99% of 90s kids were emos as 2000s teens jk lol, i wonder what a 2020s teen would be like.


Early 90's kids (1982/83-1985/86) probably did not get into emo.

Yeah, only slightly. Mostly because of technology. For example, B
be glad y'all didn't have to deal with Limewire and can just stream.


Limewire was more our pre-teen years (11-13). My teen years were Megavideo ;D

Limewire was more our pre-teen years (11-13). My teen years were Megavideo ;D

Likewire was still popular here until after 2007.

Oh and to answer the OP question. I'd rather grow up as a kid the 90s so that I could be old enough to really enjoy/be the target audience of culture this decade and the early-mid 2000s.

People born in the '5' year are always in a weird spot when it comes to kid/teen classifications. Like, if you were born in 1995, you actually started high school in the '00s (albeit barely in late 2009), and 2014 was your last fully teenage year, meaning you were a teen for less than half of the '10s. By the time 2019 is over, you'll be 24-years-old. Certainly not close to being a teenager any more. Yet, you're still obviously too young to be considered an '00s teen.

On the other hand, I always feel like the people born in the '8' year are the ultimate teens of a given decade. For example, if you were born in 1988 then you were 13-19 from 2001-2007. It doesn't get much more "quintessential '00s teen" than that.

What about people born in year "3." We're always left out of discussions.

I'm glad to have witnessed the 2000s from beginning to end.  Being and early-mid 200s kid was pretty fun. Seeing the big leaps in technology was pretty intresting.

What about people born in year "3." We're always left out of discussions.


Nah, us '6' people, especially '96' people, have always had it rough.

I'm glad to have witnessed the 2000s from beginning to end.  Being and early-mid 200s kid was pretty fun. Seeing the big leaps in technology was pretty intresting.


I second this.

I second this.



I'm glad to have witnessed the 2000s from beginning to end.  Being and early-mid 200s kid was pretty fun. Seeing the big leaps in technology was pretty intresting.


Third, being 4-13 throughout the 2000's was the perfect age really to grow up in and experience all years in its entirety as a kid. We witnessed the huge change between early 2000's vibe when late 90's influences were still around and the late 2000's when technology became more modernized.

Third, being 4-13 throughout the 2000's was the perfect age really to grow up in and experience all years in its entirety as a kid. We witnessed the huge change between early 2000's vibe when late 90's influences were still around and the late 2000's when technology became more modernized.
Yea the 2000s was probably the most transformative decade in technology since you witnessed brickphones, fliphones, sliderphones, blackberries and touch-screen phones within one decade. You can say the same with gamming where the start of the decade memory cards and wired controllers was still a thing where as the latter part of the decade you saw online gamming, memory cards being replaced by hardrives and wireless controllers came into full-effect.

Yea the 2000s was probably the most transformative decade in technology since you witnessed brickphones, fliphones, sliderphones, blackberries and touch-screen phones within one decade. You can say the same with gamming where the start of the decade memory cards and wired controllers was still a thing where as the latter part of the decade you saw online gamming, memory cards being replaced by hardrives and wireless controllers came into full-effect.


Third, being 4-13 throughout the 2000's was the perfect age really to grow up in and experience all years in its entirety as a kid. We witnessed the huge change between early 2000's vibe when late 90's influences were still around and the late 2000's when technology became more modernized.


I agree. Its crazy to think how different of a world the early 2000s were in comparison to today. This recording is from Early 2002 and includes Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, and Who Wants to Be a Billionaire, so more than 16 years ago. Everything is different; the technology, the fashion, the cars, music, etc. The commercials themselves are also very dated in how they were structured (many of them still had nostalgic little jingles/sing-a-longs, thats barely heard of these days). Its crazy how I vividly remember much of this and the older aesthetic of things back then. When I look at old photo albums and family videos from back then, its almost seems like a different world. No smartphones, or cell phones if that, CRT televisions, the baggier fashion, etc.

9cz6O0FFj3Q&t=0s&list=PLqeTNHdKAyNobN6G6Uanp2ElcK8eL6-wu&index=10&frags=pl%2Cwn

Nah, us '6' people, especially '96' people, have always had it rough.

What do you mean? Because you're a quintessential 2000s kid, I don't see why people would have a difficult time classifying you.

It freaks me out how old the early 2000s are becoming. Make time stop!

What do you mean? Because you're a quintessential 2000s kid, I don't see why people would have a difficult time classifying you.


Thanks for proving my point ;D. I'm certainly not a 'quintessential 2000s kid' because I was a kid (granted, VERY young, but I digress) in the Late 90s, along with most other early-mid 90s borns. However, conversely, I had a taste of my late childhood in the Late 2000s as well, with other mid-late 90s borns. My core childhood years were from 2001-2006, which isn't clearly more early or mid 2000s, its roughly equal. We were the youngest to be in school during 9/11, but we were also the first to spend all of our compulsory years in the 21st century. On top of that, I was already a teenager by 2009, but not old enough for high school until the 10s rolled around.

All in all; People in my birth year seems to always to be the VERY Last and ONE of the First for many different generational things. You kind of get used to it. Just as a grain of salt; theres a reason why some of the most common Gen Y cutoffs are circa in 1995-1996, always making people in my age group in a sort of 'No Man's Land' ;D.



It freaks me out how old the early 2000s are becoming. Make time stop!


I agree bro! Its crazy that we are closer in time to the year 2030, than we are to 2000.

Thanks for proving my point ;D. I'm certainly not a 'quintessential 2000s kid' because I was a kid (granted, VERY young, but I digress) in the Late 90s, along with most other early-mid 90s borns. However, conversely, I had a taste of my late childhood in the Late 2000s as well, with other mid-late 90s borns. My core childhood years were from 2001-2006, which isn't clearly more early or mid 2000s, its roughly equal. We were the youngest to be in school during 9/11, but we were also the first to spend all of our compulsory years in the 21st century. On top of that, I was already a teenager by 2009, but not old enough for high school until the 10s rolled around.

All in all; People in my birth year seems to always to be the VERY Last and ONE of the First for many different generational things. You kind of get used to it. Just as a grain of salt; theres a reason why some of the most common Gen Y cutoffs are circa in 1995-1996, always making people in my age group in a sort of 'No Man's Land' ;D.


I agree bro! Its crazy that we are closer in time to the year 2030, than we are to 2000.

All of your childhood was in the 2000s. One year in the 90s/2010s doesn't make that much of a difference tbh. That's why you'd fit the mold of a quintessential 2000s kid. And you'd be able to remember a little more of the 2000s than a 97 born who are also often referred to as quintessential 2000s kids.

Us 97 borns are still the youngest '7' people allowed to board nwehehehehe

I agree with much of that. I think that the one argument you could make against those born in the "5" year being "prime decade kids" is that (in some cases) they might have been a little bit too old to get into some kid culture during the late part of their childhood decade.

For example, a 1985er, being 14 in 1999, might've felt too old to get into the Pokemon fad when it was in it's prime. I know, for me, I first starting thinking I was "too old" to watch cartoons when I was 12. If a 1985 born started to feel the same way at that age and started cutting back on watching cartoons in 1997, then he would've missed out on several key late '90s kids shows like Cow & Chicken, Johnny Bravo, Hey Arnold, and possibly even Toonami's peak of popularity in 1999-00.

Here's the problem with what you said. You say you where born in 1987, which meant you turned 12 in 1999, the peak year of Toonami? Another Mach!neHe@d contradiction. People born in 85 and 87 grew up in the same era, they were exposed to the same culture of 90s, they're the same generation. There's no if, and, or buts about. No opinions matter because this is FACT.

