this time period and thus were at the peak of the their youths, were those born in 1982 & 1983, also generally speaking the common definitions of starting Y. I've also stated that the youth period could peak at ages 16.5 upto ages 17, so if we were to use high school Grad classes as a guide (Late of the previous year upto middle of the following year) then the first truly Millennial Grad Class would be 2000. Not only because they were the first to graduate in 2000 and thus never be an adult in the 1990's (which is crucial when trying to define the difference between X & Y) but they were at the peak of their youths during the 1998-1999 school year. Now the Later Clinton Years in my mind would be the start of Y culture.

The core Y cultural years would be the Bush 43' era which was defined by 9/11, the War in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, & the Great Recession. Basically if you were ages 16/17 throughout this era you're safely Y.

The Obama years is when it starts to get to tricky. The Great Recession is a first hand experience that Y would know the most be it graduating from college with massive student loan debt, competitive jobs markets, stagnated wages, etc. Heck what came out of it was the Occupy Wall Street Movement in 2011. Because of this being ages 16/17 or older during the Great Recession or the stagnated aftermath is crucial in being considered Y. With this it would make sense for the Grad Class of 2014 to be the last true Millennials since they were 16/17 years old during Obama's first term when the economy was still struggling and thus one of the youngest to have potentially worked during that era, aka coming of age in 2012-2013 which culturally (for the most part) leaned early 2010's.

Now based on this definition it would be reasonable to assume that the Class of 2015 would be the first of Z, but technically no. They would be the first Y/Z cusp class under this definition. I typically consider Obama's 2nd term during the mid 2010's as Gen Y passing the torch to Gen Z (similar to how I see the period from 1994 following Kurt Cobain's death to 1998 with the rise of Britney Spears as Gen X passing the torch to Gen Y). The era of SJWs, trigger warnings, Rise in BLM, The Alt Right, Neo Cold War, etc. are Y/Z cusp events. There's also a major pop cultural change from the late Y targeted music of the late 00's/early 10's (Lady Gaga, Flo Rida, Katy Perry, etc.) into the early Gen Z targeted modern teen pop and 'trash' rap acts of the mid 10's (Shawn Mendes, Ariana Grande, Lil Yachty, etc.). You cannot forget to even mention the popularity of Gen Z targeted apps like Vine, SnapChat, & Musically and the steady decline (or major reform) of Y targeted social media site facebook. The point is it seems that anybody who came of age (ages 16/17) during the 2013-2014 school year through the 2016-2017 are a Y/Z cusp. Those in the Class of 2019 would technically be the first true Gen Zers by this regard as they would come of age in the 2017-2018 school year when the  Y/Z pop culture would be nearly complete and would be the first 100% full on school year of the Trump administration, thus relation to the era of the Iraq War, Great Recession, & 'Change' wouldn't click with them, however as I'll further elaborate later, I think the C/O 19' just barely squeezes into the cusp territory. I personally sense a massive right wing shift in politics right now, something so trans formative not felt since Reagan's election in 1980 which was a backlash against the counter culture movement of the 60's & 70's and seemingly ended Boomer's reign on pop culture. Hence why spending most of your youth in the 2000's and or the early-mid 2010's is crucial if trying to be considered Y or Z.


In Conclusion
So going by both of my PERSONAL definitions, I would conclude that Gen Z would begin around those born in Late 2001 or 2002. Technically it should start with the Class of 2019, but because they were all born before 9/11, the event that massively effected Millennials similar to how JFK effected Boomers, I still consider the C/O 2019 cusp, but just barely. Early Y aka those born Late 1981-Mid 1986 (ages 15-19) would have been in high school or their first years in college for the most part during 9/11, core Yers would have been in middle school for the most part (ages 10-14), Younger Yers mostly in grade school (ages 5-9), & Y/Z cuspers in the childhood mortality range (ages 0-4) thus they would have been alive (thus their cusp status) but unlikely to process a vivid recollection of it (vivid memories begin around ages 5/6).

So the first true Gen Z Grad Class would be 2020, not just because they would be the first to graduate in the first score of the 21st century (completely devoid of any Gen Y relations) but was the first to have been born after 9/11 and spend their youth period in the 2018-2019 school year when the Y/Z pop culture transition (in which I predict) will be 100% complete. But of course this is my SUBJECTIVE opinion and shouldn't be received as gospel if you shall not believe it. I'm just giving out how I see things on the topic. (NOTE: This is from a U.S perspective, if you DO NOT live in the U.S completely disregard what I just said because every country has difference ground rules on what defined certain generations and thus have different definitions and rough approximations. Although FWIW, for most of the Western World, the definitions I laid could translate reasonably well.).


So to graph it out using high school grad classes:

X/Y Cusps:

HS C/O 1996 - C/O 2000: Youth spent Late 1994 - Mid 1998, during the Core Clinton years, 90's angst-optimism transition with events like the The OJ Simpson Trial, Atlanta 96' bombings, & the shocking Death of Princess Diana, technologcial advancements such as the release of Windows 95 & 4th to 5th generation of gaming transition, Music like Post Grunge & peak in Gangsta Rap, movies like Clueless & Romeo & Juliet (96'), tv shows like My So Called Life & Boy Meets World, etc. (born Late 1977 - Mid 1982)

(Now those in the Classes of 96' & 97' would lean X, those in the classes of 99' & 00' would lean Y,the class of 98' would be the ULTIMATE X/Y cusp class)


Millennials:

Early Millennials: HS C/O 2000 - C/O 2004: Youth spent Late 1998 - Mid 2003, during the Late Clinton & Bush 43's first term, the late 90's/early 00's mixed optimism & fears with events like the Columbine shooting, Y2K, & 9/11, tech advancements such as the standardization of internet and adoption of DVDs, The Core 5th generation & 6th generation gaming years, Music like teen pop & nu-metal, movies like American Pie & Bring it On, tv shows like Dawson's Creek & Jackass, etc. (born Late 1981 - Mid 1986)

