Is there really a huge difference between those born within this five year span?

I'd say so. Someone from 1985 can remember the entire 1990s and had good chunk of their Elementary childhood days in the early 1990s. While someone from 1990 such as myself can't even remember much of anything before late 1993/1994 (although how good someone's memory is depends on that person). By 1999 I was 9, but someone from 1985 was 14 in high school which is much different from someone who is 9 in elementary school. If there a HUGE difference? Hmmm, Nope! But if there a noticeable difference? I'd say so.

Is there really a huge difference between those born within this five year span?

Yes, one's an early-mid 90s kid while the other is a mid-late 90s kid.

Plus the 90er graduated high school into a Recession while the 85er didn't (sorry Toon).

And this is anecdotal but I think even people born up to 85 still have some "Gen X" influences in them. Whereas 1990 borns are firmly Millennials.

Yes, one's an early-mid 90s kid while the other is a mid-late 90s kid.

Plus the 90er graduated high school into a Recession while the 85er didn't (sorry Toon).

And this is anecdotal but I think even people born up to 85 still have some "Gen X" influences in them. Whereas 1990 borns are firmly Millennials.

I concur.

Really someone had to make this thread? Of course there's a difference between '85 born and '90 born. My sister is 5 years older than me and she had a different childhood. She was 4 when the little mermaid came out and I was 4 when the lion king came out. She listened to Spice Girls, Aqua, Britney & Christina. I listened to Linkin Park, Outkast, & Eminem.

Yes, one's an early-mid 90s kid while the other is a mid-late 90s kid.

Plus the 90er graduated high school into a Recession while the 85er didn't (sorry Toon).

And this is anecdotal but I think even people born up to 85 still have some "Gen X" influences in them. Whereas 1990 borns are firmly Millennials.

I think some of the "gen x" influence, and that's all it was because they're certainly not gen x, goes up to those born at least 1988.  Pretty much any body born in the 80s has some gen x influence. The millennial traits began alot sooner then those who were born in the early 80s like to admit

Really someone had to make this thread? Of course there's a difference between '85 born and '90 born. My sister is 5 years older than me and she had a different childhood. She was 4 when the little mermaid came out and I was 4 when the lion king came out. She listened to Spice Girls, Aqua, Britney & Christina. I listened to Linkin Park, Outkast, & Eminem.

Your sister was probably listening to the last three artists you mentioned as a teen as she was the prime demographic for that music. And if she wasnt listening to it herself then her peers were. And I believe Britney, Christina, and Eminem all began around the same time, 1999 I believe.

The millennial traits began alot sooner then those who were born in the early 80s like to admit


You're probably right, however I don't think that applies to everyone. There is an English teacher at my school (whom I have had as a teacher on a few occasions) who was born in 1982 and he is definitely more of a Gen X'er than a Millennial. IMO, it makes sense that some people born in the Early 80s have strong Gen X traits and identify more with the generation. They experienced their childhoods and adolescence during core Gen X culture.

You're probably right, however I don't think that applies to everyone. There is an English teacher at my school (whom I have had as a teacher on a few occasions) who was born in 1982 and he is definitely more of a Gen X'er than a Millennial. IMO, it makes sense that some people born in the Early 80s have strong Gen X traits and identify more with the generation. They experienced their childhoods and adolescence during core Gen X culture.

I would have to agree with you. Thoes born in the first few years of the 80s were more gen x then anything althought gen x doesn't stretch out past the early 80s. Thoes born by the mid to late 80s you can see a bit of a shift from the gen x traits to millennial. I think those born between 1984 to about early 1988 have both these x/millennial traits. I know some born in 1988 who have more of an attitude of someone born in 1981. I also know some born in 1984 with an attitude of someone  born in 1989.

I concur.


I don't think the year you're born absolutely has to dictate your personality or what values you have.

I don't think the year you're born absolutely has to dictate your personality or what values you have.

Nobody said it does.

I would have to agree with you. Thoes born in the first few years of the 80s were more gen x then anything althought gen x doesn't stretch out past the early 80s. Thoes born by the mid to late 80s you can see a bit of a shift from the gen x traits to millennial. I think those born between 1984 to about early 1988 have both these x/millennial traits. I know some born in 1988 who have more of an attitude of someone born in 1981. I also know some born in 1984 with an attitude of someone  born in 1989.


That's an interesting point about some (very slight) Gen X "traits" extending to the late '80s. To add to that, this is purely anecdotal but most of my friends born around 1986-88 (myself included) are huge Grunge fans. Even though we were not old enough to really experience Nirvana when they were still a band, their albums were among some of the first I brought in the late '90s and I always viewed them (or Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, etc.) as "current" music as a teenager since most major rock bands in the Y2K era were still heavily influenced by them.

Also, late '80s babies grew up as kids in the '90s listening to a lot of music that was popular with the late Xer demographic like Oasis, Ace of Base, Tupac, Boyz II Men, TLC, Stone Temple Pilots, etc. Those groups were my first exposure to music as a kid listening to the radio in the mid '90s.

That's an interesting point about some (very slight) Gen X "traits" extending to the late '80s. To add to that, this is purely anecdotal but most of my friends born around 1986-88 (myself included) are huge Grunge fans. Even though we were not old enough to really experience Nirvana when they were still a band, their albums were among some of the first I brought in the late '90s and I always viewed them (or Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, etc.) as "current" music as a teenager since most major rock bands in the Y2K era were still heavily influenced by them.

Also, late '80s babies grew up as kids in the '90s listening to a lot of music that was popular with the late Xer demographic like Oasis, Ace of Base, Tupac, Boyz II Men, TLC, Stone Temple Pilots, etc. Those groups were my first exposure to music as a kid listening to the radio in the mid '90s.

That's a better way of putting it. Very slight gen x traits to thoes born in the mid and late 80s

No. There's not much differences between them. In fact, they both had a partial childhood and adolescence similar to each other. For instance, they both grew up watching TMNT and Power Rangers on TV. They used super soakers and splashed each other. They both had SNES/Genesis as a gamer console. Hell, they both even voted for Obama (or McCain) in 2008.


this is anecdotal but I think even people born up to 85 still have some "Gen X" influences in them. Whereas 1990 borns are firmly Millennials.



I think some of the "gen x" influence, and that's all it was because they're certainly not gen x, goes up to those born at least 1988.  Pretty much any body born in the 80s has some gen x influence. The millennial traits began alot sooner then those who were born in the early 80s like to admit



That's an interesting point about some (very slight) Gen X "traits" extending to the late '80s. To add to that, this is purely anecdotal but most of my friends born around 1986-88 (myself included) are huge Grunge fans. Even though we were not old enough to really experience Nirvana when they were still a band, their albums were among some of the first I brought in the late '90s and I always viewed them (or Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, etc.) as "current" music as a teenager since most major rock bands in the Y2K era were still heavily influenced by them.