Oh and "5" year borns, are not in a "weird spot", as you say, neither. If you're born in the "5" year, you spent the vast majority of your childhood in following decade. And you're considered a teen of the decade following that, as you spent the MOST of your teens in that decade. Yoh can say your barley a hybrid, but primarily a teen of the following decade. It's not hard to figure out. That seems to be case on these forums though. ::)

All of your childhood was in the 2000s. One year in the 90s/2010s doesn't make that much of a difference tbh. That's why you'd fit the mold of a quintessential 2000s kid. And you'd be able to remember a little more of the 2000s than a 97 born who are also often referred to as quintessential 2000s kids.

It's the same for people born in the mid 80s . You spent pretty much all of your childhood during most of the 90s, you also started primary school in the beginning of the the decade. It's not even a matter of one's opinion. It's pretty much set in stone.

All of your childhood was in the 2000s. One year in the 90s/2010s doesn't make that much of a difference tbh. That's why you'd fit the mold of a quintessential 2000s kid. And you'd be able to remember a little more of the 2000s than a 97 born who are also often referred to as quintessential 2000s kids.


When I think quintessential, I think more so of guys who were in most of their core childhoods during the core/mid 2000s, while also being able to be old enough to participate in the early 2000s kid trends, and young enough to be into the Late 2000s kid trends. In relation to the the 90s, I always thought of those born in 87'/88', as the ultimate (and most stereotypical ;D) 90s kids, because they were old enough to remember trends like TMNT in the early 90s, were in their core childhoods during the 'Morphin TAIMEE!!!' era of the Mid 90s, and still be young enough to have been immersed in 'Pokemania' in the Late 90s/VERY Early 00s. This same logic is why I would say that those born in 97'/98' would be closer to what a 'quintessential' 2000s kid is to me. Just because people my age (95ers/96ers) remember the entire decade pretty vividly, doesn't make us quintessential 2000s kids.

We're still 'Core' 2000s kid, yeah, along with other 1995-1998/9 borns as we were all ages 7 & or 8 from 2003-2006, the mathematical (and arguably cultural) core years of the decade. But quintessential? I wouldn't say so because I relate most of my childhood to the early-mid 2000s, so mainly the first half of the decade, which makes sense because that was the bulk of my core childhood/elementary school years.

I was at the peak of my childhood (ages 7-8) during the Klasky Csupo Era of Nickelodeon, Powerhouse Era of Cartoon Network, and pre Jetix era of Toon Disney in which all ended in 2004, so people my age were the last to catch these eras for most of our core childhoods. I also can remember the finals years of the Zoog Disney era in 2001-2002. Those memories I have aren't really found in my friends I know of that are merely just a year or two younger than me. Its not a big difference in the grand scheme of things, but you could still tell that the early 2000s still had more of a lasting effect on me than some of my slightly younger peers simply because I have clearer memories of them.

This same argument can be applied with my friends born in 1993/1994, who were arguably the last to remember the Late 90s vividly. Thus, even though they're not 90s kids mainly and we (generally speaking) grew up more in common than actual pro-typical 90s kid (like someone born in the late 80s), they could still heavily relate to a lot of the Late 90s kid trends and such that someone my age really can't.

Slowpoke (born in 93') for instance always talks about being apart of the 'N64 Generation', because he spent a sizable chunk of his core childhood in the Late 90s and the VERY Early 00s (aka the Y2K Era, essentially during Y2K fears in mid-late 99' and just prior to 9/11) when the console was at its peak in popularity. Thus, I'd find it hard for someone born in 1993 or even 1994 to really relate much to the 2000s kid label, which is understandable and why I get where you're coming from. However, see where I am coming from as well; while people born in 1995 & 1996 are undeniably 2000s kids, I'd vouch for core label so I am not discarding that, just because they so many vivid memories of life in the early 2000s, could vaguely remember the late 90s (although clear memories of the late 90s are not uncommon for people in my group), were in school during 9/11 (although 95ers were the last to be in compulsory school in the 20th century), and already were teenagers by the Late 2000s so essentially aging out of the kid culture of that time, are many of the reasons why 95ers & 96ers wouldn't really be quintessential 2000s kids. They're similar to 1993/1994 borns in that aspect in which they relate most of their childhood to the Late 1990s-Mid 2000s. When you talk to someone born from 1992-1996/ about 'Classic' Disney Channel, likely shows like Even Stevens, Lizzie McGuire, reruns of Boy Meets World, Zoog Disney, That's So Raven, Disney Channel Movies from the 1996-2003 era, or Kim Possible come to mind. A 1997-1998 born may also relate to shows like Zack & Cody, Phil of the Future, Life with Derek, and (gasp*) potentially High School Musical & Hannah Montana as well. Finally, those born after 1998, whom don't remember much of the pre 2005 era of Disney Channel will of course relate mostly to the latter shows already mentioned and of course shows like Wizards of Waverly Place, Sonny with a Chance, Jonas LA, and of course DCOMs post 2006/'HSM Mania' Era.

Perhaps, we're the quintessential 'Classic' 2000s kids, as we spent almost all our childhoods in the 'Classic', or the more antiquated half of the decade in comparison, to the Later half of the decade, from 2000-2005/2006 v. 2006/2007-2009. We didn't grow up with social media (heck, it didn't exist for much of our childhoods), smartphones, etc. We remember some 90s trends continuing into the 2000s, 'classic' (comparatively), Nickelodeon & Cartoon Network, musical acts like NSYNC, BSB, & Britney in their prime (granted from the perspective as kids), watched Saturday Morning Cartoons when they were still viable alternative to cable like Disney's One Saturday Morning & Kids WB, among other things. Also, 95ers/96ers weren't in the core demographic for the popularity of Late 2000s kid trends, most notably Hannah Montana good riddance 8-P

Essentially because we were to busy watching Degrassi or My Sweet 16 ;D.

Where's Eric when you need him ;D He'd totally back me up in what I am trying to convey

Here's the problem with what you said. You say you where born in 1987, which meant you turned 12 in 1999, the peak year of Toonami? Another Mach!neHe@d contradiction. People born in 85 and 87 grew up in the same era, they were exposed to the same culture of 90s, they're the same generation. There's if, and, or buts about. No opinions matter because this is FACT.

Oh and "5" year borns, are not in a "weird spot", as you say, neither. If you're born in the "5" year, you spent the vast majority of your childhood in following decade. And you're considered a teen of the decade following that, as you spent the MOST of your teens in that decade. Yoh can say your barley a hybrid, but primarily a teen of the following decade. It's not hard to figure out. That seems to be case on these forums though. ::)

Right.

It's the same for people born in the mid 80s . You spent pretty much all of your childhood during most of the 90s, you also started primary school in the beginning of the the decade. It's not even a matter of one's opinion. It's pretty much set in stone.


But are people born in '5' years quintessential? That is the question we're trying to answer. Perhaps its just confusion on word usage, but 'quintessential' and 'core' are not the same thing in my eyes or ears. 'Core' means they certainly are clearly kids of that respected decade, but 'quintessential' insinuates that they were the perfect age to experience almost all of the trends of that decade as a kid. So an 85' born would've been hugely into say TMNT in the early 90s & Mighty Morphin Power Rangers in the Mid 90s. However, their interest in something like Pokemon in the Late 90s would've probably varied by person to person, and even then they were no longer in their childhoods (ages 3-12) when the trend got big in 99'. That's just one of many examples why someone born in the mid years of a decade are clearly children of the respected decade, but are still a little too old to be considered the 'quintessential' kids of that respected decade.