Core Millennials: HS C/O 2005 - C/O 2009: Youth spent Late 2003 - Mid 2008, during the Core Bush years, the Mid-Late 00's during political and economic turbulence with events like the Iraq War (mainly its massive backlash 2004 on wards), Hurricane Katrina and lackluster relief efforts, & the housing bubble, tech advancements such as the start of the Web 2.0 era of internet which made the internet a necessity which simultaneously saw the rise of social media sites like Myspace, YouTube, & Facebook & of course the popularization of the iconic Gen Y flip phone the Motorola Razr, the transition from 6th gen to 7th gen gaming, Music like Crunk rap & emo, movies like Mean Girls & Star Wars Episode III, tv shows like The O.C & Laguna Beach, etc. (Born Late 1986 - Mid 1991)

Late Millennials: HS C/O 2010 - C/O 2014: Youth spent Late 2008 - Mid 2013, during (Mostly) Obama's first term & the Great Recession of the Late 00's/Early 10s with events like Michael Jackson's Tragic Death, The killing of Osama Bin Laden, & the tragic Sandy Hook Shooting, tech advancements like the standardization of smartphones during this era mainly due to Blackberrys then later on iPhones & the rise of smartphone apps most notably Angry Birds, the core 7th generation gaming years, Music like Electropop & Dubstep, movies like the Twilight Series & The Hunger Games, tv shows like Breaking Bad & Jersey Shore, etc. (Born Late 1991 - Mid 1996)


Y/Z Cusps:

HS C/O 2015 - C/O 2018/maybe 2019?: Youth spent Late 2013 - Present during (Mostly) Obama's second term & rising political division (ie, SJW Left & Alt Right, which led to the controversial 2016 election) during the Mid-(Late?) 2010's with critical events (so far) such as the 2014 Government shutdown, Russia invading Ukraine, & the rise of ISIS, tech advancements such as the rise in popularity for Wearable tech like virtual reality & smartwatches, core 8th generation gaming years, Music like Modern Teen Pop & Trash rap, movies like The Duff & Star Wars Episode VII, tv shows like Orange is the New Black & House of Cards, etc. (Born Late 1996 Onwards)

(Now those in the classes of 15' & 16' would lean Y, while those in the classes of 18' & 19' would lean Z, the class of 17' would be the ULTIMATE Y/Z cusp class)


Anyways I barely talk about generations anymore because its tiring and drains my life away (heck I'm supposed to be writing a college paper right now ;D), so if you have any questions about my theory please be sure that their substantive and I'll be happy to answer them!


http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/Donnie_Darko_zpsk1cqj41c.jpg

But if you don't have to remember the JFK assassination, then what makes it a Boomer event? Why not a Silent generation event? And weren't those born 1977-1981 in college when it came out?

Ethnicity is yes, a social construct, but based on mostly evident things, like what country one's ancestors are from, what language they speak at home, appearance etc.

But I don't see what it is that makes a 1993 born any more similar to a 1982 born than a 2004 born? You haven't provided any evidence that the similarities and differences exist and span a multitude of statistics.

Political party and religion is an individual choice and fluid. It's not really at all like the generations you're proposing.


Okay, so how can you identify Bring It On as belonging to your cohort when you admit you were too young? How is it anymore yours than it is someone born 2000's?


The song peaked at #9 in Canada and #7 in the US so I don't see what the difference is. Are you saying if she was American she would be listening to teen rock?


When are you too young to be affected by Nirvana? When are you too old? Weren't those born 1980-1982 already in middle school when Kurt Cobain died?


I'm not even sure. Every source I have read seems to consider it a Boomer event due to the fact the majority were already in their adolescence. It can't be towards the Silents because they were mainly over 20 when it happened.

Yes, they were; however, I already stated that there are many defining movies for each generation, not just one. Mean Girls, American Pie, Superbad, The Social Network and Sex Drive are all good films that describe the Millennials very well.

I have, but people have been ignoring it. Here are some references though.

http://www.livescience.com/38061-millennials-generation-y.html

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/878/how-to-explain-the-millennial-generation-understand-the-context

https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/112065/content/Bolton_Understanding_GenY__Social_Media_Final_33p.pdf

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/

http://wp.stolaf.edu/sociology/files/2013/06/All-Squared-Away.pdf

http://www.dailydot.com/via/its-time-to-define-the-millennial/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/a-new-silent-majority-low-income-and-minority-millennials/

http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/02/29/millennials-will-benefit-and-suffer-due-to-their-hyperconnected-lives/

http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/03/the-whys-and-hows-of-generations-research/

http://cdn.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/AchieveMCON2013/Research%20Report/Millennial%20Impact%20Research.pdf

And here's an another good read.

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/academic/social_sciences/sociology/Reading%20Lists/Aging%20Readings/Kertzer_AnnualReview_1983.pdf

I never said it was mine. Once again, there are more than just one movie that defines each generation.

No. That's not exactly what I'm saying. Since the generational cohorts are different in Canada, there would have been other tracks in that country that described her age range during that period.

Yeah, they were, but I was talking about their famous song. Besides, Nirvana was only popular for a short time. Those folks would have been too young anyway for their music since it was targeted more for a mature audience.

1995 is a fine ending date for Millennials, but I can accept 1996 too, because they can still remember 9/11.

Heck, in this series of interviews, the absolute youngest guy they have was 5 on 9/11.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/this-was-911-if-you-were-a-kid/2016/09/08/b3371eb6-754c-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

1995 is a fine ending date for Millennials, but I can accept 1996 too, because they can still remember 9/11.

Heck, in this series of interviews, the absolute youngest guy they have was 5 on 9/11.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/this-was-911-if-you-were-a-kid/2016/09/08/b3371eb6-754c-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html


You know what? This is probably what Infinity told me when she mentioned that I'll start more of this bullsh*t. I mean, is everyone now going to use 9/11 as a indicator for kids growing up now? We live in a friggin' time where all elementary and middle school kids were born after 2001. It's quite obvious that everyone who was a toddler or kid at the time is now an older teen or young adult. Hell, I'm gonna turn 18 next year and it's just going to show that everyone born in 1999/2000 is a motherf*cking adult in the near future.