Also, late '80s babies grew up as kids in the '90s listening to a lot of music that was popular with the late Xer demographic like Oasis, Ace of Base, Tupac, Boyz II Men, TLC, Stone Temple Pilots, etc. Those groups were my first exposure to music as a kid listening to the radio in the mid '90s.

Wow, this is interesting to know that folks up until about 1990 have Gen X traits. ;D Reading all these posts, I think this is maybe why many older Millennials feel they are associated with the previous cohort because their own customs didn't become full force until they were adolescents/college students in the late 90s. That makes you all sometimes wonder, do many Zers feel the same way because of the Gen Y power of pop culture throughout this decade and the previous (the 2000s).

That makes you all sometimes wonder, do many Zers feel the same way because of the Gen Y power of pop culture throughout this decade and the previous (the 2000s).

Well, on personalitycafe and here, it seems most Zers born in 1995-1997 constantly bitch about being considered Zs and not Ys. ;D ::)

Though I can understand it, to an extent. In their early childhoods around 2000-2004 they got the tail-end of stereotypical Gen Y things like VHS tapes, dial-up Internet, Rugrats, Rocket Power, Hey Arnold, Amanda Show, Dexter's Lab, Pokemon Gens 1-3, Johnny Bravo, Gorillaz, Linkin Park, 3D Doritos, etc., giving early Zers a heavy Y influence at least in terms of kid culture.

Their whole lives they felt like they were Yers, perhaps because of their very Yish childhoods, but now all of the sudden the media is yanking the rug out from under them and telling them "Nope, you're in the same cohort as 14 year olds who grew up with Justin Bieber, Victorious, PewDiePie, iPhones, and Nick Studio 10", thus causing them to perhaps feel a bit pissed and betrayed.

It's like how some people born in 1980-1984 were told they were Gen X their whole lives (remember that the dates for Millennials were not yet solidified when they were growing up), and indeed grew up with a heavy Gen X influence with neon kids' clothing, Vanilla Ice, SNES, etc. But now the media is telling them "No, you're Millennials because I say so", again causing them to perhaps feel pissed and betrayed.

Now, I think generations are an incredibly silly thing to feel pissed or betrayed about, but then again humans in general are a fickle species. For instance there were music fans who were pissed and betrayed about Bob Dylan going electric, without realizing his old acoustic albums were still there for them to listen to if they preferred, it's not like they vanished from the face of the earth.

That makes you all sometimes wonder, do many Zers feel the same way because of the Gen Y power of pop culture throughout this decade and the previous (the 2000s).


Well it's completely understandable. I know that's definitely the way I feel. I experienced all of my childhood during Gen Y pop-culture and to be fair, I would even say that my adolescence occurred during Gen Y and Y/Z-Cusp culture as well. Also, Gen Z are stereotyped as being born in the "new millennium". I wasn't even born in the 21st Century, let alone being born in the new millennium! Yet, people born in the Mid/Late 90s are still grouped with kids under the age of 12. It's not surprising that those of us born between 1995-2000 are confused as to which generation we belong to.

Well it's completely understandable. I know that's definitely the way I feel. I experienced all of my childhood during Gen Y pop-culture and to be fair, I would even say that my adolescence occurred during Gen Y and Y/Z-Cusp culture as well. Also, Gen Z are stereotyped as being born in the "new millennium". I wasn't even born in the 21st Century, let alone being born in the new millennium! Yet, people born in the Mid/Late 90s are still grouped with kids under the age of 12. It's not surprising that those of us born between 1995-2000 are confused as to which generation we belong to.

Yeah, same here speaking as a fellow '99 baby.

Well, on personalitycafe and here, it seems most Zers born in 1995-1997 constantly bitch about being considered Zs and not Ys. ;D ::)

Though I can understand it, to an extent. In their early childhoods around 2000-2004 they got the tail-end of stereotypical Gen Y things like VHS tapes, dial-up Internet, Rugrats, Rocket Power, Hey Arnold, Amanda Show, Dexter's Lab, Pokemon Gens 1-3, Johnny Bravo, Gorillaz, Linkin Park, 3D Doritos, etc., giving early Zers a heavy Y influence at least in terms of kid culture.

Their whole lives they felt like they were Yers, perhaps because of their very Yish childhoods, but now all of the sudden the media is yanking the rug out from under them and telling them "Nope, you're in the same cohort as 14 year olds who grew up with Justin Bieber, Victorious, PewDiePie, iPhones, and Nick Studio 10", thus causing them to perhaps feel a bit pissed and betrayed.

It's like how some people born in 1980-1984 were told they were Gen X their whole lives (remember that the dates for Millennials were not yet solidified when they were growing up), and indeed grew up with a heavy Gen X influence with neon kids' clothing, Vanilla Ice, SNES, etc. But now the media is telling them "No, you're Millennials because I say so", again causing them to perhaps feel pissed and betrayed.

Now, I think generations are an incredibly silly thing to feel pissed or betrayed about, but then again humans in general are a fickle species. For instance there were music fans who were pissed and betrayed about Bob Dylan going electric, without realizing his old acoustic albums were still there for them to listen to if they preferred, it's not like they vanished from the face of the earth.
That should really be extended to 1998-2000. You can't imagine how many times I've seen them do it as much as their older counterparts especially on YouTube.

OTT, yeah pretty much. However, they need to know that being in denial is not a good thing, and it's just better to embrace it. Besides, the SJW and entitled Millennials and the Zombie Zeds are largely just myths, and don't represent the entire generations.


Well it's completely understandable. I know that's definitely the way I feel. I experienced all of my childhood during Gen Y pop-culture and to be fair, I would even say that my adolescence occurred during Gen Y and Y/Z-Cusp culture as well. Also, Gen Z are stereotyped as being born in the "new millennium". I wasn't even born in the 21st Century, let alone being born in the new millennium! Yet, people born in the Mid/Late 90s are still grouped with kids under the age of 12. It's not surprising that those of us born between 1995-2000 are confused as to which generation we belong to.
I can see where you're coming from. As you said, you and others around your age grew up in Gen Y pop culture which gave you all a sense that you would all be considered the youngest Millennials, so that's not a problem at all.

If anything, the cutoff for Millennials really hasn't been determined yet which is why there is also a debate on when it starts as well.

Also forgot to mention, some people born in 1961-64 feel uneasy that they're now automatically roped into Boomers, by every media definition or at least 90%, even though they were never told they were Boomers growing up.

I could be wrong, but I've heard that the current "Boomers = 1946-1964" definition didn't always hold true and back in the 80s/early 90s, early 60s-born folks weren't considered boomers at all, they were the 20-something "slackers" who couldn't get a job because boomers (people 5-10 years older) hogged all the good ones.