When I think quintessential, I think more so of guys who were in most of their core childhoods during the core/mid 2000s, while also being able to be old enough to participate in the early 2000s kid trends, and young enough to be into the Late 2000s kid trends

We use different definitions then. Since 96/97ers had the majority, if not all of their childhood in the 2000s, II'd consider them pure 2000s kids.

edit: but 'quintessential' insinuates that they were the perfect age to experience almost all of the trends of that decade as a kid.
That describes 96/97ers

https://media.giphy.com/media/vjwACwDxB0hZ6/giphy.gif

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1764/42642829195_9328129877.jpg

We use different definitions then. Since 96/97ers had the majority, if not all of their childhood in the 2000s, II'd consider them pure 2000s kids.

edit: That describes 96/97ers

I’m in the minority, but I would say 1996-1998 are quintessential/pure 2000s kids.

That puts 1997 right in the center. Sweet spot!

We use different definitions then. Since 96/97ers had the majority, if not all of their childhood in the 2000s, II'd consider them pure 2000s kids.

edit: That describes 96/97ers


96ers were already teens by 2009, and had outgrown most kid trends by around 2007/2008. Try again ;D.

1996 born's were 8 in 2004 halfway through elementary school and 1997 born's were 8 in 2005 halfway through elementary school. 1996 and 1997 born's never hit elementary school before the new millennium, but they never stayed in elementary school by the 2008-2009 school year when Obama entered office and the culture started changing rapidly. 1996 and 1997 born's also never hit high school in the 2000's either, even if 13 is a teen year, it's no different than 12 and not really a core teen year like 14-18 in high school just like 18 & 19 out of high school aren't core teen years either. 1996 and 1997 born's graduated in 2014 and 2015 right in the middle of the 2010's. To me, it doesn't get anymore quintessential 2000's kid than that. We were able to witness the early 2000's from a little kid perspective, the core 2000's from a peak/height childhood perspective, and the late 2000's from an older kid/preteen perspective. 1998 born's were 2 in 2000, age 8 in 2006 when late 2000's influences and culture started, and still in elementary school when Obama entered office and the economy went down. 1995 born's were 8 in 2003, making them the last to spend the majority of their elementary school years in the early 2000's, and they entered high school before 2010. Last but not least, 1996 and 1997 born's were in elementary school the whole time the core 2000's happened (2003-2007) meaning that 1995 and 1998 were either out of elementary school when the core 2000's ended or had not started elementary school yet when the core 2000's started. In general late 1994-1998 born's (classes of 2013-2016 or peak 2003-2006 kids) are the quintessential kids of the 2000's, but 1996 and 1997 are the absolute peak. We were in elementary school without Bill Clinton or Barack Obama being president of the U.S.

96ers were already teens by 2009, and had outgrown most kid trends by around 2007/2008. Try again ;D.

Yeah because one year as a teen in the 2000s makes a difference. Also your words "but 'quintessential' insinuates that they were the perfect age to experience almost all of the trends of that decade as a kid".

That literally describe 96ers and 97ers.

I’m in the minority, but I would say 1996-1998 are quintessential/pure 2000s kids.

That puts 1997 right in the center. Sweet spot!

Right.

I’m in the minority, but I would say 1996-1998 are quintessential/pure 2000s kids.

That puts 1997 right in the center. Sweet spot!


Honestly at this point, I can’t get the point through to anyone...
But I think this definition is a good concession

96ers were already teens by 2009, and had outgrown most kid trends by around 2007/2008. Try again ;D.


Also let me get this off real quick. If you go by Slim's definition of kid trends of the 2000's, he believes the early 2000's through 2005 was the most important and 2006-2009 was not. See, this is the problem. I believe to be the most quintessential 2000's kid you have to be the youngest the remember the whole decade in its entirety, that's my opinion on it. 1996 and 1997 born's were the youngest to remember and cherish what the whole decade offered! I would argue that remembering the entire early 2000's is more important to being a kid of the 2000's than being a true kid of the late 2000's.

Also let me get this off real quick. If you go by Slim's definition of kid trends of the 2000's, he believes the early 2000's through 2005 was the most important and 2006-2009 was not. See, this is the problem. I believe to be the most quintessential 2000's kid you have to be the youngest the remember the whole decade in its entirety, that's my opinion on it. 1996 and 1997 born's were the youngest to remember and cherish what the whole decade offered! I would argue that remembering the entire early 2000's is more important to being a kid of the 2000's than being a true kid of the late 2000's.


He believes that there was this notorious "late 2006 shift" that changed everything in history for the worse.

1996 born's were 8 in 2004 halfway through elementary school and 1997 born's were 8 in 2005 halfway through elementary school. 1996 and 1997 born's never hit elementary school before the new millennium, but they never stayed in elementary school by the 2008-2009 school year when Obama entered office and the culture started changing rapidly. 1996 and 1997 born's also never hit high school in the 2000's either, even if 13 is a teen year, it's no different than 12 and not really a core teen year like 14-18 in high school just like 18 & 19 out of high school aren't core teen years either. 1996 and 1997 born's graduated in 2014 and 2015 right in the middle of the 2010's. To me, it doesn't get anymore quintessential 2000's kid than that. We were able to witness the early 2000's from a little kid perspective, the core 2000's from a peak/height childhood perspective, and the late 2000's from an older kid/preteen perspective. 1998 born's were 2 in 2000, age 8 in 2006 when late 2000's influences and culture started, and still in elementary school when Obama entered office and the economy went down. 1995 born's were 8 in 2003, making them the last to spend the majority of their elementary school years in the early 2000's, and they entered high school before 2010. Last but not least, 1996 and 1997 born's were in elementary school the whole time the core 2000's happened (2003-2007) meaning that 1995 and 1998 were either out of elementary school when the core 2000's ended or had not started elementary school yet when the core 2000's started. In general late 1994-1998 born's (classes of 2013-2016 or peak 2003-2006 kids) are the quintessential kids of the 2000's, but 1996 and 1997 are the absolute peak. We were in elementary school without Bill Clinton or Barack Obama being president of the U.S.

The problem with this is that if you go by "Who was in elementary school during the core 2000's" you're going to create more of a mess because not everyone's definition of the "core 2000's" are the same.

The "core childhood" and/or "absolute peak childhood" is not only confusing but that is also subjective. You have some people who say theirs was 5-9, 6-10, etc.

Also, going by your definition, technically speaking,  1994 was the last to have most of their childhood in the early 2000's, not 1995. 2003 is a mid-2000's year.

1996 born's were 8 in 2004 halfway through elementary school and 1997 born's were 8 in 2005 halfway through elementary school. 1996 and 1997 born's never hit elementary school before the new millennium, but they never stayed in elementary school by the 2008-2009 school year when Obama entered office and the culture started changing rapidly. 1996 and 1997 born's also never hit high school in the 2000's either, even if 13 is a teen year, it's no different than 12 and not really a core teen year like 14-18 in high school just like 18 & 19 out of high school aren't core teen years either. 1996 and 1997 born's graduated in 2014 and 2015 right in the middle of the 2010's. To me, it doesn't get anymore quintessential 2000's kid than that. We were able to witness the early 2000's from a little kid perspective, the core 2000's from a peak/height childhood perspective, and the late 2000's from an older kid/preteen perspective. 1998 born's were 2 in 2000, age 8 in 2006 when late 2000's influences and culture started, and still in elementary school when Obama entered office and the economy went down. 1995 born's were 8 in 2003, making them the last to spend the majority of their elementary school years in the early 2000's, and they entered high school before 2010. Last but not least, 1996 and 1997 born's were in elementary school the whole time the core 2000's happened (2003-2007) meaning that 1995 and 1998 were either out of elementary school when the core 2000's ended or had not started elementary school yet when the core 2000's started. In general late 1994-1998 born's (classes of 2013-2016 or peak 2003-2006 kids) are the quintessential kids of the 2000's, but 1996 and 1997 are the absolute peak. We were in elementary school without Bill Clinton or Barack Obama being president of the U.S.