The next thing I'm going to see is if people could remember Hurricane Sandy or Irene, or when people didn't use smartphones all the time. It's going to be very tedious where nobody finds this sh*t interesting anymore. They'll possibly just leave in another group of kids where they could do the same thing, and the other members would just go to different message boards. I'm not trying to attack you, Zelek. However, making this type of crap would just have older members make fun of us even more.

You know what? This is probably what Infinity told me when she mentioned that I'll start more of this bullsh*t. I mean, is everyone now going to use 9/11 as a indicator for kids growing up now?

Well, remembering the 1929 stock market crash is used as the dividing line between the G.I. Generation (1901-1924) and the Silent Generation (1925-1945), and I haven't seen any of them complain (then again, they're probably too old to care). :P

You see, this is a prime example of where such a rigid definition of generation falls apart. I don't deny that Smells Like Teen Spirit is generation defining to an extent. But what about the song makes it specifically Generation X (1965-1980)?  My mom born 1966 is Gen X. When Smells Like Teen Spirit came out, she was 25, married, on her honeymoon, and trying to start a family. Smells Like Teen Spirit absolutely does not define her generation. Her teenage years were already history. On the other end, there are a lot of people born 1980-1984 who proclaim to be a huge Nirvana fans in their childhoods and bought all their CDs, went to concerts etc.

If Smells Like Teen Spirit defined a generation, it wasn't Generation X.  And that's the problem with generation defining pop culture items, they can come out at any time and target any random age group, regardless of whether they're millennial/Gen X/Boomer etc.


This is a really great point, and something I always think about when I hear talking heads describe Kurt Cobain and Nirvana as the "voice of Gen X".

I have a similar experience with my mother as you do with yours. My mom was born in 1968, so she's Peak X. By the time the Grunge movement reached it's zenith in 1992, she'd already been married for half a decade and had a 5-year-old (me) and a 1-year-old (my brother). She very much considers herself an "eighties person" and doesn't have much use for music that came out after 1990.

Your other point is a good one, too. I know of quite a few early '80s babies that were huge Nirvana fans at the time the band was still in existence. Hell, I was shy of 7 years old when Kurt Cobain died and you'd be hard pressed to find a much bigger Nirvana fan than me. In fact, Nevermind was one of the first CDs I purchased after getting a CD player in the late '90s.

This is a really great point, and something I always think about when I hear talking heads describe Kurt Cobain and Nirvana as the "voice of Gen X".

I have a similar experience with my mother as you do with yours. My mom was born in 1968, so she's Peak X. By the time the Grunge movement reached it's zenith in 1992, she'd already been married for half a decade and had a 5-year-old (me) and a 1-year-old (my brother). She very much considers herself an "eighties person" and doesn't have much use for music that came out after 1990.

Your other point is a good one, too. I know of quite a few early '80s babies that were huge Nirvana fans at the time the band was still in existence. Hell, I was shy of 7 years old when Kurt Cobain died and you'd be hard pressed to find a much bigger Nirvana fan than me. In fact, Nevermind was one of the first CDs I purchased after getting a CD player in the late '90s.

Yeah, that's true. My dad was born in 1967 and he absolutely considers himself an Xer. So does my mom (born 1969).

However, I believe it's the Xers born in the 70s who get more attention, and define the identity and stereotypes of that generation moreso, to the point where someone born in 65-69 may not relate to them as much, and may relate more to their Boomer older siblings (or in mom and dad's case, their boomer parents - my grandparents had my parents pretty early, like when they were in college :P).

My dad had his childhood in the 70s and teenhood in the 80s. But when most people think of "Gen X", they tend to think of people who were children in 80s, growing up with things like Transformers, GI Joe, He-Man, and maybe TMNT for the later Xers. My dad has no connection to any of that.

He grew up loving the Star Wars trilogy, but the latter two films came out when he was 13-16, to the point where his affection for them may feel a bit different and not quite as "weepy and sentimental" as that of 70s-born Xers. :P He still loves them of course (especially Empire Strikes Back), just not in a childhood sort of way.

In terms of 80s formative experiences, my dad is more of a Marty McFly than, say, a Goonie. ;D

This is a really great point, and something I always think about when I hear talking heads describe Kurt Cobain and Nirvana as the "voice of Gen X".


I agree, but I think those talking heads are probably referring more to the 70s Xers, not so much the 60s ones.

I've also heard people say Daria was "a voice of Gen X", which again isn't entirely true. My dad was 30 when that show came out, in the navy, out of college, and already starting up a family, so I don't know if he could relate much to the plight of an angsty apathetic teen girl. :P

Well, remembering the 1929 stock market crash is used as the dividing line between the G.I. Generation (1901-1924) and the Silent Generation (1925-1945), and I haven't seen any of them complain (then again, they're probably too old to care). :P


Maybe it's because that was an important event for them, since the economy sucked so much and probably affected their lives. Same goes for people who were adults during the late 2000s, when the economy crashed harshly. I don't know how 9/11 could affect people that much over one day, when we already got a new World Trade Center in New York. We already took further action when the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and a Shanksville farm was hit, while George W. Bush declared war on the Middle East. But to be honest, does it really matter anymore? There's billions of people in the whole world who are worried about Donald Trump being our next president in January, and he might do something really strange to the U.S. His whole administration would be a mystery on what he would do for the next four years.

I agree, but I think those talking heads are probably referring more to the 70s Xers, not so much the 60s ones.

I've also heard people say Daria was "a voice of Gen X", which again isn't entirely true. My dad was 30 when that show came out, in the navy, out of college, and already starting up a family, so I don't know if he could relate much to the plight of an angsty apathetic teen girl. :P


They're talking about the Gen X attitude. The cynical sort of rebellion and ability to see through all the bs around her.

Yeah, that's true. My dad was born in 1967 and he absolutely considers himself an Xer. So does my mom (born 1969).