What eventually happened, apparently, is that in the mid-90s, when the oldest boomers were pushing 50, they started claiming the early Gen Xers for themselves to inflate their numbers (and to not look so old since they could just say "Aiyyo, the youngest of us are only 32")

That should really be extended to 1998-2000. You can't imagine how many times I've seen them do it as much as their older counterparts especially on YouTube.

OTT, yeah pretty much. However, they need to know that being in denial is not a good thing, and it's just better to embrace it. Besides, the SJW and entitled Millennials and the Zombie Zeds are largely just myths, and don't represent the entire generations.
I can see where you're coming from. As you said, you and others around your age grew up in Gen Y pop culture which gave you all a sense that you would all be considered the youngest Millennials, so that's not a problem at all.

If anything, the cutoff for Millennials really hasn't been determined yet which is why there is also a debate on when it starts as well.


I agree with the points you raised. Come to think of it, its strange that you don't hear people born in 2001 or 2002 viewing themselves as being Gen Y. Three people born in 2001 and one person born in 2002 have answered my questionnaire, and all four of them view themselves as belonging to Gen Z. Maybe there truly is a generation divide with people born after the year 2000?

I agree with the points you raised. Come to think of it, its strange that you don't hear people born in 2001 or 2002 viewing themselves as being Gen Y. Three people born in 2001 and one person born in 2002 have answered my questionnaire, and all four of them view themselves as belonging to Gen Z. Maybe there truly is a generation divide with people born after the year 2000?

It's probably because post-2000 is a clean and easy divide, so people born in 2001 and 2002 think of themselves as Gen Z because it's what they've always been told they are.

Whereas 1995 is a bit more of a messy divide.

It's probably because post-2000 is a clean and easy divide, so people born in 2001 and 2002 think of themselves as Gen Z because it's what they've always been told they are.

Whereas 1995 is a bit more of a messy divide.


Frankly, I think it should be after 2000. All post-2001 babies had their early childhood after the early 2000s.

Also forgot to mention, some people born in 1961-64 feel uneasy that they're now automatically roped into Boomers, by every media definition or at least 90%, even though they were never told they were Boomers growing up.

I could be wrong, but I've heard that the current "Boomers = 1946-1964" definition didn't always hold true and back in the 80s/early 90s, early 60s-born folks weren't considered boomers at all, they were the 20-something "slackers" who couldn't get a job because boomers (people 5-10 years older) hogged all the good ones.

What eventually happened, apparently, is that in the mid-90s, when the oldest boomers were pushing 50, they started claiming the early Gen Xers for themselves to inflate their numbers (and to not look so old since they could just say "Aiyyo, the youngest of us are only 32")
Yeah, I have seen that too. Some of them even think they're the oldest Xers who seem to be forgotten due to being lumped with the previous generation despite that they can't truly recall any of the events that impacted the Boomers.

It's why I have also seen the X span as about 1961/65-76/77, and not the usual small 1965-76 one.


It's probably because post-2000 is a clean and easy divide, so people born in 2001 and 2002 think of themselves as Gen Z because it's what they've always been told they are.

Whereas 1995 is a bit more of a messy divide.
Yeah, I say that's more of the case. If you think about it, these folks recall 9/11, Web 1.0, and a time before cellphones were mainstream.


I agree with the points you raised. Come to think of it, its strange that you don't hear people born in 2001 or 2002 viewing themselves as being Gen Y. Three people born in 2001 and one person born in 2002 have answered my questionnaire, and all four of them view themselves as belonging to Gen Z. Maybe there truly is a generation divide with people born after the year 2000?
Most likely so because they were born after the new millennium, don't remember 9/11 and only remember a president being African-american.


Frankly, I think it should be after 2000. All post-2001 babies had their early childhood after the early 2000s.
We'll have to see if the end of the Millennials will be 2000. Looking at the current articles, I still see the span ending at that year; however, I also see the 1994/95 cutoff as well. 

Well, on personalitycafe and here, it seems most Zers born in 1995-1997 constantly bitch about being considered Zs and not Ys. ;D ::)

Though I can understand it, to an extent. In their early childhoods around 2000-2004 they got the tail-end of stereotypical Gen Y things like VHS tapes, dial-up Internet, Rugrats, Rocket Power, Hey Arnold, Amanda Show, Dexter's Lab, Pokemon Gens 1-3, Johnny Bravo, Gorillaz, Linkin Park, 3D Doritos, etc., giving early Zers a heavy Y influence at least in terms of kid culture.

Their whole lives they felt like they were Yers, perhaps because of their very Yish childhoods, but now all of the sudden the media is yanking the rug out from under them and telling them "Nope, you're in the same cohort as 14 year olds who grew up with Justin Bieber, Victorious, PewDiePie, iPhones, and Nick Studio 10", thus causing them to perhaps feel a bit pissed and betrayed.


That's the reason why I do feel like a case can be made that folks that age do qualify as Gen Y, if only just barely.

Even for kids born up to 1999, I think you can make an argument. After all, 1999ers could remember growing up with VHS in the early '00s, going online during the Web 1.0 era up to 2005, being a kid in a time before smartphones and tablets, watching Nickelodeon during a time when content from it's Golden Age still aired on the network, and watching Cartoon Network when it was at the height of it's powers during the early '00s. 1999ers also had their high school years during Obama's second term (2013-17), which I generally see as a "late Y" time period.

I mean, sure, they might not remember 9/11, or the political climate during the Bush administration, but late '90s babies did "come of age" during the Obama years, and I see him as the formative President for late Yers in the same way that Bill Clinton was the formative President for late Xers.

In fact, if you'll allow a second for me to geek out here, I would define the presidential/generational divide like this.

Formative President for early Boomers: Kennedy/Johnson (1961-69)
Formative President for late Boomers: Nixon/Ford/Carter (1969-81)
Formative President for early Xers: Reagan/Bush (1981-93)
Formative President for late Xers: Clinton (1993-2001)
Formative President for early Yers: George W. Bush (2001-09)
Formative President for late Yers: Obama (2009-17)
Formative President for early Zers: Trump (2017-?)

That's the reason why I do feel like a case can be made that folks that age do qualify as Gen Y, if only just barely.

Even for kids born up to 1999, I think you can make an argument. After all, 1999ers could remember growing up with VHS in the early '00s, going online during the Web 1.0 era up to 2005, being a kid in a time before smartphones and tablets, watching Nickelodeon during a time when content from it's Golden Age still aired on the network, and watching Cartoon Network when it was at the height of it's powers during the early '00s. 1999ers also had their high school years during Obama's second term (2013-17), which I generally see as a "late Y" time period.

I mean, sure, they might not remember 9/11, or the political climate during the Bush administration, but late '90s babies did "come of age" during the Obama years, and I see him as the formative President for late Yers in the same way that Bill Clinton was the formative President for late Xers.