I guess it’s all a matter of perspective I guess. Perhaps it’s something like this:

If you were to take into account HS Grad Classes (HS Classes = Born Late of Prior Year to Mid Section of Subequent Year) Than it would look like this:


Born Late 1992-Mid 1994: 2000s Kids, but not core 2000s kids (Childhood Sqaurely within ‘Pokemania’ and the Y2K Era)



Born Late 1994-Mid 1999: Core 2000s Kids

Born Late 1994-Mid 1996: Early Core 2000s Kids

Born Late 1996-Mid 1997: Quintessential 2000s Kids

Born Late 1997-Mid 1999: Late Core 2000s Kids




Born Late 1999-Mid 2001: 2000s Kids, but not Core (Childhood Sqaurely within ‘Obamamania’ and the Electropop Era)


Born Late 2001-Mid 2002: Ultimate 2000s/2010s Hybrid Kids

And the Cycle Continues.

Now if You were talking mainly just birth years, then I would slightlyagree with you that 96/97 borns are the ultimate 2000s kids because objectively, but then I would also include 98ers in that category as welll, as Cupid mentioned.

Objectively; December 31st/January 1st 2004 into 2005 was the absolute peak of the 2000s decade. Those born in 97 (for the most part) were 7 going on 8 around this time, therefore are the quintessential 2000s kids. However, in 2003-2004, 96ers were 7 going on 8, and in 2005-2006 98ers were 7 going on 8. Plus they all reached the halfway point of their elementary school years in 2004-2006, the mid years of the decade. Therefor, Id rearrange to this for full birth years:

1993-1995: 2000s Kids, but not Core (Y2K Era)

1996-1998: Core 2000s Kids

(1997 borns borns being the epicenter)

1999-2001: 2000s Kids but not Core (Electropop Era)

2002: Ultimare Hybrids

So depending on the definition could vary pretty slightly. I’m a 96’ born, so is you were to just judge by merely birth year then yeah I’d be a core 2000s kid along with 97’/98’ borns. But by using HS Grad Classes, then I’d be more of a Earlier Core 2000s Kid, with 98ers being more of a Later Core 2000s Kid, and finally 97ers being the ultimate ones. Pick you poison!

At the end of the day we all agree that 1995-1998 borns are undeniably 2000s kids, we just have our own subjective opinions on whom would be the ‘Ultimate’ 2000s Kids.

He believes that there was this notorious "late 2006 shift" that changed everything in history for the worse.


Some people seem to overstate how big of a shift 2006 was. While there were some changes late in the year that would’ve proved prudential to the late 2000s (such as the laugh of the Wii and PS3) the year in itself was just a continuation of 2004/2005 culturally.

Also, going by your definition, technically speaking,  1994 was the last to have most of their childhood in the early 2000's, not 1995. 2003 is a mid-2000's year.


and you know good and well most people don't agree with this either (for any decade that matter) but we agree to disagree.

I guess it’s all a matter of perspective I guess. Perhaps it’s something like this:

If you were to take into account HS Grad Classes (HS Classes = Born Late of Prior Year to Mid Section of Subequent Year) Than it would look like this:


Born Late 1992-Mid 1994: 2000s Kids, but not core 2000s kids (Childhood Sqaurely within ‘Pokemania’ and the Y2K Era)



Born Late 1994-Mid 1999: Core 2000s Kids

Born Late 1994-Mid 1996: Early Core 2000s Kids

Born Late 1996-Mid 1997: Quintessential 2000s Kids

Born Late 1997-Mid 1999: Late Core 2000s Kids




Born Late 1999-Mid 2001: 2000s Kids, but not Core (Childhood Sqaurely within ‘Obamamania’ and the Electropop Era)


Born Late 2001-Mid 2002: Ultimate 2000s/2010s Hybrid Kids

And the Cycle Continues.

Now if You were talking mainly just birth years, then I would slightlyagree with you that 96/97 borns are the ultimate 2000s kids because objectively, but then I would also include 98ers in that category as welll, as Cupid mentioned.

Objectively; December 31st/January 1st 2004 into 2005 was the absolute peak of the 2000s decade. Those born in 97 (for the most part) were 7 going on 8 around this time, therefore are the quintessential 2000s kids. However, in 2003-2004, 96ers were 7 going on 8, and in 2005-2006 98ers were 7 going on 8. Plus they all reached the halfway point of their elementary school years in 2004-2006, the mid years of the decade. Therefor, Id rearrange to this for full birth years:

1993-1995: 2000s Kids, but not Core (Y2K Era)

1996-1998: Core 2000s Kids

(1997 borns borns being the epicenter)

1999-2001: 2000s Kids but not Core (Electropop Era)

2002: Ultimare Hybrids

So depending on the definition could vary pretty slightly. I’m a 96’ born, so is you were to just judge by merely birth year then yeah I’d be a core 2000s kid along with 97’/98’ borns. But by using HS Grad Classes, then I’d be more of a Earlier Core 2000s Kid, with 98ers being more of a Later Core 2000s Kid, and finally 97ers being the ultimate ones. Pick you poison!


What are your thoughts about my take on it?

Late 1991-Mid 1993: Older 2000's children (peak was after 2000 but before 9/11)
Late 1993-Mid 1996: Older core 2000's children (peak was after 9/11 but before Web 2.0 and the closing of Nickelodeon Studios)
Late 1996-Mid 1999: Younger core 2000's children (peak was after the start of Web 2.0 and the closing of Nickelodeon Studios but before the Electropop age and the Recession)
Late 1999-Mid 2001: Younger 2000's children (peak was during the Electropop age and the Recession but before 2010)

and you know good and well most people don't agree with this either (for any decade that matter) but we agree to disagree.

ROTFL

and you know good and well most people don't agree with this either (for any decade that matter) but we agree to disagree.

Well, technically it's a mid-2000's year numerically whether y'all like it or not.

At the end of the day we all agree that 1995-1998 borns are undeniably 2000s kids, we just have our own subjective opinions on whom would be the ‘Ultimate’ 2000s Kids.

Shouldn't 1999 borns be in that group also? They're ultimate 2000s kids also.

Well, technically it's a mid-2000's year numerically whether y'all like it or not.


That's true. The 0, 1, 2's, 4, 5's, and 7, 8, 9's are clear cut early mid, and late. The 3 and 6 I judge by the flow of the culture throughout each decade because it's arbitrary. However, keep in mind when it comes to mainstream articles, radio stations, and documentaries on television, the majority of the people consider 0-3 to be early, 4-6 to be mid, and 7-9 to be late. Someone else on this forum brought this up too.

We have to understand rather y'all (like you) like it or not, not every decade's culture flowed the exact same way or lasted for the same amount of time. The pop culture and technology of the 90's and 2000's felt very different as the decade went on and changed rapidly, the 80's and 2010's pop culture and technology felt stagnant and didn't change much, however, the political world of the 2010's have definitely changed rapidly (think anymore would agree with this). The political world of the 90's feels the most stagnant up to date compared to the 2000's and 2010's, but even with 9/11 and the Iraq War happening in the 2000's, I still consider the 2010's to be more impacting and changing politically than the 2000's!

I consider 1996 to lean more towards the late 90's than mid 90's because of the fact that millennium/Y2K influences starting being teased throughout the year and 5th generation gaming was in huge effect which had a huge impact on late 90's culture. 1996 was also the year Tupac was shot and killed which caused a huge shift in music, but I'm not sure about grunge culture now TBH. The TV shows that premiered in 1996 impacted the late 90's and some were Y2K too. Some core 90's shows were on its way out throughout 1996 as well. 2006 and 2016 on the other hand, I consider to be more mid to the cultural decade than late, in fact, you could argue that 2016 was quintessential to the mid 2010's (although I'd pick 2015). That definitely wasn't the case with 1996 though.