However, I believe it's the Xers born in the 70s who get more attention, and define the identity and stereotypes of that generation moreso, to the point where someone born in 65-69 may not relate to them as much, and may relate more to their Boomer older siblings (or in mom and dad's case, their boomer parents - my grandparents had my parents pretty early, like when they were in college :P).

My dad had his childhood in the 70s and teenhood in the 80s. But when most people think of "Gen X", they tend to think of people who were children in 80s, growing up with things like Transformers, GI Joe, He-Man, and maybe TMNT for the later Xers. My dad has no connection to any of that.

He grew up loving the Star Wars trilogy, but the latter two films came out when he was 13-16, to the point where his affection for them may feel a bit different and not quite as "weepy and sentimental" as that of 70s-born Xers. :P He still loves them of course (especially Empire Strikes Back), just not in a childhood sort of way.

In terms of 80s formative experiences, my dad is more of a Marty McFly than, say, a Goonie. ;D


They'd relate to the early 60s Boomers but not most of it. The Boomers that got attention in the media were the Woodstock Boomers in the early end and people who ended up going to Vietnam, basically mid 40s births until early 50s. The later Boomers people focused on were the ones who were the age of the people in 30 something or the Wonder Years (like class of 1974) who had adolescence full of political turmoil. They wouldn't really relate to teens of the 60s or even early 70s teens like someone born in 1955 or 1956. Even the earliest Xers wouldn't remember Beatlemania or the JFK assassination.

The later Boomers people focused on were the ones who were the age of the people in 30 something or the Wonder Years (like class of 1974) who had adolescence full of political turmoil.

Agree.

I have to admit, I'm really tired of people on Reddit, Tumblr, or Facebook complaining about how "all Boomers had it easy". NO, not all Boomers had it easy. Maybe early Boomers (~1946-1953), but Gen Jones (~1954-1964) did not have it easy. They were given huge expectations as children in the 1960s, and then confronted with a different reality as they came of age during a long period of mass unemployment and when de-industrialization arrived full force in the mid to late 1970s and 1980s, leaving them with a certain unrequited "jonesing" quality for the more prosperous days that their older siblings had.

Stop lumping all Boomers together and stereotyping them!

Agree.

I have to admit, I'm really tired of people on Reddit, Tumblr, or Facebook complaining about how "all Boomers had it easy". NO, not all Boomers had it easy. Maybe early Boomers (~1946-1953), but Gen Jones (~1954-1964) did not have it easy. They were given huge expectations as children in the 1960s, and then confronted with a different reality as they came of age during a long period of mass unemployment and when de-industrialization arrived full force in the mid to late 1970s and 1980s, leaving them with a certain unrequited "jonesing" quality for the more prosperous days that their older siblings had.

Stop lumping all Boomers together and stereotyping them!


But they were still in the 80s boom as young adults. Imagine someone being 30 in 1985 and taking advantage of all the stocks.

Are you guys really gonna keep debating generational theory ad nauseum? Half the topics here are either about "da chaildhud" (it's worse when you consider that most of you guys are under 25!!!) or what generation starts where. It doesn't go anywhere. An endless circle with no resolution because you guys can't agree to disagree and end it. Who cares when Gen ABCDEFGHI-whatever started? Being that anal retentive over things like when the very first baby that was generation Q was born isn't healthy. It was fun to discuss stuff like this at first but now it's super lame. There's so much to talk about concerning previous decades and culture but half of you guys choose to discuss the blandest topics.

And who cares what a bunch of marketing guys in business suits say? Let you decide what defines you, not the TV screen or some magazine. Generational theory is flawed and biased and the people who are obsessed with putting people in filing cabinets and looking at them as smaller parts of bigger groups rather than as their own individuals only contribute to the homogeneous culture of today.

Are you guys really gonna keep debating generational theory ad nauseum? Half the topics here are either about "da chaildhud" (it's worse when you consider that most of you guys are under 25!!!) or what generation starts where. It doesn't go anywhere. An endless circle with no resolution because you guys can't agree to disagree and end it. Who cares when Gen ABCDEFGHI-whatever started? Being that anal retentive over things like when the very first baby that was generation Q was born isn't healthy. It was fun to discuss stuff like this at first but now it's super lame. There's so much to talk about concerning previous decades and culture but half of you guys choose to discuss the blandest topics.

And who cares what a bunch of marketing guys in business suits say? Let you decide what defines you, not the TV screen or some magazine. Generational theory is flawed and biased and the people who are obsessed with putting people in filing cabinets and looking at them as smaller parts of bigger groups rather than as their own individuals only contribute to the homogeneous culture of today.


Ahh you're back!! :D

But not with a happy post :(

Ahh you're back!! :D

But not with a happy post :(


With a truthful one, though!

With a truthful one, though!


Jordan always bringing the tea LOL

http://butterpr.ca/wp-content/uploads/Tea.jpg

;)

Are you guys really gonna keep debating generational theory ad nauseum? Half the topics here are either about "da chaildhud" (it's worse when you consider that most of you guys are under 25!!!) or what generation starts where. It doesn't go anywhere. An endless circle with no resolution because you guys can't agree to disagree and end it. Who cares when Gen ABCDEFGHI-whatever started? Being that anal retentive over things like when the very first baby that was generation Q was born isn't healthy. It was fun to discuss stuff like this at first but now it's super lame. There's so much to talk about concerning previous decades and culture but half of you guys choose to discuss the blandest topics.

And who cares what a bunch of marketing guys in business suits say? Let you decide what defines you, not the TV screen or some magazine. Generational theory is flawed and biased and the people who are obsessed with putting people in filing cabinets and looking at them as smaller parts of bigger groups rather than as their own individuals only contribute to the homogeneous culture of today.

Sorry officer. :P

Sorry officer. :P


Well, you did start to bump this thread, which wasn't necessary to.  :P

I know, it's all my fault. I just wanted to pitch in what I thought Gen Z was... one last time.