In fact, if you'll allow a second for me to geek out here, I would define the presidential/generational divide like this.

Formative President for early Boomers: Kennedy/Johnson (1961-69)
Formative President for late Boomers: Nixon/Ford/Carter (1969-81)
Formative President for early Xers: Reagan/Bush (1981-93)
Formative President for late Xers: Clinton (1993-2001)
Formative President for early Yers: George W. Bush (2001-09)
Formative President for late Yers: Obama (2009-17)
Formative President for early Zers: Trump (2017-?)

Yes, I definetly remember all of those things growing up. I do remember President George W. Bush and some of the political climate back then (particularity from 2005-2008). However, you're right I don't remember 9/11 when it happened, I was only 2 (I was probably playing with toys or something, IDK).

I think people born in 1998 are the last people who may possibly remember 9/11. I used to think it was 1996, but I've since learned that scientific research shows humans can trace memories back to age 3.

I think people born in 1998 are the last people who may possibly remember 9/11. I used to think it was 1996, but I've since learned that scientific research shows humans can trace memories back to age 3.

I have a couple memories from 2001 when I was 2 but not 9/11. I have spoken to some people born in 1998 and all of them can't remember 9/11 when it happened.

I have a couple memories from 2001 when I was 2 but not 9/11. I have spoken to some people born in 1998 and all of them can't remember 9/11 when it happened.

Well, I've spoken to other people born in 1998 and they do remember 9/11 when it happened. :o

Well, I've spoken to other people born in 1998 and they do remember 9/11 when it happened. :o

Well, 3 is still early on in age and some people will remember things while others won't. I know some people who don't remember anything (or much) before they were 5 or 6.

I think people born in 1998 are the last people who may possibly remember 9/11. I used to think it was 1996, but I've since learned that scientific research shows humans can trace memories back to age 3.


I can very vaguely remember it, but that might be because I was born in March 1999. I was 2 years and 6 months old when 9/11 occurred.

I can very vaguely remember it, but that might be because I was born in March 1999. I was 2 years and 6 months old when 9/11 occurred.

You can remember 9/11.....WTF? ??? :o :o :o

Also forgot to mention, some people born in 1961-64 feel uneasy that they're now automatically roped into Boomers, by every media definition or at least 90%, even though they were never told they were Boomers growing up.

I could be wrong, but I've heard that the current "Boomers = 1946-1964" definition didn't always hold true and back in the 80s/early 90s, early 60s-born folks weren't considered boomers at all, they were the 20-something "slackers" who couldn't get a job because boomers (people 5-10 years older) hogged all the good ones.

What eventually happened, apparently, is that in the mid-90s, when the oldest boomers were pushing 50, they started claiming the early Gen Xers for themselves to inflate their numbers (and to not look so old since they could just say "Aiyyo, the youngest of us are only 32")



I remember that the last Baby Boom year used to be 1960 on TV. 1961-1964 were added later.

You can remember 9/11.....WTF? ??? :o :o :o


Very vaguely, though. To be honest, I don't know why people think it's impossible for someone born in 1999 to remember 9/11. I understand that I was really young at the time, fair enough, but a lot of people start to have their first memories when they are two years old. Not only that, but I hadn't just turned two at the time either; I had been two for six months. Also, with all due respect to the victims of 9/11, how often does an event of that nature occur? Seeing the coverage on the TV and noticing how in disbelief my Mum was at the time, is something that was sure to leave an impression, even if my memory of it is only vague.

Very vaguely, though. To be honest, I don't know why people think it's impossible for someone born in 1999 to remember 9/11. I understand that I was really young at the time, fair enough, but a lot of people start to have their first memories when they are two years old. Not only that, but I hadn't just turned two at the time either; I had been two for six months. Also, with all due respect to the victims of 9/11, how often does an event of that nature occur? Seeing the coverage on the TV and noticing how in disbelief my Mum was at the time, is something that was sure to leave an impression, even if my memory of it is only vague.

It's not impossible but highly unlikely. When 9/11 happened I was 2 years and almost 2 months (2 days away from exactly 2 months) and maybe I have a memory of 9/11, it's possible but since that was almost 16 years ago....I probably lost that memory since. My mother said that she was watching it on TV and was crying in disbelief but I don't remember what I was doing then. I do have 3 separate (mostly vague) memories from 2001 though.

Well, I've spoken to other people born in 1998 and they do remember 9/11 when it happened. :o



But those kids were only 3 years old. :o

Someone born in '99 can't remember 9/11. Kids born in the late 90s need to stop.

Someone born in '99 can't remember 9/11. Kids born in the late 90s need to stop.


No but they do remember the Bush era

Someone born in '99 can't remember 9/11. Kids born in the late 90s need to stop.

Apparently SharksFan99 can. It's not impossible for you remember a few things from when you are 2 but most of those memories are vague. I was born 4 months after SharksFan99 (he was born in March '99, I was born in July '99) but I don't remember too much from 2001 other than playing with toys, riding my tricycle and seeing Monsters Inc. I can't remember 9/11 but you know everyone is different.


No but they do remember the Bush era

Of course I remember President Dubya.

No but they do remember the Bush era

They were into politics? Oh brother.

They were into politics? Oh brother.

You don't have to be into politics to know who the President is and some the political climate of the time. Also, based on a lot of videos there are some adults who don't even know who the former Vice President was (Joe Biden).

They were into politics? Oh brother.


No but they don't have to be to remember the era and the feel of it. I think if someone has memories of Bush as president they are a Millennial.

I think people born in 1998 are the last people who may possibly remember 9/11. I used to think it was 1996, but I've since learned that scientific research shows humans can trace memories back to age 3.


Honestly, I think you have to be at least 5 in order to remember something as tragic as 9/11. You could've understand what might happened, despite the event being very complex for a little kid.

Well, I've spoken to other people born in 1998 and they do remember 9/11 when it happened. :o


And I remember OJ Simpson's Trial and Princess Diana's death (I don't) :o

The first political event I remember was the Iraq War, when I was 10.  :-X

And I remember OJ Simpson's Trial and Princess Diana's death (I don't) :o

The first political event I remember was the Iraq War, when I was 10.  :-X


Yeah, I think 10 sounds about right, though it might not be the same for everybody. I vaguely remember the O.J. Simpson case and the Oklahoma City Bombing, but wasn't really old enough to have any understanding of the significance of those events. Likewise with the death of Princess Diana. I remember it, of course, because of the huge amount of media coverage it got, but I honestly had no idea who she was at the time.

The first political event I remember in detail is the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the impeachment of Bill Clinton in late 1998. I had to sit through the hearings on TV on Saturday mornings when I was trying to watch cartoons. I was 11 at the time, so it wound up being Peter Jennings that taught me about sex instead of my parents. 8)

Someone born in '99 can't remember 9/11. Kids born in the late 90s need to stop.