1993 and 2003 are still early culturally because again the 90's and 2000's were very transitional, 2013 on the other hand feels more mid 2010's because the culture throughout the 2010's established itself way earlier than the 90's and 2000's did. This is my take on this, now this is a sincere clear cut explanation by me. For other users out there reading this post DON'T GET OFFENDED! DON'T FOCUS ON THE NUMBERS AND FOCUS ON THE CULTURE!!!! THE FLOW OF THE CULTURE! THE FLOW! This is my opinion on this, and anyone may have an opinion different than mine, then I'm ABSOLUTELY OKAY with that. Rainbowz, I'm cool with you considering 2003 as mid 2000's, absolutely no hate whatsoever.

Anyways, for those who grew up in the 2000's and experienced it first hand, any of us know that Fall 2001 to Summer 2008 was the main stretch of the 2000's, it has nothing to do with the numbers, it has to do with how the pop culture, politics, and technology flowed throughout the decade, and we know it, this is my point on why I believe 1996 and 1997 born's were the ultimate kids of the decade, while still knowing 2000 - Summer 2001 from a little kid perspective and knowing Fall 2008 - 2009 from an older kid/young teen perspective. I could explain everything regarding the technology, politics, and pop culture that flowed throughout Fall 2001 to Summer 2008, but I don't have time for it right now.

I’m in the minority, but I would say 1996-1998 are quintessential/pure 2000s kids.

That puts 1997 right in the center. Sweet spot!

I agree my brother was born in 1997 and spent all of his childhood in the 2000s, sounds like a core 2000s kid to me.

That's true. The 0, 1, 2's, 4, 5's, and 7, 8, 9's are clear cut early mid, and late. The 3 and 6 I judge by the flow of the culture throughout each decade because it's arbitrary. However, keep in mind when it comes to mainstream articles, radio stations, and documentaries on television, the majority of the people consider 0-3 to be early, 4-6 to be mid, and 7-9 to be late. Someone else on this forum brought this up too.

We have to understand rather y'all (like you) like it or not, not every decade's culture flowed the exact same way or lasted for the same amount of time. The pop culture and technology of the 90's and 2000's felt very different as the decade went on and changed rapidly, the 80's and 2010's pop culture and technology felt stagnant and didn't change much, however, the political world of the 2010's have definitely changed rapidly (think anymore would agree with this). The political world of the 90's feels the most stagnant up to date compared to the 2000's and 2010's, but even with 9/11 and the Iraq War happening in the 2000's, I still consider the 2010's to be more impacting and changing politically than the 2000's!

I consider 1996 to lean more towards the late 90's than mid 90's because of the fact that millennium/Y2K influences starting being teased throughout the year and 5th generation gaming was in huge effect which had a huge impact on late 90's culture. 1996 was also the year Tupac was shot and killed which caused a huge shift in music, but I'm not sure about grunge culture now TBH. The TV shows that premiered in 1996 impacted the late 90's and some were Y2K too. Some core 90's shows were on its way out throughout 1996 as well. 2006 and 2016 on the other hand, I consider to be more mid to the cultural decade than late, in fact, you could argue that 2016 was quintessential to the mid 2010's (although I'd pick 2015). That definitely wasn't the case with 1996 though.

1993 and 2003 are still early culturally because again the 90's and 2000's were very transitional, 2013 on the other hand feels more mid 2010's because the culture throughout the 2010's established itself way earlier than the 90's and 2000's did. This is my take on this, now this is a sincere clear cut explanation by me. For other users out there reading this post DON'T GET OFFENDED! DON'T FOCUS ON THE NUMBERS AND FOCUS ON THE CULTURE!!!! THE FLOW OF THE CULTURE! THE FLOW! This is my opinion on this, and anyone may have an opinion different than mine, then I'm ABSOLUTELY OKAY with that. Rainbowz, I'm cool with you considering 2003 as mid 2000's, absolutely no hate whatsoever.

Anyways, for those who grew up in the 2000's and experienced it first hand, any of us know that Fall 2001 to Summer 2008 was the main stretch of the 2000's, it has nothing to do with the numbers, it has to do with how the pop culture, politics, and technology flowed throughout the decade, and we know it, this is my point on why I believe 1996 and 1997 born's were the ultimate kids of the decade, while still knowing 2000 - Summer 2001 from a little kid perspective and knowing Fall 2008 - 2009 from an older kid/young teen perspective. I could explain everything regarding the technology, politics, and pop culture that flowed throughout Fall 2001 to Summer 2008, but I don't have time for it right now.

I'm just trying to be more objective with it, because culture isn't set in stone unlike numerical definitions. I can agree with 2003 being early 2000's culturally.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2evydxw.jpg

Yup we murder y'all every time

What are your thoughts about my take on it?

Late 1991-Mid 1993: Older 2000's children (peak was after 2000 but before 9/11)
Late 1993-Mid 1996: Older core 2000's children (peak was after 9/11 but before Web 2.0 and the closing of Nickelodeon Studios)
Late 1996-Mid 1999: Younger core 2000's children (peak was after the start of Web 2.0 and the closing of Nickelodeon Studios but before the Electropop age and the Recession)
Late 1999-Mid 2001: Younger 2000's children (peak was during the Electropop age and the Recession but before 2010)


That’s a good way of looking at it as well. I’d just have to disagree about Late 1993-Mid 1994. I think just the mere fact that they were already in their core childhood in 1999 is reason for them not really being core. Especially since they were in their peak childhood in 2001-2002, which clearly was before the core 2000s (from a cultural sense) came to fruition. However, you could make the argument that because it was post 9/11, they were the first to spend most of their childhoods in the core 2000s from a historical/political sense.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2evydxw.jpg

+1 Karma for that lol.

That’s a good way of looking at it as well. I’d just have to disagree about Late 1993-Mid 1994. I think just the mere fact that they were already in their core childhood in 1999 is reason for them not really being core. Especially since they were in their peak childhood in 2001-2002, which clearly was before the core 2000s (from a cultural sense) came to fruition. However, you could make the argument that because it was post 9/11, they were the first to spend most of their childhoods in the core 2000s from a historical/political sense.


Well, they weren't at school yet when the Columbine shooting occurred.

That's true. The 0, 1, 2's, 4, 5's, and 7, 8, 9's are clear cut early mid, and late. The 3 and 6 I judge by the flow of the culture throughout each decade because it's arbitrary. However, keep in mind when it comes to mainstream articles, radio stations, and documentaries on television, the majority of the people consider 0-3 to be early, 4-6 to be mid, and 7-9 to be late. Someone else on this forum brought this up too.

We have to understand rather y'all (like you) like it or not, not every decade's culture flowed the exact same way or lasted for the same amount of time. The pop culture and technology of the 90's and 2000's felt very different as the decade went on and changed rapidly, the 80's and 2010's pop culture and technology felt stagnant and didn't change much, however, the political world of the 2010's have definitely changed rapidly (think anymore would agree with this). The political world of the 90's feels the most stagnant up to date compared to the 2000's and 2010's, but even with 9/11 and the Iraq War happening in the 2000's, I still consider the 2010's to be more impacting and changing politically than the 2000's!

I consider 1996 to lean more towards the late 90's than mid 90's because of the fact that millennium/Y2K influences starting being teased throughout the year and 5th generation gaming was in huge effect which had a huge impact on late 90's culture. 1996 was also the year Tupac was shot and killed which caused a huge shift in music, but I'm not sure about grunge culture now TBH. The TV shows that premiered in 1996 impacted the late 90's and some were Y2K too. Some core 90's shows were on its way out throughout 1996 as well. 2006 and 2016 on the other hand, I consider to be more mid to the cultural decade than late, in fact, you could argue that 2016 was quintessential to the mid 2010's (although I'd pick 2015). That definitely wasn't the case with 1996 though.