I won't do it again. I swear! :P

Sorry officer. :P


The verdict is in. You're guilty and you're sentence is to listen to Starship's debut 6 times. ;)

The verdict is in. You're guilty and you're sentence is to listen to Starship's debut 6 times. ;)


If he screws up again, he'll be forced to listen to "We Built This City" and "White Rabbit" back to back repeatedly.

If he screws up again, he'll be forced to listen to "We Built This City" and "White Rabbit" back to back repeatedly.

Sounds like a fine line between pleasure and pain.

And if you keep that up, me and Jacqueline are gonna force you to listen to their entire discography and watch a compilation of all their "best" videos over and over. Repeat offenders do not get the easy sentence.

1995 is a fine ending date for Millennials, but I can accept 1996 too, because they can still remember 9/11.

Heck, in this series of interviews, the absolute youngest guy they have was 5 on 9/11.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/this-was-911-if-you-were-a-kid/2016/09/08/b3371eb6-754c-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html
I agree with NYE. How come when the Millennial cohort cutoff is discussed, 9/11 is used? That wasn't the only event to have a large effect on them. What about Columbine, Iraq, Y2K, and the Great Recession? Those did just as much damage to the Y generation as 9/11.


Well, remembering the 1929 stock market crash is used as the dividing line between the G.I. Generation (1901-1924) and the Silent Generation (1925-1945), and I haven't seen any of them complain (then again, they're probably too old to care). :P

How is that the dividing line? The Silents were barely there when the Stock market crashed. The oldest at the time were 4 years old. It's WWII that they are cutoff by since the G.Is fought in that war while the Silents were pretty much too young. Furtheremore, the GIs is way too long. There's actually a missing generation between them and the Lost cohort and they are called the Interbellum. These are the folks who were able to fight in WWI while the latter were too young.


The next thing I'm going to see is if people could remember Hurricane Sandy or Irene, or when people didn't use smartphones all the time. It's going to be very tedious where nobody finds this sh*t interesting anymore. They'll possibly just leave in another group of kids where they could do the same thing, and the other members would just go to different message boards. I'm not trying to attack you, Zelek. However, making this type of crap would just have older members make fun of us even more.

Well the cutoff shouldn't just be based off of events, but also demographics, pop culture, and other misc. For instance, this generation is second to last to have a Caucasian majority. Most folks in this cohort have Boomer parents due to them not having any children until they were older. The bulk of the Millennials are conservative. Shoot, the same peer group even are predominantly heterosexual. All of these statements have been supported by data.


Yeah, that's true. My dad was born in 1967 and he absolutely considers himself an Xer. So does my mom (born 1969).

However, I believe it's the Xers born in the 70s who get more attention, and define the identity and stereotypes of that generation moreso, to the point where someone born in 65-69 may not relate to them as much, and may relate more to their Boomer older siblings (or in mom and dad's case, their boomer parents - my grandparents had my parents pretty early, like when they were in college :P).

My dad had his childhood in the 70s and teenhood in the 80s. But when most people think of "Gen X", they tend to think of people who were children in 80s, growing up with things like Transformers, GI Joe, He-Man, and maybe TMNT for the later Xers. My dad has no connection to any of that.

He grew up loving the Star Wars trilogy, but the latter two films came out when he was 13-16, to the point where his affection for them may feel a bit different and not quite as "weepy and sentimental" as that of 70s-born Xers. :P He still loves them of course (especially Empire Strikes Back), just not in a childhood sort of way.

In terms of 80s formative experiences, my dad is more of a Marty McFly than, say, a Goonie. ;D



This is a really great point, and something I always think about when I hear talking heads describe Kurt Cobain and Nirvana as the "voice of Gen X".

I have a similar experience with my mother as you do with yours. My mom was born in 1968, so she's Peak X. By the time the Grunge movement reached it's zenith in 1992, she'd already been married for half a decade and had a 5-year-old (me) and a 1-year-old (my brother). She very much considers herself an "eighties person" and doesn't have much use for music that came out after 1990.

Your other point is a good one, too. I know of quite a few early '80s babies that were huge Nirvana fans at the time the band was still in existence. Hell, I was shy of 7 years old when Kurt Cobain died and you'd be hard pressed to find a much bigger Nirvana fan than me. In fact, Nevermind was one of the first CDs I purchased after getting a CD player in the late '90s.
Your statements are exactly why each generation should be split into two. The older Xers were 80s folks while the younger ones were the 90s crowd. Even more, some people forget that the MTV (X) cohort were also children in the 70s as well. It makes no sense to say they were only kids in the 80s.


Agree.

I have to admit, I'm really tired of people on Reddit, Tumblr, or Facebook complaining about how "all Boomers had it easy". NO, not all Boomers had it easy. Maybe early Boomers (~1946-1953), but Gen Jones (~1954-1964) did not have it easy. They were given huge expectations as children in the 1960s, and then confronted with a different reality as they came of age during a long period of mass unemployment and when de-industrialization arrived full force in the mid to late 1970s and 1980s, leaving them with a certain unrequited "jonesing" quality for the more prosperous days that their older siblings had.

Stop lumping all Boomers together and stereotyping them!
I definitely agree with this. There are so many misconceptions about them to where they destroyed everything in their hands, and that they were all hippies which is absolutely not true at all. Even the older Boomers didn't have it easy due to the Vietnam War over their heads and were subject to drafts, and they were the supporters of the Civil Rights along side with the Silents. Heck, they're not even a homogeneous generation. So yeah, people really need to stop thinking they are all in one. Most of them are actually well mannered folks and some of them have even been our parents, teachers, doctors and lawyers.

I definitely agree with this. There are so many misconceptions about them to where they destroyed everything in their hands, and that they were all hippies which is absolutely not true at all. Even the older Boomers didn't have it easy due to the Vietnam War over their heads and were subject to drafts, and they were the supporters of the Civil Rights along side with the Silents. Heck, they're not even a homogeneous generation. So yeah, people really need to stop thinking they are all in one. Most of them are actually well mannered folks and some of them have even been our parents, teachers, doctors and lawyers.