Where is your evidence? That's right, you don't have any. I really don't think it's impossible for someone born in the Late 90s, whether they were born in 1997 or 1999, to vaguely remember 9/11, even if they were too young to comprehend what was going on. Surely it's not a coincidence that some (notice the emphasis on some, not all) people born in the Late 90s claim to have a vague memory of 9/11. When people claim to remember something, it generally means that have an actual memory of an event, in some form. I guess you didn't take this into account.

I would like to point out that my memory of 9/11 is not vivid. In fact, it isn't even a "motion" memory. Again, why does it come as such a surprise? Yes, I realise that I was only two years old at the time. I know that I was still really young and I hadn't even entered my childhood yet. However, like I commented in my previous post, a lot of people start to have their first memories at the age of two. Yet again, I hadn't just turned two either; I had been two years old for six months. The brain remembers things which leave a significant impression on the person, even during the formative years. With respect to the victims of 9/11, how often does an event of that nature occur? For god's sake, two planes flew into the World Trade Centre. There was extensive coverage of the attacks on TV. Besides this, my Mum was on the phone to my Dad in complete disbelief over what had happened. Of course it's going to leave an impression on a two year old toddler, especially if they happened to watch the coverage (like I did) and notice one of their parents in complete shock.

Yeah, I think 10 sounds about right, though it might not be the same for everybody. I vaguely remember the O.J. Simpson case and the Oklahoma City Bombing, but wasn't really old enough to have any understanding of the significance of those events. Likewise with the death of Princess Diana. I remember it, of course, because of the huge amount of media coverage it got, but I honestly had no idea who she was at the time.

The first political event I remember in detail is the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the impeachment of Bill Clinton in late 1998. I had to sit through the hearings on TV on Saturday mornings when I was trying to watch cartoons. I was 11 at the time, so it wound up being Peter Jennings that taught me about sex instead of my parents. 8)


It's funny, and kinda gross, that they'd interrupt Saturday morning cartoons for kids to show coverage of the President's blowjob scandal.

Yeah, I think 10 sounds about right, though it might not be the same for everybody. I vaguely remember the O.J. Simpson case and the Oklahoma City Bombing, but wasn't really old enough to have any understanding of the significance of those events. Likewise with the death of Princess Diana. I remember it, of course, because of the huge amount of media coverage it got, but I honestly had no idea who she was at the time.

The first political event I remember in detail is the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the impeachment of Bill Clinton in late 1998. I had to sit through the hearings on TV on Saturday mornings when I was trying to watch cartoons. I was 11 at the time, so it wound up being Peter Jennings that taught me about sex instead of my parents. 8)


I'm surprised you didn't know who she was. I remember seeing her in the paparazzi photos everywhere in the stores. I thought it was normal for families to follow the royal family and what's going on with them.

I think people born in 1998 are the last people who may possibly remember 9/11. I used to think it was 1996, but I've since learned that scientific research shows humans can trace memories back to age 3.


My guess:

1991 is the last to remember it in vivid colors.
1995 is the last to "likely" remember the event.
1996 is 50/50.
1997-1998: Some remember it, most do not.
1999 is very unlikely to remember the event.

My guess:

1991 is the last to remember it in vivid colors.
1995 is the last to "likely" remember the event.
1996 is 50/50.
1997-1998: Some remember it, most do not.
1999 is very unlikely to remember the event.


1999 and after are more likely to not remember the event.

It's funny, and kinda gross, that they'd interrupt Saturday morning cartoons for kids to show coverage of the President's blowjob scandal.


Yeah, they did that several times in late 1998 when the Clinton impeachment hearings were basically a seven day a week affair. They actually used to put up a "parental advisory" warning about "explicit content" when they interrupted cartoons on Saturday's during the hearings. A lot of good that did. :P


I'm surprised you didn't know who she was. I remember seeing her in the paparazzi photos everywhere in the stores. I thought it was normal for families to follow the royal family and what's going on with them.


I was probably exaggerating a bit to say I didn't know who Princess Diana was at all. I had a vague idea of her, mostly due to seeing her face plastered on tabloid covers at the supermarket growing up, too. I just couldn't really grasp at the time why the media was spending so much time covering her death.


My guess:

1991 is the last to remember it in vivid colors.
1995 is the last to "likely" remember the event.
1996 is 50/50.
1997-1998: Some remember it, most do not.
1999 is very unlikely to remember the event.


That sounds right to me. As I said, my younger brother was 10 on 9/11 and he remembers exactly where he was and what he was doing in class that morning when the news broke. After that it probably starts getting iffier, but I think as long as you were in school in the fall of 2001 (up to mid 1996 babies) then there's at least a decent chance you would remember it.

No but they do remember the Bush era


I can barely remember The Reagan era.

1999 and after are more likely to not remember the event.


I was born in 1999 and my earliest memory was in 2001, but it was not 9/11. Rather, it was a trip to the beach where I was trying to walk through the waters of the beach (this was roughly two months before 9/11). However, due to the fact that I was 23 months old when it took place, I only have a vague recollection of it.

I've heard of numerous people born in 1997-1999 who could remember stuff from the year 2001, but not 9/11 (it was a news event, and they probably cared more about "fun" stuff then).

Honestly, I think you have to be at least 5 in order to remember something as tragic as 9/11. You could've understand what might happened, despite the event being very complex for a little kid.


The only way how anyone that young could be impacted by it is if they had people they knew or were related to (like a parent, aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc) die then.

Where is your evidence? That's right, you don't have any. I really don't think it's impossible for someone born in the Late 90s, whether they were born in 1997 or 1999, to vaguely remember 9/11, even if they were too young to comprehend what was going on. Surely it's not a coincidence that some (notice the emphasis on some, not all) people born in the Late 90s claim to have a vague memory of 9/11. When people claim to remember something, it generally means that have an actual memory of an event, in some form. I guess you didn't take this into account.

I would like to point out that my memory of 9/11 is not vivid. In fact, it isn't even a "motion" memory. Again, why does it come as such a surprise? Yes, I realise that I was only two years old at the time. I know that I was still really young and I hadn't even entered my childhood yet. However, like I commented in my previous post, a lot of people start to have their first memories at the age of two. Yet again, I hadn't just turned two either; I had been two years old for six months. The brain remembers things which leave a significant impression on the person, even during the formative years. With respect to the victims of 9/11, how often does an event of that nature occur? For god's sake, two planes flew into the World Trade Centre. There was extensive coverage of the attacks on TV. Besides this, my Mum was on the phone to my Dad in complete disbelief over what had happened. Of course it's going to leave an impression on a two year old toddler, especially if they happened to watch the coverage (like I did) and notice one of their parents in complete shock.

First of all don't come at me like that. Second of all your earliest memories develop at age 3.