1993 and 2003 are still early culturally because again the 90's and 2000's were very transitional, 2013 on the other hand feels more mid 2010's because the culture throughout the 2010's established itself way earlier than the 90's and 2000's did. This is my take on this, now this is a sincere clear cut explanation by me. For other users out there reading this post DON'T GET OFFENDED! DON'T FOCUS ON THE NUMBERS AND FOCUS ON THE CULTURE!!!! THE FLOW OF THE CULTURE! THE FLOW! This is my opinion on this, and anyone may have an opinion different than mine, then I'm ABSOLUTELY OKAY with that. Rainbowz, I'm cool with you considering 2003 as mid 2000's, absolutely no hate whatsoever.

Anyways, for those who grew up in the 2000's and experienced it first hand, any of us know that Fall 2001 to Summer 2008 was the main stretch of the 2000's, it has nothing to do with the numbers, it has to do with how the pop culture, politics, and technology flowed throughout the decade, and we know it, this is my point on why I believe 1996 and 1997 born's were the ultimate kids of the decade, while still knowing 2000 - Summer 2001 from a little kid perspective and knowing Fall 2008 - 2009 from an older kid/young teen perspective. I could explain everything regarding the technology, politics, and pop culture that flowed throughout Fall 2001 to Summer 2008, but I don't have time for it right now.


Bro I don’t agree with that at all. While I understand 1996 was a pretty transformative year that lead to many Late 90s trends getting big, it was still mainly a mid 90s year culturally. If you really think about it, most ‘6’ years are like that, they introduce trends that would be popular for the later years of the decade, but the year itself as a little whole still represents the core zeitgeist of the respected decade. 1996, is a perfect candidate for that. As an example; Yeah 2PAC died, it was very late in the year. His finale album, All Eyes on Me, was what many hip hop fans considered a perfect finale to his impactful reign in the West Coast Genre of Hip Hop in the early-mid 90s. That’s not to mention Biggy (from my hometown) was still alive and kicking. The year was still in the mid 90s East Coast v. West Coast Hip Hop Wars, and 2PAC’s death (one could argue) was the perfect culmination of it. Hip Hop wouldn’t really go into a more Poppish/Faux 2000a direction until 1997/1998 after Biggy’s death and the subsequent rise in Puff Daddy in the mainstream. And keep in mind, that’s just hip hop.

Post Grunge bands like Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, & Pearl Jam were in the last years of prominence before the late 90s demises. Many signal in the disbarment of Soundgarden in early 1997 as around when the Grunge movement in its musical and subculture sense officially died. Speaking about early 97’, that was also when Biggy died (which one could attribute to the official death of Golden Age 80s/90s Hip Hop) and when The Spice Girls went international and kicked off the Late 90s Teen/Bubblegum Pop trend.

Fashion started to go in a more minimalist/sleek direction in 1997/1998 due to the improving economy and changing cultural values. This was in contrast to Earthier tones and Rugged aesthetics in fashion that were prevalent in 97’ and before due to the not as good economy (post 80’s Yuppism, acting as a counterculture to that decade).

1996 was still a 4th Generation year because the SNES (despite the looming launch of N64) was still the top console on the market and lead to blockbuster releases like Super Mario RPG and Donkey Kong Country 3. Sega Genesis (surprisingly) also was still fairly popular (showing how bad of a markdrying job Sega did on the Saturn, mainly because of confusion with the Saturn and the 32X). Just because the PS1 was already out didn’t signal much, especially since the PS1 wouldn’t start to produce killer apps until later in the year with Crash Bandicoot & Tomb Raider and especially until 1997 with Final Fantasy 7.

I could go on and on but I rest my case. 1996, was a mid 90s year both in culture and of course mathematically. It had a lot of Late 90s trends that debuted, which were not anything to ignore. But guess what other year also had a lot of late 90s trends debuted in? 1995 (Windows 95, Kids WB, Playstaion 1, The ‘FRIENDS’ Craze, Toy Story changing the animation industry, etc etc.). But yet nobody here will try to claim that 1995 was the start of the Late 1990s culturally. So that right there rests my case. IMHO, even much of early 97’, despite a lot of core/mid 90s trends having their demises around that time, is still fairly within the mid period from a cultural standpoint (looking at what was status quo at the time).

Mid 1990s mathematically were from May 1993-August 1996

Culturally from Spring 1994 (arguably after Kurt Kobain’s death) to roughly Spring 1997 (right around when Biggy Died).

I haven’t done this crazy sh!t in a while, so if any of you guys have any questions, just PM me, I’m beat  ;D....

Bro I don’t agree with that at all. While I understand 1996 was a pretty transformative year that lead to many Late 90s trends getting big....


I think what I meant to say is that I consider 1996 to be more late culturally to the 90's than 2006 and 2016 were to its decades. Even if 1996 is still more mid 90's culturally, I believe 2006 and 2016 were a lot more mid culturally and less late than 1996 was. You brought up a lot of good points though especially with Biggie still being alive, the hip hop wars, and 4th generation still being relevant for that year, although 5th generation definitely entered it's peak by that year and there were undeniably Y2K influences coming in by Autumn of the year.

When I think quintessential, I think more so of guys who were in most of their core childhoods during the core/mid 2000s, while also being able to be old enough to participate in the early 2000s kid trends, and young enough to be into the Late 2000s kid trends. In relation to the the 90s, I always thought of those born in 87'/88', as the ultimate (and most stereotypical ;D) 90s kids, because they were old enough to remember trends like TMNT in the early 90s, were in their core childhoods during the 'Morphin TAIMEE!!!' era of the Mid 90s, and still be young enough to have been immersed in 'Pokemania' in the Late 90s/VERY Early 00s. This same logic is why I would say that those born in 97'/98' would be closer to what a 'quintessential' 2000s kid is to me. Just because people my age (95ers/96ers) remember the entire decade pretty vividly, doesn't make us quintessential 2000s kids.

We're still 'Core' 2000s kid, yeah, along with other 1995-1998/9 borns as we were all ages 7 & or 8 from 2003-2006, the mathematical (and arguably cultural) core years of the decade. But quintessential? I wouldn't say so because I relate most of my childhood to the early-mid 2000s, so mainly the first half of the decade, which makes sense because that was the bulk of my core childhood/elementary school years.

I was at the peak of my childhood (ages 7-8) during the Klasky Csupo Era of Nickelodeon, Powerhouse Era of Cartoon Network, and pre Jetix era of Toon Disney in which all ended in 2004, so people my age were the last to catch these eras for most of our core childhoods. I also can remember the finals years of the Zoog Disney era in 2001-2002. Those memories I have aren't really found in my friends I know of that are merely just a year or two younger than me. Its not a big difference in the grand scheme of things, but you could still tell that the early 2000s still had more of a lasting effect on me than some of my slightly younger peers simply because I have clearer memories of them.

This same argument can be applied with my friends born in 1993/1994, who were arguably the last to remember the Late 90s vividly. Thus, even though they're not 90s kids mainly and we (generally speaking) grew up more in common than actual pro-typical 90s kid (like someone born in the late 80s), they could still heavily relate to a lot of the Late 90s kid trends and such that someone my age really can't.