Yeah. And when people on Reddit etc. circlejerk about how Boomers had it easy, they're disregarding the women and minorities who happened to be boomers. They most certainly did not have it easy.

Black boomers (particularly the early ones, but that's not to say the late ones had it easy either) grew up in a time where calling kids the n-word in school was still commonplace, when drinking fountains were still divided between "white" and "colored", when the KKK was still a prominent force.

Yeah. And when people on Reddit etc. circlejerk about how Boomers had it easy, they're disregarding the women and minorities who happened to be boomers. They most certainly did not have it easy.

Black boomers (particularly the early ones, but that's not to say the late ones had it easy either) grew up in a time where calling kids the n-word in school was still commonplace, when drinking fountains were still divided between "white" and "colored", when the KKK was still a prominent force.
Right and I agree. It's the same thing with being LGBT during that time. They didn't have it easy either nor did those who were disabled or even a non-christian. They seem to think that Boomers were all white, straight, and male when that couldn't be further from the truth. Hell, most of them aren't even rich to begin with at all either.

I have this main feeling the folks on Reddit are mainly either Xers or Millennials who are believing in too many lies about the Boomers and don't realize they have done many great things for us. If you truly think about it, if it wasn't for Boomers, we probably wouldn't have computers since they became mainstream or even a smartphone thanks to Steve Jobs' ideas.

I agree with NYE. How come when the Millennial cohort cutoff is discussed, 9/11 is used? That wasn't the only event to have a large effect on them. What about Columbine, Iraq, Y2K, and the Great Recession? Those did just as much damage to the Y generation as 9/11.


That's the point. Those events were more important than 9/11, to be honest. When the Great Recession happened, there weren't a lot of jobs for older Millennials who got out of college. When 9/11 happened, those older Millennials were either in middle school or high school. The youngest Millennials (at least born in 1998-2000) weren't even in Kindergarten at the time it happened.


Well the cutoff shouldn't just be based off of events, but also demographics, pop culture, and other misc. For instance, this generation is second to last to have a Caucasian majority. Most folks in this cohort have Boomer parents due to them not having any children until they were older. The bulk of the Millennials are conservative. Shoot, the same peer group even are predominantly heterosexual. All of these statements have been supported by data.

Late Y and Early Z are probably the last people to see that kind of stuff. Boomer parents were already out of the question since most of them were in their 50s/60s by the time Obama got reelected.

That's the point. Those events were more important than 9/11, to be honest. When the Great Recession happened, there weren't a lot of jobs for older Millennials who got out of college. When 9/11 happened, those older Millennials were either in middle school or high school. The youngest Millennials (at least born in 1998-2000) weren't even in Kindergarten at the time it happened.


Late Y and Early Z are probably the last people to see that kind of stuff. Boomer parents were already out of the question since most of them were in their 50s/60s by the time Obama got reelected.
Well 9/11 is important, but so are the other events which all had a major impact on the Millennial generation.

Not only that, but even the younger ones (those in HS at the time) were affected as well and this was when they were all applying for jobs for the first time. The recession caused a lot of destruction where people had to change their plans immediately.

What do you mean by your last statement? I'm not what you're trying to say. 

If you truly think about it, if it wasn't for Boomers, we probably wouldn't have computers since they became mainstream or even a smartphone thanks to Steve Jobs' ideas.

It's a cliche opinion at this opinion, but Steve Jobs, in all honesty, merely took the ideas of his peers (Steve Wozniak, the Xerox staff, Jonny Ives) and turned them into something marketable, yet he gets all the credit while his friends got little or none. :P

What do you mean by your last statement? I'm not what you're trying to say.


I meant that Late Y and Early Z kids were the last people to notice a Caucasian majority, like you said.

It's a cliche opinion at this opinion, but Steve Jobs, in all honesty, merely took the ideas of his peers (Steve Wozniak, the Xerox staff, Jonny Ives) and turned them into something marketable, yet he gets all the credit while his friends got little or none. :P
Which then succeeded in the future. Just like Zuckerburg took the idea of Facebook and all the credit while his peers didn't.


I meant that Late Y and Early Z kids were the last people to notice a Caucasian majority, like you said.
Oh I think you mean the youngest Plurals since they are the last to notice a Caucasian majority. The first generation to have a minority-majority is the Alpha cohort in which most children are Hispanic especially under the age of 5.

How is that the dividing line? The Silents were barely there when the Stock market crashed. The oldest at the time were 4 years old.

That's the point I believe. In Strauss and Howe's books, they state the belief that those who were 5 and up on a certain, generation-defining event can remember it well, while those who were 4 and under can't. 1924, they say, is the last year of the G.I.s because they were the last to remember the stock market crash, while the Silents begin in 1925, because 25'ers were the first that had no memory of the crash.

That being said, some sources (such as Pew) extend the end date to 1927, because there were lots of people born in 1925-27 who still fought in WWII.

And once again you guys just keep going on and on and on and on.... ::)

And once again you guys just keep going on and on and on and on.... ::)

Hey at least we aren't talking about Millennials anymore.

I find old people to be more interesting. :P

Hey at least we aren't talking about Millennials anymore.

I find old people to be more interesting. :P


Better not be talking about me or the only Jefferson Starship album you're gonna be allowed to listen to is Nuclear Furniture.

Why is there no 1997?  >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(

Oh I think you mean the youngest Plurals since they are the last to notice a Caucasian majority. The first generation to have a minority-majority is the Alpha cohort in which most children are Hispanic especially under the age of 5.


I guess you could say that.


That's the point I believe. In Strauss and Howe's books, they state the belief that those who were 5 and up on a certain, generation-defining event can remember it well, while those who were 4 and under can't. 1924, they say, is the last year of the G.I.s because they were the last to remember the stock market crash, while the Silents begin in 1925, because 25'ers were the first that had no memory of the crash.

That being said, some sources (such as Pew) extend the end date to 1927, because there were lots of people born in 1925-27 who still fought in WWII.