I was born in 1999 and my earliest memory was in 2001, but it was not 9/11. Rather, it was a trip to the beach where I was trying to walk through the waters of the beach (this was roughly two months before 9/11). However, due to the fact that I was 23 months old when it took place, I only have a vague recollection of it.

I've heard of numerous people born in 1997-1999 who could remember stuff from the year 2001, but not 9/11 (it was a news event, and they probably cared more about "fun" stuff then).

Same here. I was born in 1999, I have some mostly vague memories from 2001 but not 9/11.


The only way how anyone that young could be impacted by it is if they had people they knew or were related to (like a parent, aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc) die then.

That is true.

Same here. I was born in 1999, I have some mostly vague memories from 2001 but not 9/11.


So you don't actually remember 9/11? Huh. I guess it doesn't matter towards 1999 babies, since they were too young to remember the event in any way.

So you don't actually remember 9/11? Huh. I guess it doesn't matter towards 1999 babies, since they were too young to remember the event in any way.

Yes. I don't remember 9/11 but for some reason I feel like I do but just forget/lost the memory/recollection. Apparently SharksFan99 can remember 9/11.

Yes. I don't remember 9/11 but for some reason I feel like I do but just forget/lost the memory/recollection. Apparently SharksFan99 can remember 9/11.


I think its because Australia didn't find it as tragic as America did during the attacks. ::)

I think its because Australia didn't find it as tragic as America did during the attacks. ::)

I know right.  :D

I know right.  :D


Although, it was mostly tragic in New York. Aside from that, the Iraq War had more casualties than anything related to 9/11.

My guess:

1991 is the last to remember it in vivid colors.
1995 is the last to "likely" remember the event.
1996 is 50/50.
1997-1998: Some remember it, most do not.
1999 is very unlikely to remember the event.

This is accurate especially the part in bold. I was born in early 96', I was just starting Kindergarten, and I was living in Brooklyn at the time so I remember the event pretty vividly and especially its aftermath. I have vague memories of seeing the NYC skyline with the Twin Towers in person, but its not substantively clear. However, I can understand how someone born in 96' who grew up in say California may have little to no memory of the event. Its all perspective.

I was born in 1999 and my earliest memory was in 2001, but it was not 9/11. Rather, it was a trip to the beach where I was trying to walk through the waters of the beach (this was roughly two months before 9/11). However, due to the fact that I was 23 months old when it took place, I only have a vague recollection of it.

I've heard of numerous people born in 1997-1999 who could remember stuff from the year 2001, but not 9/11 (it was a news event, and they probably cared more about "fun" stuff then).


Whats funny is that while I remember where and what I was doing on 9/11 (getting picked up early, seeing the replays on TV, seeing the smoke in the Tri State area, etc.) its not the most clear event from 2001. Ironically I have more clear memories from the Summer of 2001 (right before 9/11) then I do of the event itself.

Also on the topic of earliest memories, for me I'd say my earliest are sometime around Late 1998, constant (although still pretty vague) in 1999, clear in 2001, crystal clear by 2002.

This is accurate especially the part in bold. I was born in early 96', I was just starting Kindergarten, and I was living in Brooklyn at the time so I remember the event pretty vividly and especially its aftermath. I have vague memories of seeing the NYC skyline with the Twin Towers in person, but its not substantively clear. However, I can understand how someone born in 96' who grew up in say California may have little to no memory of the event. Its all perspective.

I was born in Brooklyn, NY but at the time when 9/11 happened my mother and I weren't living in NYC. We came back to Brooklyn in August 2005 (I was 6).

Whats funny is that while I remember where and what I was doing on 9/11 (getting picked up early, seeing the replays on TV, seeing the smoke in the Tri State area, etc.) its not the most clear event from 2001. Ironically I have more clear memories from the Summer of 2001 (right before 9/11) then I do of the event itself.

Also on the topic of earliest memories, for me I'd say my earliest are sometime around Late 1998, constant (although still pretty vague) in 1999, clear in 2001, crystal clear by 2002.


My memory chart:

Big Bang - Early 2001: Don't remember anything here.
Mid 2001 - Late 2003: I do have some memories, but they're vague.
Early 2004 - Early 2006: My memories become clearer, but I may still have a hard time remembering them.
Mid 2006 - Mid 2008: My memories are now officially crystal clear, but I do not really understand or recollect news events that much yet.
Late 2008 - present: Remember it clear as day, even the news events.

I was born in Brooklyn, NY but at the time when 9/11 happened my mother and I weren't living in NYC. We came back to Brooklyn in August 2005 (I was 6).


I was born in Manhattan (my parents were living in Brooklyn at the time), but we were already living in another borough by the time 9/11 happened.

Is there really a huge difference between those born within this five year span?


I think this depends on your siblings, and whether or not you were the youngest or oldest in your household.  An '85er who had a younger sibling born as late as '90 will share more in common with babies born in the 89-91 range than somebody born in '85 with an older sibling.  The one with an older sibling where have more GenX traits while the one with the younger sibling will lean Millennial.  I had a younger sister born in '90 and I find myself sharing more in common with people that age than those born in the early '80s.

I was born in Manhattan (my parents were living in Brooklyn at the time), but we were already living in another borough by the time 9/11 happened.

Do you live in Queens, SI or the BX?

My memory chart:

Big Bang - Early 2001: Don't remember anything here.
Mid 2001 - Late 2003: I do have some memories, but they're vague.
Early 2004 - Early 2006: My memories become clearer, but I may still have a hard time remembering them.
Mid 2006 - Mid 2008: My memories are now officially crystal clear, but I do not really understand or recollect news events that much yet.
Late 2008 - present: Remember it clear as day, even the news events.

My memory chart is this:

Birth (July 1999) - Early 2001: I can't remember a single thing.
Mid 2001 - Early 2002: The very earliest memories that I still have. However, only a few are not vague.
Mid 2002 - Early 2003: My memories became clear but a few are vague.
Mid 2003 - Mid 2004: My memories are good but still some vagueness but not as much as before.
Late 2004 - present: My memory is very CRYSTAL clear and I can remember the news, commercials, etc.

My guess:

1991 is the last to remember it in vivid colors.
1995 is the last to "likely" remember the event.
1996 is 50/50.
1997-1998: Some remember it, most do not.
1999 is very unlikely to remember the event.


Makes sense to me. Last ones to remember it to me were those who were actually in elementary school at the time. I don't know a single person who can't remember their K-5th grade days. So if you were in school when 9/11 happened then you'd most likely remember the event better than someone who wasn't even in Pre-K yet.

I honestly don't care if people believe that I am not telling the truth in regards to vaguely remembering the 9/11 Attacks. The fact of the matter is, I can. It is a genuine memory, even if it is very vague.


I think its because Australia didn't find it as tragic as America did during the attacks. ::)


You don't think it's tragic that almost 3,000 people passed away as a direct or in-direct result of the attacks? What a stupid comment to make. It's a tragedy, regardless of whether you're American or from another country.