Slowpoke (born in 93') for instance always talks about being apart of the 'N64 Generation', because he spent a sizable chunk of his core childhood in the Late 90s and the VERY Early 00s (aka the Y2K Era, essentially during Y2K fears in mid-late 99' and just prior to 9/11) when the console was at its peak in popularity. Thus, I'd find it hard for someone born in 1993 or even 1994 to really relate much to the 2000s kid label, which is understandable and why I get where you're coming from. However, see where I am coming from as well; while people born in 1995 & 1996 are undeniably 2000s kids, I'd vouch for core label so I am not discarding that, just because they so many vivid memories of life in the early 2000s, could vaguely remember the late 90s (although clear memories of the late 90s are not uncommon for people in my group), were in school during 9/11 (although 95ers were the last to be in compulsory school in the 20th century), and already were teenagers by the Late 2000s so essentially aging out of the kid culture of that time, are many of the reasons why 95ers & 96ers wouldn't really be quintessential 2000s kids. They're similar to 1993/1994 borns in that aspect in which they relate most of their childhood to the Late 1990s-Mid 2000s. When you talk to someone born from 1992-1996/ about 'Classic' Disney Channel, likely shows like Even Stevens, Lizzie McGuire, reruns of Boy Meets World, Zoog Disney, That's So Raven, Disney Channel Movies from the 1996-2003 era, or Kim Possible come to mind. A 1997-1998 born may also relate to shows like Zack & Cody, Phil of the Future, Life with Derek, and (gasp*) potentially High School Musical & Hannah Montana as well. Finally, those born after 1998, whom don't remember much of the pre 2005 era of Disney Channel will of course relate mostly to the latter shows already mentioned and of course shows like Wizards of Waverly Place, Sonny with a Chance, Jonas LA, and of course DCOMs post 2006/'HSM Mania' Era.

Perhaps, we're the quintessential 'Classic' 2000s kids, as we spent almost all our childhoods in the 'Classic', or the more antiquated half of the decade in comparison, to the Later half of the decade, from 2000-2005/2006 v. 2006/2007-2009. We didn't grow up with social media (heck, it didn't exist for much of our childhoods), smartphones, etc. We remember some 90s trends continuing into the 2000s, 'classic' (comparatively), Nickelodeon & Cartoon Network, musical acts like NSYNC, BSB, & Britney in their prime (granted from the perspective as kids), watched Saturday Morning Cartoons when they were still viable alternative to cable like Disney's One Saturday Morning & Kids WB, among other things. Also, 95ers/96ers weren't in the core demographic for the popularity of Late 2000s kid trends, most notably Hannah Montana good riddance 8-P

Essentially because we were to busy watching Degrassi or My Sweet 16 ;D.

Where's Eric when you need him ;D He'd totally back me up in what I am trying to convey

And that's another problem. I see a lot of you on here arguing and debating this whole "quintessential", "core", "ultimate", ect... nonsense. It doesn't matter who spent every single year of they're childhood within the walls a certain decade, it doesn't make them anymore of a child of that decade then someone who spent the vast majority of they're childhood during it.

This whole breaking it down to the very fine core is ridiculous and all it's doing is creating this whole "you're not one of us" type of vibe. There is no "us", it's not like it's some clique that automatically formed because everyone's parents decided to have sex at a certain time and then you popped out nine months at certain time of a year during a certain time of a decade.

Everyone can throw they're opinions on this subject all they want, but at the end of the day, the facts are still facts. No quintessential, core, ultimate, any of that BS. If you spent that vast majority if your childhood in any decade, then you're a (said decade) kid. It's that simple.

And that's another problem. I see a lot of you on here arguing and debating this whole "quintessential", "core", "ultimate", ect... nonsense. It doesn't matter who spent every single year of they're childhood with the walls a certain decade, it doesn't make them anymore of a child of that decade then someone who spent the vast majority of they're childhood during it.

This whole breaking it down to the very fine core is ridiculous and all it's doing is creating this whole "you're not one of us" type of vibe. There is no "us", it's not like it's some clique that automatically formed because everyone's parents decided to have sex at a certain time and then you popped out nine months at certain time of a year during a certain time of a decade.

Everyone can throw they're opinions on this subject all they want, but at the end of the day, the facts are still facts. No quintessential, core, ultimate, any of that BS. If you spent that vast majority if your childhood in any decade, then you're a (said decade) kid. It's that simple.


SET THEM B**CHES STRAIGHT!

Yeah because one year as a teen in the 2000s makes a difference. Also your words "but 'quintessential' insinuates that they were the perfect age to experience almost all of the trends of that decade as a kid".

That literally describe 96ers and 97ers.

Hell a teen for just two years of a given decade doesn't make much of a difference. Which is the argument for the "5" year borns.

SET THEM B**CHES STRAIGHT!

Lol that's why I use this name. Because the people on these forums, for the most part, are so far off on what they say that it does get irritating at times.

And that's another problem. I see a lot of you on here arguing and debating this whole "quintessential", "core", "ultimate", ect... nonsense. It doesn't matter who spent every single year of they're childhood within the walls a certain decade, it doesn't make them anymore of a child of that decade then someone who spent the vast majority of they're childhood during it.

This whole breaking it down to the very fine core is ridiculous and all it's doing is creating this whole "you're not one of us" type of vibe. There is no "us", it's not like it's some clique that automatically formed because everyone's parents decided to have sex at a certain time and then you popped out nine months at certain time of a year during a certain time of a decade.

Everyone can throw they're opinions on this subject all they want, but at the end of the day, the facts are still facts. No quintessential, core, ultimate, any of that BS. If you spent that vast majority if your childhood in any decade, then you're a (said decade) kid. It's that simple.

Exactly. I remember somebody tried to deadass call me a 2010s teen when I only spent one year as a teen (17) in this decade lmao. I guess it can be fun sometimes but there's really no point in being so technical or serious about this stuff.

Exactly. I remember somebody tried to deadass call me a 2010s teen when I only spent one year as a teen (17) in this decade lmao. I guess it can be fun sometimes but there's really no point in being so technical or serious about this stuff.

You hit the nail in the head with that one. Everyone is trying to get so technical with it that it loses its substance. Not to mention it creates barriers between people who are close in age

You hit the nail in the head with that one. Everyone is trying to get so technical with it that it loses its substance. Not to mention it creates barriers between people who are close in age

Yeah. I was born in 2002 and I just consider myself a perfect 2000's and 2010's hybrid kid. I don't really lean one way or another and it's really interesting to be in that position.

I just only label myself as a full 2010s kid.

And that's another problem. I see a lot of you on here arguing and debating this whole "quintessential", "core", "ultimate", ect... nonsense. It doesn't matter who spent every single year of they're childhood within the walls a certain decade, it doesn't make them anymore of a child of that decade then someone who spent the vast majority of they're childhood during it.

This whole breaking it down to the very fine core is ridiculous and all it's doing is creating this whole "you're not one of us" type of vibe. There is no "us", it's not like it's some clique that automatically formed because everyone's parents decided to have sex at a certain time and then you popped out nine months at certain time of a year during a certain time of a decade.

Everyone can throw they're opinions on this subject all they want, but at the end of the day, the facts are still facts. No quintessential, core, ultimate, any of that BS. If you spent that vast majority if your childhood in any decade, then you're a (said decade) kid. It's that simple.


Why are you getting salty though? You asked a question, and I answered it to the best of my ability. And don't get me wrong, I agree that a lot of these labels are meaningless and could cause confusion and such. Hence why I said, those born from 1995-1999 are core 2000s kids, plain and simple. One user (not going to mention names) said that 96/97 borns are the 'quintessential 00s kids' (there words, not mines) and I made my case on why I didn't think so in a constructive manner. We all have our opinions at the end of the day, so why not have civic discourse and try to figure where everybody is coming from?