Even if they did remember 1929, what stuff would they remember that would be significant towards the 1929 stock market crash? Being in their homes while playing with their toys?


Why is there no 1997?  >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(


Because no one wants to think about generation-ology at this point.

That's the point I believe. In Strauss and Howe's books, they state the belief that those who were 5 and up on a certain, generation-defining event can remember it well, while those who were 4 and under can't. 1924, they say, is the last year of the G.I.s because they were the last to remember the stock market crash, while the Silents begin in 1925, because 25'ers were the first that had no memory of the crash.

That being said, some sources (such as Pew) extend the end date to 1927, because there were lots of people born in 1925-27 who still fought in WWII.

Well you made it sound like that the Silents could recall a time before the crash even though they were barely there.

That's not enough though because they were barely of age to fight in WWII.


And once again you guys just keep going on and on and on and on.... ::)
And it's going to keep going on and on because this thread is so old. If you don't believe me, it started in 2005!!


I guess you could say that.
Yeah, sooner or later white folks will be less than 50% of the population by about 2043 which is 27 years from now. In 2050, everyone may look like this.

http://cdn1.trueactivist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ng1a.jpg

Even if they did remember 1929, what stuff would they remember that would be significant towards the 1929 stock market crash? Being in their homes while playing with their toys?


They could remember having a lot and a happy family life and then losing it all. To go from having lots of toys in the 1920s boom to scrimping and struggling. Having less than what they were used to.

Yeah, sooner or later white folks will be less than 50% of the population by about 2043 which is 27 years from now. In 2050, everyone may look like this.

http://cdn1.trueactivist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ng1a.jpg


Yeah...  :-\\


They could remember having a lot and a happy family life and then losing it all. To go from having lots of toys in the 1920s boom to scrimping and struggling. Having less than what they were used to.


Yeah, but I don't think they could understand that their country's economy crashed instantly. They could know some differences with their families being poor, but that could be the case for some of them even before the Great Depression.

Yeah...  :-\\
If you're not sure, then these articles are good to check out. They are saying the same thing.

http://thehigherlearning.com/2014/04/13/national-geographic-predicted-what-americans-will-look-like-2050/

http://theawesomedaily.com/this-is-how-the-avarege-american-will-look-like-by-2050/

http://oddmenot.com/what-americans-will-look-like-in-2050-national-geographic/

http://incrediblethings.com/uncategorized/what-the-average-american-will-look-like-in-2050/

http://amazyble.com/creative/americans-will-look-like-2050-beautiful/

http://myscienceacademy.org/2015/12/26/this-is-what-americans-will-look-like-by-2050/

If you're not sure, then these articles are good to check out. They are saying the same thing.

http://thehigherlearning.com/2014/04/13/national-geographic-predicted-what-americans-will-look-like-2050/

http://theawesomedaily.com/this-is-how-the-avarege-american-will-look-like-by-2050/

http://oddmenot.com/what-americans-will-look-like-in-2050-national-geographic/

http://incrediblethings.com/uncategorized/what-the-average-american-will-look-like-in-2050/

http://amazyble.com/creative/americans-will-look-like-2050-beautiful/

http://myscienceacademy.org/2015/12/26/this-is-what-americans-will-look-like-by-2050/


I really don't have a problem with it, but it's just that people would use this data to have racists assault mixed-race couples. Especially when I'm mixed-race myself.  :-\\

I really don't have a problem with it, but it's just that people would use this data to have racists assault mixed-race couples. Especially when I'm mixed-race myself.  :-\\
Yeah, and so is everyone else! No one is just one ethnicity. I have asked some of my friends and people I know about what are the backgrounds they have their families and it's amazing. Some of them have a British, Russian, Italian, Brazilian or even Colombian heritage.

Yeah, and so is everyone else! No one is just one ethnicity. I have asked some of my friends and people I know about what are the backgrounds they have their families and it's amazing. Some of them have a British, Russian, Italian, Brazilian or even Colombian heritage.


That's interesting to know. I know a few mixed race people, and some of them have Italian, Irish, Puerto Rican, African, and Mexican heritage.

That's interesting to know. I know a few mixed race people, and some of them have Italian, Irish, Puerto Rican, African, and Mexican heritage.
Yeah, it is especially since no one's heritage should be denied thanks to that ignorant one-drop rule. Race/Ethnicity is way much more beyond than just Caucasian, African-American, Asian, Latino, Arabic etc.

In the last several years, I have always wondered because some of my friends, and people I see in the city are not the typical phenotype you see in images. Not all Latinos are brown nor are all Caucasians pale.

That's not enough though because they were barely of age to fight in WWII.
And it's going to keep going on and on because this thread is so old. If you don't believe me, it started in 2005!!



Yeah and it's up to you guys to stop posting in this thread or at least get a mod to lock it.

Yeah and it's up to you guys to stop posting in this thread or at least get a mod to lock it.
Well the conversation has transitioned to a discussion about race/ethnicity due to the changing demographics of each generation. These days, young people are less Anglo and are more Latino, and that's all supported by data.

Well the conversation has transitioned to a discussion about race/ethnicity due to the changing demographics of each generation. These days, young people are less Anglo and are more Latino, and that's all supported by data.


It's still the same tired conversation about what generation is what.

It's still the same tired conversation about what generation is what.
I understand. It does get tiring, but that's because some people don't understand the concept of generations. It's not just all marketing. It also has to do with society.

I understand. It does get tiring, but that's because some people don't understand the concept of generations. It's not just all marketing. It also has to do with society.


I'm sure most people here do understand the concept. You guys are arguing the same things about generational boundaries and what makes who what. Well, yeah. Marketing is just one aspect of society, too. Point is, henerations aren't factual. It's a flawed concept that's extremely biased and really shouldn't be taken so seriously by anyone. There's no point in debating this kinda sh!t ad nauseum and taking over the forum.