First of all don't come at me like that. Second of all your earliest memories develop at age 3.


No, memories develop at the age of 2. Several members have stated that they can vaguely remember things from when they were two years old.

I believe you Sharksfan.

I believe you Sharksfan.


Thank you.

Thank you.

I believe you as well.  :)

Do you live in Queens, SI or the BX?


I live in Staten Island.

You don't think it's tragic that almost 3,000 people passed away as a direct or in-direct result of the attacks? What a stupid comment to make. It's a tragedy, regardless of whether you're American or from another country.


Well, I didn't really knew that much of the attacks. I took 9/11 seriously at the time, but for the fact that the Internet made fun of it (no seriously, there are memes on the Twin Towers crashing) it made me feel hopeless. Even if almost 3,000 people died during that day, I never felt like it was that important to me. I know you'll probably hate me on this, but the only thing I can do is to just feel sad for all the people who died in the attacks.

Well, I didn't really knew that much of the attacks. I took 9/11 seriously at the time, but for the fact that the Internet made fun of it (no seriously, there are memes on the Twin Towers crashing) it made me feel hopeless. Even if almost 3,000 people died during that day, I never felt like it was that important to me. I know you'll probably hate me on this, but the only thing I can do is to just feel sad for all the people who died in the attacks.


I do understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, I have noticed a lot of jokes in regards to the Twin Towers falling as well. There are some people at my school who make fun of 9/11, which really irritates me. I mean, how can anyone make fun of the fact that thousands of people passed away and families were literally torn apart? No, I don't hate you (or anyone on inthe00s) and I completely respect your opinion. Since we were so young at the time, generally speaking, it didn't have a big impact on people our age. It's entirely understandable why it hasn't felt important to you on a personal level. Personally I believe schools need to inform kids on what really happened on that tragic day, especially if it discourages people from making fun of the event. I do apologise for giving you a negative karma earlier, as I initially perceived your original post as being a little bit insensitive.

I've never heard of people joking about 9/11 before. Everybody around my age took that seriously, and especially those who lived in New York at the time and moved down to Georgia after the tragedy.

They joke about 9/11 constantly on iFunny, Reddit, 9gag, and other crappy sites.

I do understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, I have noticed a lot of jokes in regards to the Twin Towers falling as well. There are some people at my school who make fun of 9/11, which really irritates me. I mean, how can anyone make fun of the fact that thousands of people passed away and families were literally torn apart? No, I don't hate you (or anyone on inthe00s) and I completely respect your opinion. Since we were so young at the time, generally speaking, it didn't have a big impact on people our age. It's entirely understandable why it hasn't felt important to you on a personal level. Personally I believe schools need to inform kids on what really happened on that tragic day, especially if it discourages people from making fun of the event. I do apologise for giving you a negative karma earlier, as I initially perceived your original post as being a little bit insensitive.


I think I was a bit stupid when saying that, because I never really meant that 9/11 wasn't serious. Even saying the term 9/11 makes me shiver, because it greatly harmed America (and the world). The fact that many people make fun of one of the worst terrorist attacks in history makes me disappoint them. But at the same time, I never had the chance to remember anything related towards the 9/11 attacks. The derogatory memes of it is the worst thing I've ever saw on the Internet.

I think I was a bit stupid when saying that, because I never really meant that 9/11 wasn't serious. Even saying the term 9/11 makes me shiver, because it greatly harmed America (and the world). The fact that many people make fun of one of the worst terrorist attacks in history makes me disappoint them. But at the same time, I never had the chance to remember anything related towards the 9/11 attacks. The derogatory memes of it is the worst thing I've ever saw on the Internet.


At least the feeling that 9/11 had given to the public has faded away. After death of Bin Laden in 2011 and the fa that the younger public have no clear memory of 9/11 or were effected by the event I can see more optimism moving forward. I always assumed that the ones making those memes were people who were little kids or younger when the event happened. Due to not fully understanding what was happening at the time they ended up shaking off the bad vibes and now poke fun at the event now in the 2010s. It shows that people can move past bad events, but making fun of an event that caused a ton of deaths isn't cool. It's like when people make nazi/holocaust (which was far worse than 9/11 as over millions of people died) jokes. I'm not sure if people are trying to cope with the situation or just don't care completely.

I've moved on past the event as there were far worse events that happened throughout the world in different periods of time. But I certainly don't go around poking fun at it.

When 9/11 happened I thought planes crashing into buildings was normal and nothing special. I blame Star Fox. :-X

Growing up in the North East I don't take offense over 9/11 jokes. It's the marketplace of ideas and free expression, so to censor people is fundamentally wrong. But I personally never really founded them that funny. I was a kid at the time of 9/11 so obviously my memories from back then are limited but even at the time I understood that the event was tragic nonetheless. Especially since I know a couple people who lost love ones during the attacks it would be very disingenuous for me to make tasteless jokes about that.

At least the feeling that 9/11 had given to the public has faded away. After death of Bin Laden in 2011 and the fa that the younger public have no clear memory of 9/11 or were effected by the event I can see more optimism moving forward. I always assumed that the ones making those memes were people who were little kids or younger when the event happened. Due to not fully understanding what was happening at the time they ended up shaking off the bad vibes and now poke fun at the event now in the 2010s. It shows that people can move past bad events, but making fun of an event that caused a ton of deaths isn't cool. It's like when people make nazi/holocaust (which was far worse than 9/11 as over millions of people died) jokes. I'm not sure if people are trying to cope with the situation or just don't care completely.


I feel like most of them who make 9/11 jokes are just trolls, since they do want dramatic reactions from people on the Internet.

The Internet has taken the empathy out of a lot of people. Everything must be a joke; every sacred cow must be tipped - or rather, tortured and then ground up into hamburgers. To the Internet, you can't cry or feel intimate about anything, otherwise you're not a real man, but rather a weakling cuck.

The Internet has taken the empathy out of a lot of people. Everything must be a joke; every sacred cow must be tipped - or rather, tortured and then ground up into hamburgers. To the Internet, you can't cry or feel intimate about anything, otherwise you're not a real man, but rather a weakling cuck.


Okay... either you've read too much 4chan or you've had a dark Internet past (like me).

The Internet has taken the empathy out of a lot of people. Everything must be a joke; every sacred cow must be tipped - or rather, tortured and then ground up into hamburgers. To the Internet, you can't cry or feel intimate about anything, otherwise you're not a real man, but rather a weakling cuck.


I read this post and I laughed. I'm part of the problem.  :-X

I'm born in 1985, always felt that older millennial cohorts ended around 85-86.  I can relate to people from 1990 easily, but there are some clear differences in attitude and in politics.

Also, I believe Millennial generation ends around 1996-1998ish.  You have to remember 911 imo.