Thats the inthe00s I signed up for three years ago, and have become used to. You're one of the newer users here so I could understand a little bit of your frustration, but I digress. At the end of the day; we may agree to disagree on the specific labels on what constitutes what decade kid. But we all agree that those born in between the '5' and '9' years are the respected kids of a certain decade. BAM! We're done here...

I think what I meant to say is that I consider 1996 to be more late culturally to the 90's than 2006 and 2016 were to its decades. Even if 1996 is still more mid 90's culturally, I believe 2006 and 2016 were a lot more mid culturally and less late than 1996 was. You brought up a lot of good points though especially with Biggie still being alive, the hip hop wars, and 4th generation still being relevant for that year, although 5th generation definitely entered it's peak by that year and there were undeniably Y2K influences coming in by Autumn of the year.


Oh ok I get where you're coming from. I'd still have to respectfully disagree though.

You hit the nail in the head with that one. Everyone is trying to get so technical with it that it loses its substance. Not to mention it creates barriers between people who are close in age


Hence why I disdain the 'decade kid debate'. It just creates unnecessary drama. I just simply say that I grew up in the 2000s & 2010s, insinuating I was a kid in the 2000s and a teen/youth in the 2010s.

Yo, what the hell is going on here?

1999 borns are 100% 2000s kids. We were 5-8 years old from 2004-2007 that means that we were at the peak of our childhoods during the peak of the 2000s.

One user (not going to mention names) said that 96/97 borns are the 'quintessential 00s kids' (there words, not mines) and I made my case on why I didn't think so in a constructive manner. We all have our opinions at the end of the day, so why not have civic discourse and try to figure where everybody is coming from?

Yeah we can agree to disagree. Also, you can say my name. You're not going to hurt my feelings, I'm a big girl.

Yo, what the hell is going on here?

1999 borns are 100% 2000s kids. We were 5-8 years old from 2004-2007 that means that we were at the peak of our childhoods during the peak of the 2000s.

Dont worry, just a bunch of salty 1995-1998ers trying to feel more like 90's kids, they're everywhere :o. I always see them seperating themselves from everyone born 1999 onwards, simply because we experienced our peak childhoods after the supposed Late 2006 shift, or in other words the 'crap Hannah Montana 2000s' >:( ;D.

It is understandable to think '96 and '97 borns are not quenessential 2000s kids because the people proudly claiming they are 2000s kids, mainly from what I have noticed on this forum, are born in 1999 and 2000. You see way more people who were born in the early 2000s boasting how they grew up in the 2000s than you see mid '90s borns. However from my definition of what a true 2000s kid is (a millennial kid, one who had his childhood in the late '90s and early '00s) I believe the true 2000s kids in the most realest form were born from 1994 - 1996. Those born in the late '90s and early '00s are taking that title away from us even when they don't remember the early 2000s, so I agree with Zelda in that we are in a very weird position. Some people even say we aren't millennials too. It's like we don't fit in with either crowd and we are unique in that way.

Yo, what the hell is going on here?

1999 borns are 100% 2000s kids. We were 5-8 years old from 2004-2007 that means that we were at the peak of our childhoods during the peak of the 2000s.

I disagree. True '00s culture died in 2006, and you were only 7 when the classic 2000s ended.

No offense but we are very seperate from 1999ers. We are closer to your birth year, and you are also a 2000s kid so don't get it twisted. One born in 1993 is NOT a '90s kid.


bruhhhhh you high? ???

Dont worry, just a bunch of salty 1995-1998ers trying to feel more like 90's kids, they're everywhere :o. I always see them seperating themselves from everyone born 1999 onwards, simply because we experienced our peak childhoods after the supposed Late 2006 shift, or in other words the 'crap Hannah Montana 2000s' >:( ;D.

Anyone considering Hannah Montana crap shouldn't have their opinions in general considered valid in any way.

Also this thread turning into a generational kid discussion with some obvious self-boasting in disguise thrown in
https://media3.giphy.com/media/BwRzjeqPnC6Dm/giphy.gif

bruhhhhh you high? ???

You would think lol Forget I wrote that. I thought I was replying to someone else. Anyways I was trying to say something else but it came out wrong. I meant to say that us born in the mid '90s are closer to those born in the early '90s than those born in the late '90s. And no one can refute that if they are born in the late '90s and early '00s because you aren't us. We had extremely different childhoods, and didn't grow up on Hannah Montanna and late 2000s stuff. We were in our core childhoods in the early '00s which is EXTREMELY different from the late '00s while you guys were in your diapers, and that's a fact. I don't know why you guys wanna be so connected and close to us when we are very different and grew up differently. I am just stating facts here. Our childhoods were indeed different and the 2000s were quite split. We relate more to '90s kids than you guys.

Anyone considering Hannah Montana crap shouldn't have their opinions in general considered valid in any way.

Also this thread turning into a generational kid discussion with some obvious self-boasting in disguise thrown in


Seemed very blatant to me

bruhhhhh you high? ???

lmfao

This thread is starting to become pretty painful to read. ;D ;D ;D ;D

It is understandable to think '96 and '97 borns are not quenessential 2000s kids because the people proudly claiming they are 2000s kids, mainly from what I have noticed on this forum, are born in 1999 and 2000. You see way more people who were born in the early 2000s boasting how they grew up in the 2000s than you see mid '90s borns. However from my definition of what a true 2000s kid is (a millennial kid, one who had his childhood in the late '90s and early '00s) I believe the true 2000s kids in the most realest form were born from 1994 - 1996. Those born in the late '90s and early '00s are taking that title away from us even when they don't remember the early 2000s, so I agree with Zelda in that we are in a very weird position. Some people even say we aren't millennials too. It's like we don't fit in with either crowd and we are unique in that way.


Bro I feel you, I totally agree with you on this entire post 110% especially for what I have in bold hahaha. From start to finish. You took Zelda's opinion and took it from completely different perspective where I would agree with you too. I even brought this up a year ago on how people born in the late part of the decade and the early part of the next decade are going to be the most immature acting about being a kid of their majority kid decade. For example, 1984 and 1985 born's, people who truly remember being a kid throughout the entire 90's and knew the decade inside and out, are going to have a more mature perspective about the decade than someone born in 1989 or 1990 who are a lot more immature about the 90's when they only remember the later half of it for most of the part. This is why we're tired of everyone focusing on only the mid and late part of the decade while they forget the early part existed. There's a difference between being a hybrid of a decade, being just a plain kid of a decade, and being a true/ultimate kid of a decade. Keep in mind it's not any of our faults that this became a problem, it's those dumb buzzfeed posts and YouTube videos that ruined the mainstream's thoughts on how the 2000's actually went (while forgetting the early part). They'll start with the social media era on the rise for crying out loud.

Bro I feel you, I totally agree with you on this entire post 110% especially for what I have in bold hahaha. From start to finish. You took Zelda's opinion and took it from completely different perspective where I would agree with you too. I even brought this up a year ago on how people born in the late part of the decade and the early part of the next decade are going to be the most immature acting about being a kid of their majority kid decade. For example, 1984 and 1985 born's, people who truly remember being a kid throughout the entire 90's and knew the decade inside and out, are going to have a more mature perspective about the decade than someone born in 1989 or 1990 who are a lot more immature about the 90's when they only remember the later half of it for most of the part. This is why we're tired of everyone focusing on only the mid and late part of the decade while they forget the early part existed. There's a difference between being a hybrid of a decade, being just a plain kid of a decade, and being a true/ultimate kid of a decade. Keep in mind it's not any of our faults that this became a problem, it's those dumb buzzfeed posts and YouTube videos that ruined the mainstream's thoughts on how the 2000's actually went (while forgetting the early part). They'll start with the social media era on the rise for crying out loud.

I totally agree.

People calm down! Don't get mad and make people leave the forum. :( This has happened before. We need a chiller vibe in this thread.