I'm sure most people here do understand the concept. You guys are arguing the same things about generational boundaries and what makes who what. Well, yeah. Marketing is just one aspect of society, too. Point is, generations aren't factual. It's a flawed concept that's extremely biased and really shouldn't be taken so seriously by anyone. There's no point in debating this kinda sh!t ad nauseum and taking over the forum.
Oh I didn't mean the folks here, I meant in general. Every site I go on, people are arguing about this topic just like with ethnicity, religion, politics etc. It's going to be the same results. Those people just don't understand the concept. It's why generational cohorts are not homogeneous because everyone is different regardless of who they are. Now, the concept of this topic goes back to social change where everyone within that group shares a cultural or generational event followed by demographics like politics, education, and ethnicity. Here is a photo about it.

http://i66.tinypic.com/2vd1nxg.png

As for the discussion itself, these are actually in the minority. The majority of these threads were made years ago by users who don't even visit this site anymore. It's just that they get revived later on by a new member.

Oh I didn't mean the folks here, I meant in general. Every site I go on, people are arguing about this topic just like with ethnicity, religion, politics etc. It's going to be the same results. Those people just don't understand the concept. It's why generational cohorts are not homogeneous because everyone is different regardless of who they are. Now, the concept of this topic goes back to social change where everyone within that group shares a cultural or generational event followed by demographics like politics, education, and ethnicity. Here is a photo about it.

http://i66.tinypic.com/2vd1nxg.png

As for the discussion itself, these are actually in the minority. The majority of these threads were made years ago by users who don't even visit this site anymore. It's just that they get revived later on by a new member.

1977-1981 = Millennials?

Ewww.

1977-1981 = Millennials?

Ewww.
Well, yeah they are for many reasons which are not anecdotal without all of the unnecessary and untrue stereotypes. I'm not making this up.

Oh I didn't mean the folks here, I meant in general. Every site I go on, people are arguing about this topic just like with ethnicity, religion, politics etc. It's going to be the same results. Those people just don't understand the concept. It's why generational cohorts are not homogeneous because everyone is different regardless of who they are. Now, the concept of this topic goes back to social change where everyone within that group shares a cultural or generational event followed by demographics like politics, education, and ethnicity. Here is a photo about it.


But how is posting here gonna educate people? The current regulars on this site who participate in the community already know about the concepts. Besides, you're only educating people on your view of how a generation works. There are other opinions; the entire debate is totally moot when you consider this.


http://i66.tinypic.com/2vd1nxg.png


That photo of a google search doesn't prove anything. I know how generations work.


As for the discussion itself, these are actually in the minority.


They're not. More than half the forum has turned into this: "what was being a kid in this era like the peak childhood kids shows childhood childhood member childhood oh yeah i member" or "this year is like that year but unlike that year but it is like this year" or "this generation is like this and like that and like this and like that". You guys have said the exact same things in other threads over a span of a good couple of months now, when is enough enough!?


The majority of these threads were made years ago by users who don't even visit this site anymore. It's just that they get revived later on by a new member.



Does that matter? These were old topics that had remained dead for over 10 years until some genius decided to revive them and give them new life. Just because it's an old topic, that doesn't mean it's not just as bad. It's even worse when you look at it like that.

I'm guilty of contributing to this, too, but... Jesus... now I see why the older members were/are so hostile towards -ology type things.

But how is posting here gonna educate people? The current regulars on this site who participate in the community already know about the concepts. Besides, you're only educating people on your view of how a generation works. There are other opinions; the entire debate is totally moot when you consider this.

That photo of a google search doesn't prove anything. I know how generations work.

They're not. More than half the forum has turned into this: "what was being a kid in this era like the peak childhood kids shows childhood childhood member childhood oh yeah i member" or "this year is like that year but unlike that year but it is like this year" or "this generation is like this and like that and like this and like that". You guys have said the exact same things in other threads over a span of a good couple of months now, when is enough enough!?


Does that matter? These were old topics that had remained dead for over 10 years until some genius decided to revive them and give them new life. Just because it's an old topic, that doesn't mean it's not just as bad. It's even worse when you look at it like that.

I'm guilty of contributing to this, too, but... Jesus... now I see why the older members were/are so hostile towards -ology type things.
Oh that's not my viewpoint, that's actually the general definition I'm going by.

Well you're talking about sets of topics and not just one. That makes the generation ones much smaller. All the other ones are in their separate category.

That's because the question from this thread had began way too early since the Z cohort wasn't even on the radar back then.

Well blame Darko for that. He's the one who kept spamming topics, and some people have took his formula.

Oh that's not my viewpoint, that's actually the general definition I'm going by.

Well you're talking about sets of topics and not just one. That makes the generation ones much smaller. All the other ones are in their separate category.

That's because the question from this thread had began way too early since the Z cohort wasn't even on the radar back then.

Well blame Darko for that. He's the one who kept spamming topics, and some people have took his formula.


So... you're spending all this time arguing other people's viewpoints??? ???

Huh? The only topic I'm talking about is how everyone's taken the poor dead generation horse and keeps on beating it. I'm not here to debate what generation starts where.

So that means it's ok to continuously viewpoints in this thread? Is this like a game of Risk where every thread on the site has to be "conquered" with someone's stupid generationology posts? There is no point in bumping the topic. It's been spammed to death in other topics before this one had been noticed. It's unnecessary.

Donnie Darko hasn't posted on this site in a long time. He might of opened the flood gates but the posters here today have their own brains and decide for themselves what to post. They can't blame an old poster for their own stupid habits.

Yeah, it is especially since no one's heritage should be denied thanks to that ignorant one-drop rule. Race/Ethnicity is way much more beyond than just Caucasian, African-American, Asian, Latino, Arabic etc.

In the last several years, I have always wondered because some of my friends, and people I see in the city are not the typical phenotype you see in images. Not all Latinos are brown nor are all Caucasians pale.


That's what terrified me for mixed race people back in the day. Because they look like they came from one race, so many racists have thought they look like blacks or (somehow) whites, along with denying that they had a mother or father with a different race.