I feel like most of them who make 9/11 jokes are just trolls, since they do want dramatic reactions from people on the Internet.


They also joke a lot about other events, with Elliot Rodger's rampage and Columbine being the top two (I think) behind 9/11.

There are even some people who venerate Elliot Rodger, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold. Look at Tumblr and the YouTube comments.

I'm born in 1985, always felt that older millennial cohorts ended around 85-86.  I can relate to people from 1990 easily, but there are some clear differences in attitude and in politics.

Also, I believe Millennial generation ends around 1996-1998ish.  You have to remember 911 imo.

I was in 1990 and I'm a little bit Conservative and Liberal.

They also joke a lot about other events, with Elliot Rodger's rampage and Columbine being the top two (I think) behind 9/11.

There are even some people who venerate Elliot Rodger, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold. Look at Tumblr and the YouTube comments.


Yeah, I see that sometimes with people talking sh*t about the Columbine shootings. As I kinda laugh at some of them (sadly), it isn't really a great event that had a good ending. These people who lost their children at Columbine still mourn their lost ones to this day.

Yeah, I see that sometimes with people talking sh*t about the Columbine shootings. As I kinda laugh at some of them (sadly), it isn't really a great event that had a good ending. These people who lost their children at Columbine still mourn their lost ones to this day.


They do it a lot to Elliot Rodger too, especially in videos like this (look at the comments mainly, but they guy in the video hates Elliot Rodger):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQY76gpImmA

Here is a dad of one of the victims (Daniel Mauser, a sophomore who was shot in the face by Eric Harris) who responds to Columbine admirers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kBuLYYdn1w

Daniel Mauser also did very well at school, and if he were alive for his junior year, he would have been a member of the NHS.

They do it a lot to Elliot Rodger too, especially in videos like this (look at the comments mainly, but they guy in the video hates Elliot Rodger):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQY76gpImmA


The fact that people defend somebody who literally thinks an afterlife belongs in hell is beyond f*cked up. This is why YouTube has been really terrible with its content since Google+ was around.


Here is a dad of one of the victims (Daniel Mauser, a sophomore who was shot in the face by Eric Harris) who responds to Columbine admirers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kBuLYYdn1w

Daniel Mauser also did very well at school, and if he were alive for his junior year, he would have been a member of the NHS.


There are worse people out there than just Columbine sympathizers. There are people who have affections over the Columbine shooters (I'm not kidding).

https://vodka-n-rebbull.tumblr.com/

The fact that people defend somebody who literally thinks an afterlife belongs in hell is beyond f*cked up. This is why YouTube has been really terrible with its content since Google+ was around.

There are worse people out there than just Columbine sympathizers. There are people who have affections over the Columbine shooters (I'm not kidding).

https://vodka-n-rebbull.tumblr.com/


They're defending Elliot Rodger.

Back to the Columbine topic, some people even try to copycat their crimes. Brooke Higgins and Sienna Johnson, for instance, were two girls who lived within a ten mile radius from Columbine and they plotted to shoot up their school (Mountain Vista High School) and kill themselves in the end (trying to be female equivalents to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold).

Another case is Alvaro Castillo (this one is a little more outrageous), who was so obsessed with the shootings that he even named his gun Arlene (same name Eric Harris gave his gun; Eric Harris named that to his Savage-Springfield 67H 12-gauge pump shotgun). He also owned a Hi-Point Carbine 995 9mm (gun Eric Harris used in the Columbine shooting) and even took a PILGRIMAGE to Columbine High School (he lived in North Carolina at the time). Ultimately, on August 30, 2006, he killed his father, and then proceeded to (almost) shooting up his school in honor of Kip Kinkel's 24th birthday (Kip Kinkel was the guy who shot up Thurston High School and killed his parents in May 1998).

Speaking of Eric Harris, if he were alive today, he would have turned 36 three days ago (not sympathizing with him). Dylan Klebold would have not turned 36 until September 11, 2017.

Chris Morris, the guy who got arrested in the shootings, will turn 36 on June 9. I really do feel bad for Chris Morris though, getting treated as a suspect yet his intention to come to the school was to give some sense to the shooters (he was a friend of the shooters). They did gun and powder tests on him, and held him for questioning. As a result, he got kicked out from his own home and was fired from his job (he and the shooters worked at Blackjack Pizza). One time in around late '98 or early '99, one of the shooters (Dylan Klebold) brought a giant pipe bomb to the place, and Morris asked him to leave (as he should do). Not to mention, the shooters were already troubled kids. In October of 1997, the shooters got suspended for a hacking locker incident, in January of '98, they got arrested for breaking into a van and stealing stuff, and I think in early 1997, Eric Harris threw a snowball to crack Brooks Brown's windshield.

And this picture made me lol:

https://68.media.tumblr.com/9aee50a575ce1e2254c01bea6f39b794/tumblr_oo4fcuv3M91vdtd1xo3_500.jpg

They're defending Elliot Rodger.


I know that's what I meant.

I know that's what I meant.


They're defending him because he is the "TRUE ALPHA MALE" and "THE SUPREME GENTLEMAN".

They're defending him because he is the "TRUE ALPHA MALE" and "THE SUPREME GENTLEMAN".


Oh. They're that type of people. F*ck. People should really grow out of that belief.

So, we went from talking about the difference between those born 1985 vs 1990 to talking about long dead crazed domestic terrorists ::).

Oh. They're that type of people. F*ck. People should really grow out of that belief.


Sadly, they might become Supreme Gentlemen of their own in the future.

Sadly, they might become Supreme Gentlemen of their own in the future.


:-\\ Now I feel worried about today's youth, even though I'm at the same age as some of those people.

Most of the people commenting on those videos are /r9k/ scumbags.

Most of the people commenting on those videos are /r9k/ scumbags.


You had me search that up and now I literally see most 4chan boards as an extension to Stormfront.

You had me search that up and now I literally see most 4chan boards as an extension to Stormfront.


I think that Vanguard News Network and /pol/ are better substitutes to Stormfront.

I think that Vanguard News Network and /pol/ are better substitutes to Stormfront.


Yeah... except Vanguard doesn't really have a forum compared to /pol/.

Edit: Just looked up that Vanguard did have a forum, so my mistake.  :-X

Yeah... except Vanguard doesn't really have a forum compared to /pol/.

Edit: Just looked up that Vanguard did have a forum, so my mistake.  :-X

Storm front is still alive?

Storm front is still alive?


Yeah, but it's not as popular as it was.

So, we went from talking about the difference between those born 1985 vs 1990 to talking about long dead crazed domestic terrorists ::).

LOL I created this thread about two weeks ago and the original topic has faded away ::)

LOL I created this thread about two weeks ago and the original topic has faded away ::)

Definitely but that is a common thing on this site, unfortunately :(.